Here in New Zealand, I am often told by evangelical leaders that we now live in a post-modern society, which has moved beyond “arguments” and that Apologetics is an outdated “modernist concept.” They say we need instead to “tell the story” so that people will see the “meta-narrative of scripture”—whatever exactly that means.
Last night, Madeleine and I were invited to a Christmas function for new lawyers, organised by the Law Society, the professional association for lawyers in New Zealand. The function was in a major law firm in central Auckland’s business district. So I was right in the thick of the up-and-coming legal professionals in New Zealand.
Anyway, Madeleine struck up a conversation with some young lawyers who were working for an arm of the government. They discussed aspects of their respective legal professions. Then one of them turned to me and asked me, “what do you do?” I answered that I was a theologian. Immediately, this caused them to pause (it often has this effect) and one told me he had been reading a book called The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Without thinking, I said, “Oh, that book, it’s crap.” He replied, “Yeah, but you have to say that, don’t you?” I responded, “No I don’t actually.” I then mentioned to him the works of some other atheists to whom I would not respond in that fashion, despite the fact I disagreed with their conclusions.
Then, for the next thirty minutes, these lawyers began asking me genuine questions about the Christian faith. One asked me immediately, “why don’t you refrain from eating shellfish given the Old Testament prohibits it?” He was not being hostile; he was interested. I explained how the food laws functioned to set Israel apart from other nations and how, in the New Testament era, Gentiles were incorporated as part of God’s people, meaning the barrier between Jew and Gentile lacked relevance.
Then one asked me, “I have heard the evidence for Jesus is as good, if not better, than that for other historical figures—is that true?” I discussed with him the sources we have for Alexander the Great and how they compared with the Gospels in terms of time, discussed how people date the gospels to confirm it, and mentioned the age of the epistles. We then discussed the supernatural aspects of the narrative and Hume’s arguments about miracles. They were fascinated.
Next came a question about pagan mythology and parallels with Jesus. One then said, “wouldn’t a really popular guy like Jesus be written about by everyone?” I explained why this assumption was mistaken and one other lawyer said, “Yeah, I suppose expecting the Romans to write about Jesus is like expecting Washington, D.C. to write about the Aramoana incident.” (When non-New Zealander’s respond to this with “What’s the Aramoana incident?” their question illustrates nicely the point being made.)
I then discussed Josephus’s reference to Jesus, Tacitus, the Talmud and so on. Each then opened up to me and told me of their own spiritual struggles and journey. To my considerable surprise, when one of them was called away from conversation some 30 to 40 minutes latter, ending the discussion, he stated to his beckoning companion, “Hey, you missed a really interesting discussion we had over here. This guy’s a theologian; he is not a try-hard ex-Catholic like you, he is the real thing.” This companion’s girlfriend then responded, as though she was viewing an exhibit in the zoo or a museum, “Is he a minister?” and then my interlocutor relayed to his companions how interesting and fruitful he considered the conversation to have been as they moved over to his friend.
They moved on, but one lawyer who was nearby came over to us, pointed to one of the high rise buildings in the central business district, and pointed out that he worked there. This identified him as working in one of the largest and most important law firms in the country. He had clearly had too much to drink, but on realising we were Christians, he began talking about how he believed he had “made it” in terms of success and yet was worried he had misunderstood the nature of true success. He was concerned that Auckland, the “big city,” (Auckland has a population of 1.5 million, NZ has a population of 4 million, so Auckland is the “big city” in NZ) lacked an understanding of real relationships and wanted to understand what true success was. He did not want to lose his integrity or authentic relationships and become superficial, and he began asking us what we thought of this.
Sometimes being an apologist in New Zealand is surreal. I commented to Madeleine on the way home that we, two people from west Auckland—a theologian who did not have full time employment and very little resources to support my ministry, and a lawyer from a tiny firm who largely does legal work for poor people who don’t pay handsomely—were at a function at one of the largest law firms in the country, in the central heart of Auckland city, sharing our faith with some of the most successful up-and-coming lawyers in NZ, many who worked for the government. How can Apologetics be boring when stuff like that happens? I also wonder, however, how many of my “post-modernist” colleagues with their youth churches and really “cool” music, would have been able to have that conversation with any real meaning with the urbane elite of Auckland.
I also have to say that this is not the first time something like this has happened. In the last few years Madeleine and I have frequently found similar things have happened over and over. Apologetics is not “dead”. It is not a “thing of the past”. It’s extremely relevant. What’s irrelevant are those who are so culturally out of touch that they don’t realise that the questions apologists address are being asked, and answers to those questions assumed, in the conversations of some of the top lawyers in New Zealand; and those people, ostensibly secular liberals, are hungry and interested in credible answers to those questions.
Tags: 118 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Though I do not have many, I quite enjoy these types of conversations. I trust it was enjoyable, and let’s hope, fruitful.
I agree that apologetics is still relevant in a post-modern age. Though at times things may need to be re-framed at times.
This is a fascinating yarn.
But there was found in [the city] a poor wise man and he delivered [it] by his wisdom…The words of the wise heard in quietness are better than the shouting of a ruler among fools. Wisdom is better than weapons of war…
Eccl 9 NASB. I am taking this out of context, but safely so I think.
Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”
1 Cor 1:26-31 NIV
@ Matt – I know exactly what you mean, as at the start of this year I chose to start wearing the Atheist “A” lapel pin that Richard Dawkins originally promoted as part of the “Atheist Out Campaign”. So I have worn the pin every day, both to work and in my free time. It has been an interesting experience, as again and again someone will usually ask, “What does the A stand for?” I then tell them it indicates that I’m an atheist, in the same way that a christian may wear a crucifix to indicate that they are a christian. As with your post, people usually pause at that point. Sometimes they go no further, other times they then ask why I’m an atheist and it gives me the opportunity to explain what motivates my lack of belief. Other times I have been met with open hostility or in total contrast deep interest in what I have to say. Perhaps the most interesting response came at a friends dinner party, when I met a woman, who was a Coptic Christian from Egypt and was married to a Kiwi man who had been raised within the Exclusive Bretheren, but had since left that faith. Putting it mildly, I had one of the best conversations concerning religion, beliefs and everything in-between.
Awesome, hope that influence grows, and the conversations multiply, so be it. As to post modernism, I wonder if a study of how philosophies filter down to street level from the original thinkers would perhaps give an answer as to the intense interest from these lawyers. The views of the existentialists for instance started in the universities but I bet it was many years before the results of their books and lectures were accepted as givens at street level. So by the time it was incorporated into the popular level of thinking there was a new mood going on at university level, so that at any one time there is always going to be a cross section of the populace at different strata parroting different philosophies. Post-modernism and the resultant disdain and suspicion of truth claims is perhaps at its height in the popular mainstream while those at the meeting you were speaking of are already in a different space.
This made me laugh:
“what motivates my lack of belief.”
@ Rosjier – While I’m glad I could make you happy, if only briefly and also aware that a similar reaction can be found amongst some atheists when they are greeted with the same statement by those who hold religious beliefs. However, if you’re interested, I’m curious to hear a fuller explanation of what exactly amuses you about my statement. If not, that’s cool too. Merry Xmas
“what motivates my lack of belief” would appear to be a contradiction. “lack of belief” implies a passive non-motivated situation, “motivated” implies an active rather than passive sense. Hence to use the word “motivated” suggests active disbelief not a lack of belief, this implication is strengthened by your own account of wearing the lapel badge “A” and enthusiasm in explaining it.
@ Jeremy – Perhaps motivate is the wrong word. Maybe I should have used what is the reasoning behind my dis-belief. However, in simple terms I fail to find any credible evidence that would lead me to adopt a rational belief in a God or Gods, so I reject the belief that others profess. The issue of the “A” badge is to attempt raise other people’s awareness, in much the same way as the Gay community adopted their “Out” campaign in the 80’s. Given how far “Gay Rights” have come since then, I feel the approach has merit. I would add that I do not actively tell people what the “A” stands for, unlike some religious people who actively knock on my door to inform me that I need saving. That seems far more intrusive than wearing a small symbol on my lapel, in the same way that many religious people wear a symbol of some sort to indicate their beliefs to others
Paul Bennett, be careful and repent of your sins before the final judgment that God may have mercy on your soul. Trust Christ for your salvation. Dave
@ Dave – I’m afraid “Pascal’s Wager” fails on a number of fronts. I’ll just pick one with which to re-butt your comment. How do you know for a fact that after we both die, it wont be Allah waiting to judge us? In which case you and I are headed for eternal damnation together as while I rejected all Gods, you unfortunately rejected the one correct God out of all the possibilities on offer to us. Merry Xmas
Paul a actually I agree with you that, non belief has reasons and motivations behind it. I hope you realise however that this destroys the standard atheist line which asserts they simply deny theism and don’t have a position that requires substantive defence or bears any burden of proof.
@ Matt – I fail to see how my failure to find any credible evidence to support a rational belief in a God or Gods requires substantive defence or bears any burden of proof.
Paul, I’m order for your reasons to count as reasons you’d. need to believe three things, First, you’d need to have some at least implict notion of what counts as “credible ” evidence. Second, you’d need to believe that there is not credible evidence for theism, Second that unless there is credible evidence ( in terms of how you understand that notion) then the atheism is the correct stance. Note each of these three beliefs involve more than simply not believing something, they involve taking a stance on an what counts as an appropriate epistemology and well as a stance on how various defences of theism stack up relative to that epistemology. So if , as many athiests assert, the burden of proof is on those who make positive claims, and disbelieving a claim is the default stance, then those three beliefs bear the same burden of proof you suggest theism does.
@ Matt – I think we’ve been through this before, but for the sake of argument and to answer you as best I can, I’ll attempt to answer what you’ve asked. Firstly, for me, credible evidence is that supported by Science, as that is the best method we have so far devised to explain and understand things with regard to ourselves, the world we live on and the greater universe that we inhabit. Second, the evidence I’ve been presented with to date for the majority of religions does not meet the standards accepted by modern Science so is not credible given my perspective. Thirdly, given my answers to the first two criteria you set, I find that atheism is the default position that I’m most comfortable with given my answers to the first two.
Sure Paul I get that, the problem is each of those claims are as much positive claims as the statement “God exists” is. So just as you would not accept the statement “God exists” as a rational statement if it was merely asserted so you cant accept each of those three claims unless they meet a similar burden of proof to the one you demand of theists.
@ Matt – Now I know we wont agree, but I feel that Science has proved that it is the best method that we have devised for understanding things. Please note, I’m not claiming that Science has explained everything, just that it is the best way of explaining things that we have. Until I’m presented with an alternative method that is superior to Science, I will continue to have confidence in it as delivering the best answers to help us understand things. It then follows, that because I have that confidence in Science, I can then use it to evaluate religious claims and, when I find that they fail, find myself left with an atheistic perspective towards God & Gods
Paul, i am sure you have been asked before but what about truth , beauty , love , right , wrong , ought v is , music and art etc?
argh – its been a while since I stopped by…
not believing in something requires no proof – it’s just a choice. belief in something does require you to “burn some calories” on its behalf.
Paul – I like your comments
Matt – your answers continue to obfuscate the situation – shorten it up….
Jeremy – nope, “truth , beauty , love , right , wrong , ought v is , music and art etc” are starting to be explained – if something isn’t explained adequately by provable means does not make it a proof for the devine…
@ Jeremy – Please note, I stated clearly that I wasn’t claiming that Science had explained everything, but I don’t agree with the view that a gap in our understanding should automatically be explained by some supposed “Higher Power”. The unknown is exactly that, while what we do know we refer to as knowledge. For example if we were to use the Christian God as a guide as to know right from wrong, we would have to accept that slavery was ok, rape victims should be married by their rapists, etc. So I don’t feel that really helps move us forward as a species looking for a moral code.
Come on Paul, you must by now know better than to parade those old (and completely incorrect ) chestnuts yet again. They have been answered so many times its bordering on deliberate ignorance or dishonesty to raise them. On this blog alone the have been more than adequately dealt with.
I wasnt appealing to a higher power, but asking if Science is your only way of knowing, how do you address questions that science doesnt or cant?
Not believing in something may require no proof but to be intellectually honest active disbelief will require “burning some calories” examining evidence for and against.
If you are just making choices without exercising judgement, we have a word for that in the english language—–prejudice.
@ Jeremy – Firstly, you may feel that the issues I’ve raised concerning what the bible states has been dealt with, but I don’t. For example I’ve seen the “Spin” that William Lane Craig attempted to put on the Cannanite massacre and I’m not convinced. Obviously you are and that’s your choice. Please note I’m not asking to revisit those debates, I’m just stating that I have a different perspective.
Secondly, as far as what Science can and cannot help us know, the fact that your God supposedly interacted with this world, for example by taking human form in the figure of Christ and then died and came back to life three days later, allows me to apply Scientific knowledge to this claim, namely that according to the best Science we have available to us at present, the ressurection is rationally impossible to believe. Please note, I did not say that it was impossible, just rationally impossible to believe, hence the reason why the religious rely on “Faith” for such instances.
Thirdly, I agree that “Active Dis-belief” as you put it, does require “burning some calories” examining evidence for and against. And that is exactly what I have done and continue to do with regard to religious claims. In fact, when Madeliene originally invited people to come and visit this blog when she commented on the “No God Bus Campaign Site” on July the 12th 2010, I didn’t realise just how much Matt’s informative posts would help inform my atheism. Also listening to him speak at Auckland University during “Atheist Week” helped hugely in weighing up the evidence.
Since then I’ve attempted to learn as much as possible while still holding down a full time job. Ideally I’d like to return to full time study to take things further, but failing that I’ve worked my way through some wonderful online resources, such as the Yale University Free On-Line courses. I’ve completed Dale B Martin’s “Introduction To The New Testament, History & Literature” and I’m currently working my way through Christine Hayes’s “Introduction To The Old Testament (Hebrew Bible)”.
Finally, I realise Jeremy that you and I are never likely to agree, but the reality is that there is a growing proportion of the world’s population who firstly don’t believe what the religious believe and more importantly, are no longer willing to quietly keep the reasoning behind that disbelief to them selves. Where this will lead to I’m not sure, but I’m just glad to be involved in whatever small way I can.
@ Jeremy – Just to illustrate how far apart we obviously are with regard to these issues, I’ll use your won words to illustrate my perspective – Come on “Creationists”, you must by now know better than to parade those old (and completely incorrect ) chestnuts yet again. They have been answered so many times its bordering on deliberate ignorance or dishonesty to raise them. – Perhaps contrasting how your perspective to how I find I feel about “Creationists” will make it easier to see where I’m coming from. Merry Xmas!
Peter your comments actually illustrate nicely my point, you said disbelieving something requires no proof. Now look at Paul’s reasons for disbelief, they involve certain positive claims which
*believes* for example he claimed that (a) science is the only acceptable form of evidence, he also claimed that (b) scientific considerations have failed to provide evidence for theism. So Peter, if disbelieving something requires no proof, then everyone here can simply dismiss Paul’s (a) and (b) for no reason at all and the burden of proof fails on you a d Paul to demonstrate (a) and (b)’ just as you demand the theist provide proof now I demand it of you. So here is my question. Why when it comes to (a) and (b) do you and Paul continue to provide no proof or evidence anywhere near what you claim people must met to rationally believe something.?
Paul notice also the contradiction in your response to Jeremy, in the first comment you raised the issue of the Canaanites, in your next section you claimed that if something cannot be proved scientifically one should disbelieve it. Here is the problem : moral claims like “it’s wrong to kill men women and children” can’t be morally proven and the prospects for doing so have shown to be even less promising than scientific based arguments for theism.
So basically when you offer moral arguments against theism you appeal to premises which your own position entails are irrational.
@Paul, whats a creationist?
To the best of my knowledge no science has ever addressed whether God created the world etc. Some science addresses the mechanisms/processes that may have been involved. I understand there is disagreement between some current scientific theories and some understandings of Genesis. Since the science is likely to change multiple times even in the life i have left (let alone the fact that Genesis doesnt even address these things), i am not terribly worried.
Miracles by definition recognise the natural order of things, hence the claim that they are miraculous. Recognising that you dont believe, but there is nothing irrational or illogical in accepting that the Creator could intervene in his creation. After all he is hardly bound by the rules that operate within his creation, anymore than a programmer is limited by the rules within a programme he has written. Being external to the system can give the option of altering the system or its parameters.
And lastly Martin and Hayes. Good on you for doing further study, i will be impressed even more when you do some courses that challenge your views rather than reinforce them. Reading Martin and Hayes is much the same as if i were a Young Earth Creationist and read only Morris or Ham
@ Matt – I feel that you’re misrepresenting me. Firstly, I didn’t say you had to believe anything with regard to my personal perspective. All I was saying is that my atheism is the product of what I’ve personally considered so far. You obviously have come to different conclusions to me. No more no less.
As far as answering your demand to justify my position and the credibility that I give Science, it is because I see no superior method in comparison to it. You obviously do, but I do not share your view.
As regards the issue of morality, once again I don’t share your perspective, but if you’re trying to claim that seeing the goodness in God commanding the slaughter of the Canaanites, as WLC appears to do, is without any foundation, then no attempt by me to explain why I don’t agree with you is ever going to be acceptable to you in the first place.
The main reason I posted was to contrast the similarity between the situation you posted about and my own experience.
I’ve read enough of your personal perspectives on here to know that I’m never going to influence your position and that was never my intent. Merry Xmas
@ Jeremy – WRT my comment concerning “Creationists”.
The point I was trying to make, was to contrast your personal perspective that issues that I raised with aspects I see in the bible may be seen as “Put to bed” in terms of any further debate or discussion in your view, in much the same way as I find a similar frustration with those who argue against the Science that shows “Creationist” perspectives such as the earth being 6000 – 10000 years old are patently false given the evidence and should also be viewed as having been answered so many times its bordering on deliberate ignorance or dishonesty to raise them.
Please note, I’m not attempting to get you to change your personal perspective, as I said to Matt, I’ve read enough of your views on here as well to realise that would be a futile excersize.
What I was trying to do was to try and show you some of where my personal perspective comes from in regard to my atheism.
Similarly, your defence of miracles is not one that I share. Please note once again, I’m not saying that a miracle couldn’t happen given your justification, just that I can’t bring myself to view the terms you offer as being personally rational to me.
By definition a miracle has to break all known Scientific knowledge and laws to date, so I find them unbelievable.
As far as to my choice of further study is concerned, I was not aware of any issues concerning Martin and Hayes, as I would expect that anyone teaching at Yale University would be worthy of some academic credibility to say the least.
Also, given my personal situation, it is not as if I can return to full time study with Matt as my teacher, which would probably be the only type of viewpoint that you would find acceptable for me.
However, if you have academically credible sources offering similar courses on-line for free, I’d be more than willing to give them a go. Personally, I feel having access to all those free courses from an institution such as Yale University is an excellent initiative.
Paul, my point is your perspective is contradictory. For starters if the only acceptable form of evidence is science, then *you* are committed to saying that the claim: genocide is wrong, is without foundation because moral claims like that are not capable of scientific proof. If Craig’s position is implausible because he denies this then yours is also implausible.
As to your other response, note to reject theism you made a positive claim that scientific evidence is the only valid form of evidence that is a significant and controversial epistemological thesis, and your sole defence of this is simply to assert “I don’t see any other method”. If that kind of response is all that’s needed to make belief in a controversial positive thesis rational then the theist has the same answer he can say “I don’t see atheism is true”
The point is that your position appears to be contradictory in that the very arguments you use against theism can be used against the premises you appeal to in order to reject theism.
@ Matt – I believe I said repeatedly that your perspective will no doubt be different to mine. You fail to see that I’m not attempting to get you to agree with me, or convince you that my argument is correct.
What I’ve said repeatedly is that as far as I’m concerned, the reasoning behind my own perspective works for me. I’m not interested in if it convinces you or anyone else, it works for me.
You seem to assume that I’m trying to prove my point to others. This couldn’t be further from the truth. All I do when I speak to people about my atheism is explain what motivates me with regard to it.
I’m not attempting to convince them that I’m correct or threaten them with some possibility of eternal damnation if they do not agree with me. I simply state that I’m an atheist, and if they wish to know more, then I’m willing to explain further.
Perhaps your reading too much into this, but as I said earlier, I was simply making the comparison with your original post and the experience that I’ve had wearing the atheist “A” this year. I found it to be similar that’s all.
@Paul
Matt’s question is a fair one, and I don’t think it is unreasonable to give an answer to that. His question is this (more or less):
Why do the arguments which you have used against any views which accept theism as a means of understanding don’t apply to views which utilize science as a means of understanding, when the arguments seems to be be valid and equally applicable in either case?
Regardless of whether the answer changes any views, I think understanding what you see as the distinction between the two can only aid in discussion. If it’s a good one, you’ve given something for theists to mull over and think about. If it’s isn’t correct, then certainly someone can point out what that error might be. Even if nobody like to admit it all the time, most of us would rather be aware of errors in our reasoning than not.
@ Alabaster –
Firstly, I doubt if theists or atheists are ever going to agree on things, especially with regards to what constitutes acceptable evidence otherwise there would only be atheists or theists wouldn’t there.
Secondly, with regards to why I personally see a distinction between a theistic and Scientific perspective as to what can be viewed as providing the more convincing and rational method for finding truth, let me ask you this.
Regardless of your own beliefs or lack of them, would you agree that the resurrection of Jesus after three days of being clinically dead is, according to the best Scientific knowledge and verifiable evidence available to us to date, impossible?
Please note, that is not to say that it couldn’t have happened, but to do so it would have to have defied all known Science.
Given this fact, I then personally choose to reject such irrational belief, hence the reason why I’m an atheist.
For me to accept that I’m in error, you’d need to prove to me that such an event did take place, but given my reasons, I doubt that that is possible for you or anyone else to do.
Paul, as previously noted, this is not an irrational belief given the existence of God. You dont deny God because you have trouble with miracles, rather you have trouble with miracles because you deny God. Science is hardly the be all and end all of human knowledge. And certainly God is not limited by human knowledge. Why limit yourself to “known science”, we wouldnt have even that if previous generations had done so.
Much of what medical science is capable of now would have been miraculous 200 years ago, i bet that in 200 years time science will be able to do things that would appear miraculous to us if we could see them. As Isaac Asimov said, any sufficiently advanced science will appear like magic ( ie impossible ) to those without the knowledge. Jesus said the same thing 2000 years ago ( Luke 18:27) “What is impossible with men is possible with God”.
As to Jesus Christ’s resurrection, we have the testimony of the gospel writers, the committment and sacrifice of the apostles, the development and growth of Christianity, and the ongoing work of Christian ministries around the world, we also have Gods promise in scripture that He is willing to prove Himself to us if we give Him a chance. So yes i too doubt that it is possible for myself or anyone to prove it to you, but not because the current sum of scientific knowledge precludes such a thing (history tells us that current science limits wll be wrong) but because you dont want to give God a chance.
So merry christmas Paul and i hope that when God calls to you, you are open enough to give Him a genuine chance. May God bless you and grant you His mercy and grace. Shalom.
@ Jeremy – Firstly it’s good to see that you foresee a point in the future where Science may well be able to prove without doubt that a God or Gods don’t exist. As you put it “Why limit ourselves to what current Science is capable of”. Personally I’m surprised at your perspective given your obvious religious beliefs. So perhaps miracles do in fact happen after all!
Secondly, given your argument that as our Scientific knowledge grows, it changes how we view things over time, how do you reconcile all the previously held religious beliefs that have been debunked by Science over time then?
Unfortunately, that’s one of the real issues with Scientific evidence. If the Earth does in fact revolve around the Sun, as has been Scientifically proven, then no amount of religious belief, doctrine or anything else for that matter is going to change that fact!
Thirdly and rather ironically, that was exactly what I was trying to show with my comments concerning the resurrection, but understandably you trot out the usual comments concerning the testimony of the gospel writers, etc, however the problem that Christianity has, like many other religions, is the validity of the evidence that it is founded on.
The gospels were written at least thirty years after the death of Jesus and, in addition to that, were selected from a much larger body of information that originally existed. Jeremy, surely you can see how flawed that approach would be if only a small portion of the available evidence was presented in a court of law for example.
Your claim about the impact of Jesus, could equally be applied to Muhammad, Buddha, etc. What is much more likely is the impact that the Roman Emperor Constantine had in firstly personally converting to Christianity himself and then the promotion and adoption of the Christian Roman Catholic religion across the entire Roman empire. Surely you can see, that along with so many other aspects of Roman rule that still influence us to this day, this was one of the main reasons for christianity to grow in the way it has.
So finally, I also wish you a Merry Xmas, but if your God really does want to get my attention, given his supposed powers, I would imagine it would be relatively simple for him. For the record though, I wont be holding my breath waiting for him to make himself, herself, itself known to me!
Exactly which teachings of the Christian scripture have been debunked by science. Please dont confuse the use of phenomological language with actual content of doctrine. As to the earth revolving around the sun, we still talk of sunrise and sunset,so does the Royal Navy Almanac.
You misunderstood me a little, i dont believe science will ever be able to prove God one way or another. Science is limited to the material world ie creation. God is not part of nor constrained within His creation. I was suggesting that science may in the future make what we think we know now look primitive and ignorant and that should give us pause when we start getting too definite about whats impossible or otherwise for men let alone for God. Science may well point to the likelyhood of God, already Quantum Physics suggests that conciousness precedes physical reality ie you need an observer to cause probabilities to resolve into actualities, but thats not the same as proof.
You confuse the formalisation of the canon of scripture with its creation. The gospels etc were not “selected” from a wider body of literature, rather the church councils made formal annoucements precisely to distinguish between the accepted/consistant and the false/heretic. To use you court analogy, we do not allow just any friut loop, conspiracy theorist, person with a loud but uniformed opinion to present “evidence”, why do you demand the church fathers should have. Further a little research and you might be suprised at how comprehensive those councils were.
Why did Constantine convert, Christianity was still very much a minority religion, doing so would not have improved his political or economic power. Maybe he found rationality truth and God not available in the pagan beliefs around him.
Of course Buddhism and Islam point to the reality of Buddha and Mohammed, just as Christianity points to the reality of Jesus but i suggest you examine their impact and the way their truths resolve in the world and whether the actions of followers are consistant with what is taught.
God doesnt want your attention, He wants your friendship and companionship, as such He will never force Himself upon you in such a way that you are compelled to believe. He could do that anytime but that would make you a slave not a friend.
@ Jeremy – Firstly, according to the Christian bible, God created the Earth in six days, yet Science has shown that the formation of the Earth over such a small timescale is patently wrong given the evidence that we have. WRT your sunrise/sunset comment. If you wish to play semantics, that’s your call, I can’t help you.
Secondly, your comments concerning the limits of Science and what it has, can and will possibly explain in future is a fair statement. Personally, given what it has already given us, I also wouldn’t like to constrain the possible outcomes, unfortunately, both you and I are mere mortals, so will not be here to see where it may actually lead.
Thirdly, as regards the formation of the accepted scripture, let’s just say that I don’t share your views on what happened or the motivations that those who “Won” the process had. Let’s just say that given what I’ve learnt on the subject, my view differs to yours, but no surprises there really.
Fourth, given that there are stories such that a divine vision led Constantine to choose the spot on which Constantinople was built due to an angel that no one else could see, then personally speaking, rationally I have to dismiss such claims, as they fail to meet the burden of proof, but if your comfortable with that, then so be it. As I’ve said before, your welcome to believe whatever you wish, just don’t expect me to share your belief given the “Evidence”
Fifth, as far as attempting to undermine the other faiths due to how some of their followers behave, I could say much the same about Christianity and some Christians, so hardly a convincing argument.
Finally, if God is really set on being my “Friend” I suggest he, she, it stops threatening me with “Eternal torture”. As the saying goes, with friends like that, who needs enemies!!!
I am always amused that non believers can often be more literalistic in how they read scripture than most Christians. I recommend John Lennox– Seven days that divide the world ( you claim to be willing to learn), JL is Professor of Mathematics at Oxford.
Constantinople (Byzantium) was a thousand years old when Constantine made it his capital, whatever reasons he had for doing so were his and no evidence other than his word is required. Who are you to say he didnt have some kind of vision..
Who is trying to undermine other faiths. I am suggesting outcomes are important, you are accusing people of being irrational. Who is doing the undermining here?
Warning you that you will find eternal separation from God, even by your own choice, unpleasant/torturous is not threatening you. I am not threatening my child with pain and deformity when i tell him of the consequences of putting his hand in the fire or needles in power points. Neither are we threatening people when we play video showing the consequences of drunk driving. If after warnings people insist on making choices that lead to those consequences how does that make me as a parent ( or God) less than friendly?
@ Jeremy – Firstly, different people interpret the same things differently. For example, where I may see overwhelming evidence to support the Scientific theory of evolution, others see no evidence or claim that the evidence is flawed. So, if my interpretation of what the bible states quite clearly is indicative of the timescale that God took to create the Earth does not fit with someone else’s perspective, so be it. I could suggest academically credible Scientists to support the case for evolution, but I doubt you’d agree with them either.
Secondly, as regards Constantine, I never said he didn’t have the vision, I said that due to the nature of the vision and the lack of credible supporting evidence, I rationally choose to reject the validity of the claim. Please note, this is not to say that he didn’t have a vision, or believed that he did, just that I don’t choose to share that belief that’s all, due to the reasons I’ve given.
Thirdly, my comments concerning the undermining of other faiths was in response to what you had stated about other faiths. I simply continued your reasoning and applied it to the numerous historical, current and no doubt future instances of Christians who appear to be in-consistant with what is taught.
In addition, if stating that I find people of faith who believe events patently at odds with all known Science, irrational, I’m not attempting to undermine them, I’m simply making a reasoned judgement given the facts. For example, if someone stated to me that they believed that Elvis was still alive today, as some people do, I given what I know of the facts associated with the death of Elvis, I would view their belief to be irrational. If you view that as undermining them, that’s up to you, but I’m comfortable with viewing people who make such claims as irrational.
Finally, your analogy concerning the caring parent who warns their child of possible danger from electrical outlets to protect them is flawed in a couple of ways.
In the first instance, the danger from an electrical outlet can be proved through Science as being a reality as opposed to hell, which is an unproven assertion.
In the second instance, if I we take the analogy of the caring parent with God, then the reality of what you’re implying, is that you have a parent/God who is completely comfortable with creating the hazard that threatens the child’s safety and then perversely, if that child chooses to ignore the warning, instead of stepping in to protect the child from possible harm, as any truly loving parent would do, allows the child to harm themselves and perhaps most concerning, would in fact trap the child into being continually hurt over and over agin for all eternity.
I have children of my own and speaking as a parent, even if my child rejected me and claimed they didn’t love me, the last thing on Earth I would do is allow them to come to any harm due to them taking that position.
Of course Jeremy, if you or others are comfortable with a parent/ God who does wish to act in such a way, then even if such a God does exist, there is no way I’d wish to bow down to such a perverse figure. But that’s just me!
Paul wrote
Regardless of your own beliefs or lack of them, would you agree that the resurrection of Jesus after three days of being clinically dead is, according to the best Scientific knowledge and verifiable evidence available to us to date, impossible?
Please note, that is not to say that it couldn’t have happened, but to do so it would have to have defied all known Science.
Actually its not scientifically impossible at all. As I understand it, the laws of physics and so forth are explicitly stated to hold in a closed system, in the absence of any intervening force they hold. laws of nature also govern the workings of the natural universe.
Christian teaching is that God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day, hence it postulates a supernatural influence in the natural world and so by definition is not involving a closed natural system.
Perhaps you can articulate which scientific finding shows (a) God cant rise people from the dead and (b) the universe is a closed system which no supernatural causation can interact with. Neither claim (a) or (b) is established by science, those are the result of philosophical assumptions, given you reject assumptions which havent be scientifically proven you cant assume them.
So as an adult you will be more than happy for God to over ride your self determination, ie to not respect you choice to have nothing to do with him? The analogy only went so far, i used the parent child scenario to illustrate that warning of unpleasant consequences does not necessarily constitute threatening behavior, i was not suggesting that human adults should be treated as children. But to extend the analogy as you have done, that is the whole point of the gospel—God doing exactly what you suggest a good parent should do, stepping into creation as Jesus Christ to rescue men from the consequences of their actions, the only difference is that men are not children and God doesnt compel our acceptance.
Lets go back to Constantine, what constitutes evidence for a personal vision? I would be fairly sure scientific evidence of the type you refer to would be impossible to obtain for most personal experience. What “evidence” do you claim exists one way or the other concerning how/why Constantine chose Constantinople. Can a personal vision only be genuine if someone else has the same vision?
It seems to me so far that your objections are mostly to caricatures of Christian doctrine or scripture, certainly the objections you have mentioned show little evidence of any genuine investigation.
By the way the book by John Lennox does not attack evolutionary theory, rather it addresses simplistic interpretation of scripture and the difference between how the Bible can be understood cf must be understood. Why would you insist on a literalistic modernist interpretation of an ANE text as an historical chronological narrative is beyond me, claiming as you do to be a rational thinker i would have expected a more thorough and rigorous approach involving at least awareness of genre, culture etc.
Secondly, as regards Constantine, I never said he didn’t have the vision, I said that due to the nature of the vision and the lack of credible supporting evidence, I rationally choose to reject the validity of the claim. Please note, this is not to say that he didn’t have a vision, or believed that he did, just that I don’t choose to share that belief that’s all, due to the reasons I’ve given.
So is it your position that if we have a historical record of something occuring we should disbelieve the record untill we have further evidence that was seen and heard by someone else that coroborates it?
Do you apply this standard to all other claims in historical records? Do you believe for example Alexander the great was born of Philip and Olympias? After all thats recorded in Plutarch in the 1st century AD no one else saw it happen.
@ Matt – Firstly with regard to your statement asserting that you believe that it is completely rational to suppose that the resurrection of Jesus falls within the realms of known Science.
If that is your honest opinion, then I don’t believe we have anything else worth discussing on this matter.
Secondly, as regards my statements concerning Constantine, the fact that his vision relates to an alleged angel, a figure from the supposed supernatural realm, which cannot be proven by Science, is the reason that I find it hard to accept, not that I wasn’t there, as you put it.
Actually its not scientifically impossible at all.
Of course a dead person coming alive is scientifically impossible. Because science works with the known laws of the universe, and employs entirely rational means to discern those same laws. If we were to allow the possibility of miracles in scientific work, you would soon not have any sort of science worthy of the name.
Now if you said that supernaturally, the resurrection was possible, then you would be on more solid ground. But then, we would have to accept evidence not only of the resurrection of Jesus, but also equally testimonies from all over the world of miracles —-as an evangelical Christian, Matt, do you accept evidence of the Marion apparitions at Fatima and also in Cairo?
OK –if one can accept a suspension of the natural and physical laws of the universe, one should do so not only for one’s own preferred belief system, but also allow it for others.
@ Jeremy – Firstly, nice try, but regardless of my children being two, twenty two or forty two, I would still do everything within my power to attempt to look after them and keep them away from danger.
So if, as you and many others keep claiming, that your God is loving, then I don’t see how rejection of him, her, it should matter regardless of the age.
In fact, considering your God’s supposed capabilities, why doesn’t he, she, it just forgive all human beings regardless of their beliefs or lack of them and allow them to enter heaven.
Why exactly does he, she, it insist on people massaging his ego by praying to him, etc. Surely if he, she, it is really all loving that couldn’t be too much to ask, is it?
In addition, I can’t agree that the warning of burning in hell isn’t in reality threatening behaviour as your God did create hell. Yes?
Your God also created the rules of the universe, including the criteria by which souls are judged. Yes?
In addition, nothing happens that doesn’t go according to your God’s will. Yes?
So that makes your God ultimately responsible for everything including the people who he sends to hell.
Secondly, as far as Constantine is concerned, I believe I’ve explained my reasons. I never expected you to agree with me, so I see little reason in continuing the debate.
Thirdly, as concerns my personal interpretation of Christian scripture, I believe that I’m completely entitled to interpret it any way I wish, as do all Christians, hence the reason why there are so many different denominations, some with hugely different views as to what the same words in the bible mean.
Obviously, I do what I can to learn what different academics have to say with regard to how they view what the text may mean, but then again there is also a still a fair variety amongst their ranks as well.
Wayne you wrote Of course a dead person coming alive is scientifically impossible. Because science works with the known laws of the universe, and employs entirely rational means to discern those same laws.
That simply repeats the original claim and its also false, whats scientifically possible is for a dead person to come back alive by purely natural means in a closed system. No one however maintains this has happend.
What Christains claim is that the universe is an open system in which a supernatural being can cause things to happen. Thats perfectly compatible with the laws of nature as understood by modern science.
If we were to allow the possibility of miracles in scientific work, you would soon not have any sort of science worthy of the name.
That does not follow, suppose I think miracles are possible it does not follow that therefore in many or most situations natural law based explanations are not sufficient.
It’s also false, because for centuries people such as Newton, Kepler and various others did scientific work worthy of the name and entertained the possibility of miracles.
Now if you said that supernaturally, the resurrection was possible, then you would be on more solid ground. But then, we would have to accept evidence not only of the resurrection of Jesus, but also equally testimonies from all over the world of miracles
Again that does not follow either, accepting that miracles are possible does not commit one to accepting any and every claim a miracle occurred is true. The inference here seems to be that if X is possible then I have to accept any and every claim that X occurred is true, that’s patently false, I think murders are possible and I think some have occurred, it does not mean I have to accept every accusation of murder is valid.
—-as an evangelical Christian, Matt, do you accept evidence of the Marion apparitions at Fatima and also in Cairo?
No, that’s because I have reasons for doubting this miracle claims that I don’t have for other claims. One asses individual claims on there merits one doesn’t decide all claims can be dismissed or accepted because they fall into a category such as “religion
OK –if one can accept a suspension of the natural and physical laws of the universe, one should do so not only for one’s own preferred belief system, but also allow it for others.”
Again this does not follow, First, as I noted Miracles are not suspensions of laws of nature. Laws of nature spell out how natural objects operate in a closed system. God rising someone from the dead is by definition something that occurs in an open system and one that involves a supernatural being.
Second, its actually quite sensible to reject a claim when it contradicts something you think is true, and not reject one when it doesn’t. That’s a normal procedure in rational thinking. If a friend of mine tells me he saw a black car outside my house, I consider what he says, why because nothing he says contradicts what I take to be true. On the other hand if he tells me that a 10000000 foot mouse is outside my house I reject his claim as false, why because I don’t believe 10000000 foot mice exist on earth. The same reasoning applies with Marian apparitions, I don’t think Mary exists in heaven as the queen of heaven so I have reasons for thinking those claims are false. I however do believe God exists and Jesus existed and so those reasons don’t apply to the resurrection. To suggest one has to treat all supernatural claims as on par is no more plausible than the claim that I have to treat all naturalistic claims on par.
No doubt you reject plenty of naturalistic claims because you think they are false.
for centuries people such as Newton, Kepler and various others did scientific work worthy of the name and entertained the possibility of miracles
They did not entertain the possibility of miracles within their explanations of scientific phenomena, save that of God upholding the laws of the universe which were consistent enough in that they were open to investigation and unchangeable and regular enough that patterns could be deduced and used to predict future behaviour. So even if one did believe in a creator God, any intervention by this God would be deemed supernatural, not scientific, notwithstanding the ‘fact’ of this God’s existence.
So even theistic philosophers (yourself excepted) do not say that the resurrection was scientifically possible, but only supernaturally possible, and the supernatural is indeed possible if God exists.
Science in the West was a successful, because it removed the supernatural from natural philosophy, even though most scientists in Newton and Kepler’s time were theists (Newton an unorthodox one at that).
I don’t think Mary exists in heaven as the queen of heaven so I have reasons for thinking those claims are false. I however do believe God exists and Jesus existed and so those reasons don’t apply to the resurrection.
These are your preconceived notions. However the evidence, testimony, number of witnesses, and documentation of the Marian apparitions at Fatima in Portugal and the Zeitoun district in Cairo, are vastly superior to the ‘evidence’ we have for Jesus’ bodily resurrection. If you expect one to accept a supernatural explanation for the purported facts of the empty tomb and appearances to the disciples, then applying the same methodology of historical analysis, one should be much more confident of what was claimed to have happened at Fatima and Zeitoun.
Wayne, again you are simply mistaken, you write:
“They did not entertain the possibility of miracles within their explanations of scientific phenomena, save that of God upholding the laws of the universe which were consistent enough in that they were open to investigation and unchangeable and regular enough that patterns could be deduced and used to predict future behaviour”
Actually Newton did entertain miracles within his explanations of scientific phenomena, moreover even if he hadn’t entertained them within his scientific theories, he still believed that Christ rose from the dead which was the miracle you were refering to. The objection you raised was that belief in Miracles , particularly the resurection makes science impossible and this is clearly false, as for centuries people have believed in miracles and engaged in science. Notice also that the belief in unchangible laws of nature that were regular and so on, in fact was in the west due to Christain theology and in fact was part of theological doctrines regarding Gods ordained power that had dominated theological discussions in the late Middoe Ages.
“ even if one did believe in a creator God, any intervention by this God would be deemed supernatural, not scientific, notwithstanding the ‘fact’ of this God’s existence.”
Notice the circular reasoning going on here and using semantic slight of hand, the original objection was that certain supernatural claims are false because scienitric investigation does not support them and they are contrary to science, now we are told that science by definition proceeds on the assumption that supernatural events of this sort cannot happen. So basically, the method has been defined to exclude certain conclusions and then one notes when one uses the method so defined it excludes those conclusions. That is simply sophistry.
“So even theistic philosophers (yourself excepted) do not say that the resurrection was scientifically possible, but only supernaturally possible, and the supernatural is indeed possible if God exists.”
This does not follow from what you said above, the claim that Newton and Kepler, did not utilise miracles in there scientific theories does not warrant the conclusion that the ressurection is contrary to scientific law, in fact as I noted Newton was quite explicit that the laws he expounded applied to a closed system, and so are not contradicted when something outside the natural system causally enters into it.
The one can only claim that miracles contradict laws of nature if one assumes that the world is a closed system and there is nothing transcending the natural world which can causally influence it, that actually involves assuming supernatural causation is impossible from the outset and then using that assumption to prove it. Try to avoid circular arguments of this sort.
Nor am I exceptional amougst theistic philosophers in pointing this out, in fact William Alston points it out in his writings on Divine action, Plantinga points out the same thing in his latest book, and the issue is
“Science in the West was a successful, because it removed the supernatural from natural philosophy, even though most scientists in Newton and Kepler’s time were theists (Newton an unorthodox one at that).”
Newtons Arrianism is irrelevant in this context because we are discussing miracles and supernatural causation, not the nature of the trinity. But your historical claim above is simply false, the idea that science arose in opposition to Christian theology is a widely discredited claim amougst historians of science today and is based on discredited 19th century propaganda.
You have still to provide a refutation of my point that scientific laws hold in closed systems and a world where God directly has causal input is by definition not a closed system of natural law. Miracles therefore are not refuted by scientific laws unless we have scientific proof that the universe is a closes system of natural law and no supernatural beings transcending it exist. Care to justify your conclusions rather than assume them from the outset.
As to the Marain aparatuses I simply don’t accept your assertion that the evidential situation is the same . Like I said I have theological reasons for rejecting the idea that Mary is the queen of heaven that don’t apply to Jesus, you of course are welcome to simply dismiss these are preconceived notions, but then it’s apparent again what’s going on here, it’s not that the evidential situation is the same it’s that you choose to dismiss theological reasons from the outset, I agree if you dismiss all supernatural and theological claims as silly then one is going to see all miracle claims as equally unjustified, but that again is simply circular reasoning.
“Actually Newton did entertain miracles within his explanations of scientific phenomena”
My background is in science and engineering, and Newtonian mechanics played a big part in my education —–I never ever came across any physics textbook which used miracles to explain scientific phenomena. Likewise I’m sure you would be hard pressed to find one medical textbook in the world which said that it is possible for a man to be raised from the dead after been clinically dead, not just for a few minutes, but a full three days.
Perhaps you could point me to the sources which substantiate your claim above.
The objection you raised was that belief in Miracles , particularly the resurection makes science impossible and this is clearly false, as for centuries people have believed in miracles and engaged in science.
You are misquoting me. I simply said the following:
“If we were to allow the possibility of miracles in scientific work, you would soon not have any sort of science worthy of the name.”
I never said anywhere that one could not be a theist (and a believer in miracles) and a scientist at the same time, but only that science has to be conducted with a search for naturalistic explanations only. In his private life a scientist can entertain all sorts of whacky beliefs, so long as these beliefs are kept separate from his scientific work.
This means of course that scientists of various belief systems, whether Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, atheist, or whatever have absolutely no problem communicating and understanding one another when discussing science.
If every time something inexplicable came up, the scientist reached for a supernatural explanation, then science as we know it would grind to a halt. For example, if we still held to a demon possession explanation for epilepsy, instead of searching for a naturalistic explanation, would we be better off at treating it? Of course not!
science by definition proceeds on the assumption that supernatural events of this sort cannot happen.
Well it absolutely does. And it has to. Show me ONE scientific or medical or engineering paper that proposes miraculous explanations for natural phenomena – that would pass muster under peer review.
The one can only claim that miracles contradict laws of nature if one assumes that the world is a closed system and there is nothing transcending the natural world which can causally influence it, that actually involves assuming supernatural causation is impossible from the outset and then using that assumption to prove it.
While here I think our disagreement simply comes down to one of terminology or definition. The laws of science I refer to of course pertains to considering the universe as a closed system.
If I grant your assumption that there is an enormously powerful supernatural being operating outside that closed system, well then I would concede your point that through the intervention of this enormously powerful being, miracles are indeed possible. But they are by their very definition contradictions of the laws of nature. There are simply no ‘laws’ of nature of this supernatural being that exist, because this being can act in a purely arbitrary and capricious way.
So even if one was to accept the possibility of miracles, they simply are not part of the laws of nature, but involve a contradiction or overriding of the laws of nature.
So basically I agree with you that if God exists, then miracles are possible. The only disagreement was one over terminology ie what constitutes a scientific or natural law.
Now lets assume that God does exist and miracles are then possible, and can be used as a legitimate explanation for unexplained phenomena. We can then apply historical methodology to various strange events throughout history, to try and get to some idea of whether the miracle claims are true or not. But obviously because of the rareness and unlikelihood of miracles, I think that most people would agree that where there is a naturalistic explanation available, this should be considered as much more likely than a miraculous explanation. For example if I visited your home and asked you to guess my mode of travel, and given (a) by car (b) by magic carpet, you of course would select (a), no matter how insistent it was by (b).
Now assuming we do believe in miracles, surely you would agree that an investigation into the likelihood of these miracles should be treated with a consistent methodology?
As to the Marain aparatuses I simply don’t accept your assertion that the evidential situation is the same
Simply place the evidence of the resurrection (entirely from the New Testament) against the evidence for Fatima or Zeitoun.
Which is of better quality?
Paul claims hundreds of witnesses for the resurrection.
However, there are thousands for Fatima, and hundreds of thousands for Zeitoun. There are reports of miracles at both Fatima and Zeitoun, of people being cured. These were widely reported on at the time. Thousands of people swore they saw the sun approach the earth at Fatima. And even the Muslim president of Egypt, Nasser is reputed to have seen the apparition at Zeitoun.
So to any religiously neutral observer, the evidence for the events at Fatima and Zeitoun, are vastly superior to the accounts in the New Testament as historical evidence (philosopher Matthew McCormick has used the Salem witch trials to make a similar point).
So even if we allow for miracles, if one is asked to believe in the resurrection, based on the paltry ‘evidence’ for it, then an intellectually honest person would also have accept a large number of Marion apparitions, that witchcraft actually did take place at Salem, and other miracle claims for which the quality of evidence is vastly superior to that of the resurrection.
On the use of Reason to defend Evangelical Christianity:
The foremost Christian philosopher today, William Lane Craig, has this advice to a young believer:
Be on guard for Satan’s deceptions. Never lose sight of the fact that you are involved in a spiritual warfare and that there is an enemy of your soul who hates you intensely, whose goal is your destruction, and who will stop at nothing to destroy you. Which leads me to ask: why are you reading those infidel websites anyway, when you know how destructive they are to your faith? These sites are literally pornographic (evil writing) and so ought in general to be shunned. Sure, somebody has to read them and refute them; but why does it have to be you? Let somebody else, who can handle it, do it. Remember: Doubt is not just a matter of academic debate or disinterested intellectual discussion; it involves a battle for your very soul, and if Satan can use doubt to immobilize you or destroy you, then he will.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/faith-and-doubt
So Craig is telling a young believer precisely not to use reason to evaluate different world views, but simply to avoid them – because they are ‘evil’ and ‘pornographic’?
Leave it to the ‘grown ups’ like Craig, to do that and just believe whatever Craig says eh? After all it will keep Craig in a well paying job and being feted all over the world by his gullible flock.
Craig sounds like a complete and utter nut-job. If people like him got any sort of real power, the Western world would descend again into a new dark ages.
@ Wayne – If you want to see just how bad WLC can be, take a look at what he has to say in relation to the recent school shooting in the US. His perspective is truly unbelievable
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/william-lane-craig-last-great-christian.html
Paul i think you continue confused.
God reaches out to men all the time but honours our choice to be separate from Him. Hell is Gods ultimate compliment to us, ie He respects those who wish to be separate. What is Hell, no one has come back so we dont know too many details. What we do know is that it will be absent any of the providence of God. Metaphors include undiluted selfishness, unrestrained evil or even simply infinite regret. That we would find thiese scenarios isnt God being nasty, its inevitable, but God warns us just as we might warn our children that putting a hand in fire leads to pain.
As to a loving God, how could a loving God be unjust, or ride completely roughshod over your will?
Why is one of the main objections to Christianity i always hear, that if God was really God he would just force everybody to do what He wants, yet at the very same time those objectors are objecting to the way God has done things. The very fact that you can object should be a hint that God is not interested in forcing you to believe, obey, act in a particular manner.
Yes you can interpret the Bible anyway you please, but to ignore genre, culture, original audience etc in aid to understanding is as willfully ignorant on you part as it is on the part of Chriistians who do so. It does you no credit. And ti deliberately ignore available explainations of well known misunderstandings, apparent contradictions etc is willfull prejudice. It is also the same type of irrationality that you complain of in others.
The trouble with you complaint wrt to Constantine is that it applies equally to any thought /mental exerience occurring in anyones head, you can never have any proof other than their testimony. As Matthew likes to point out it also applies very much to the existence of other minds.
What has prayer got to do with massaging ego? Prayer is supposed to be a conversation between father and son, the natural communication that happens in a relationship, sharing. Do your children only talk to you to massage your ego? or were you massaging your ego when you taught them it was only polite to say thankyou, or to say please when asking you to pass the butter etc even though you could see full well what they wanted/needed? Are you suggesting God should accept a lower standard of manners than even you an atheist expects at the dinner table? I know thse examples are borderline rediculous, but really, what are you saying?
Lastly you confuse the nature of Gods will, ie the difference between what he wants, what he actively does and what he allows. He wants your love, He came as Jesus (telling Gods love for you, teaching, living an exemplary life, warning of the consequences of separation), but he allows you freedom of association ie no compulsion.
Wayne, again you seem to think making character attacks on William Lane Craig proves something, it doesn’t.
Responding to the arguments people make with is a much better method.
Matt,
What character assassination? I simply posted what Craig said verbatim —-his words condemn himself as an intellectual fraud and fruit loop.
Paul —thanks for the link about Sandy Hook, double confirmation of my views on the man—btw you may also be interested in the exchange I have had with Matt about this awful event, for which I still await a response from Matt to my last two comments on the thread:
http://www.mandm.org.nz/2012/11/back-from-the-usa.htm
Responding to the arguments people make with is a much better method.
Well, then, how about you responding to post at Dec 27, 2012 at 4:13 pm (the post just before the William Lane Craig post). Also of course I await your comeback to my rebuttals of your responses on Sandy Hook (you are the philosopher and theologian —should be pretty easy for you).
That we would find thiese scenarios isnt God being nasty, its inevitable, but God warns us just as we might warn our children that putting a hand in fire leads to pain.
So Jeremy —so you are saying that if your son insists on putting his hand on the element of a stove, against all your good warnings, you would then say OK —-its my son’s choice, since he disobeyed me, I’ll tie him to the stove and leave him there forever????????????? And that is called loving????
WOW!!!!!!
dont be a door knob Wayne of course not, but if he insists on doing so inspite of my warnings, the fireguard i installed, the warning notice, the training he has on the effects of excess heat on human flesh— all because he is mule headed about it and wont believe my ‘old fashioned absolutist’ ideas about danger or thinks my previous generation testimony is unreliable, so insists on trying it for himself behind my back, then i couldnt stop him. Unless of course i completely over rode and denied his capacity to make decisions for himself [ i wonder how old he should be before i should let him make his own decisions] and locked him up.
I am glad i had my father for a parent and not you.
“So Craig is telling a young believer precisely not to use reason to evaluate different world views, but simply to avoid them – because they are ‘evil’ and ‘pornographic’?”
dishonest misrepresentation, out of context and off the subject.
WLC did not tell this young man not to use reason to evaluate differing world views. He told him that going to websites such as John Loftus’ one was not helpful in the context of the question the young man asked. Doing so is like and alcoholic seeking help in a pub, you dont get a dispassionate examination of the pros and cons of alcohol consumption, you just get it pushed at you.
And John Loftus [ whose site Paul immediately linked to] is an extremely good example of a site that is no use in examining Christianity. The guy had an extramarital affair [while he was a pastor?] and instead of admitting that he has betrayed his wife ,his God and his congregation, he is now trying to pretend God doesnt exist. He seems to think that if he can persuade enough other people that Christianity isnt true he may be able to persuade himself. I feel sorry for him. He is just running away from his guilt.
@ Jeremy – I feel your attempts at character assassination of John Loftus speaks volumes.
Firstly, if you are willing to use issues within his personal life, then obviously that would allow my self and anyone else to use similar issues from the lives of the religious as an argument against them. Yes?
Secondly, the reality that WLC will not front up to John Loftus’s repeated requests for a public debate is probably as telling to atheists as Richard Dawkins continued resistance to a debate with WLC is to theists
Finally, the fact that WLC and many other theists do not wish people to visit websites with other viewpoints to those that they hold, says much about them rather than those with the opposing perspective.
“@ Jeremy – I feel your attempts at character assassination of John Loftus speaks volumes.”
And your attemt at character assassination of Craig does so to I assume?
“the reality that WLC will not front up to John Loftus’s repeated requests for a public debate is probably as telling to atheists as Richard Dawkins continued resistance to a debate with WLC is to theists”
Is there seriously anyone sufficiently deluded to think that Loftus is at least as famous and relevant a spokesperson for his perspectives as Dawkins and Craig are?
Whatever John Loftus’ reasons for leaving Christianity, its his arguments that one should scrutinise – not his private life.
Christians certainly don’t have a monopoly on moral behaviour —have you heard of the former evangelical leader in the US (featured in a Richard Dawkins documentary), Ted Haggard —-I suggest you google him.
And of course right here in NZ we had the case of the leader of the Christian Heritage Party, and moral crusader, Graham Capill, a convicted pedophile.
In fact studies of the developed world have found that increased levels of secularism and non-belief do not correlate with higher levels of crime or dishonest behaviour —in fact there is evidence to suggest the opposite could well be the case – the most peaceful, crime-free, and well run countries in the world such as Sweden, Denmark, Japan etc also happen to be the most atheistic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA
http://secularist10.hubpages.com/hub/Religion-Atheism-and-Crime
character assassination of Craig does so to I assume?
Character assassination? Where —links have simply been posted to the full articles written by Craig on his own website, and also a link to a video of Craig on the Sandy Hook shootings.
Again….Craig’s own words speak for themselves. Let the reader and listener be the judge.
Richard Dawkins continued resistance to a debate with WLC is to theists
Actually Dawkins was well within his rights to avoid a debate with the publicity seeking Craig. The fact is based simply on rhetoric and bombast, Craig could well have been seen to win the debate —after all Craig is basically a professional debater and has been for almost 30 years?
If say some Lord of the RIngs fan claimed that the Lord of the Rings say was true, and I disagreed, I would probably still lose a debate on it (at least appear to) as I simply know nothing about the Lord of the Rings.
Similarly someone I am sure could come up with all sorts of philosophical arguments about why the Lord of the RIngs is true, and if I was to debate him, I would lose.
And as they say, if someone flings crap around, it still takes a lot of effort to clean it up. I don’t know bugger all about the philosophy of religion, nor do I have any desire to study it —so I’m sure a Christian philosopher would whupp me in a debate.
But then I don’t have to be an expert on Mein Kampf to know Naziism is f#$@#4 up, nor would do I have to know too much about Islam to know that flying planes into buildings is also f*#&#^ up.
Dawkins, as a real scientist, did the right thing to avoid giving Craig the publicity and intellectual respectability that Craig craves.
“Character assassination? Where —links have simply been posted to the full articles written by Craig on his own website, and also a link to a video of Craig on the Sandy Hook shootings.”
Charater assassination is defined as an attack on someone’s credibility or reputation. Someone who writes “If you want to see just how bad X can be” is engaging in it. It’s actually fairly obvious, yet I can see why you wouldn’t immediately realize this, seeing how it conflicts with your more comfortable delusions.
“If say some Lord of the RIngs fan claimed that the Lord of the Rings say was true, and I disagreed, I would probably still lose a debate on it (at least appear to) as I simply know nothing about the Lord of the Rings.”
You apparently know enough about the Lord of the Rings to have carrived at the conclusion that not everything it says is true. Do you believe in magic rings? Do you think your beliefs about this matter are justified? Have you spend the last years campaigning around the world claiming that the Lord of the Rings is obviously false and that everyone who disagrees is deluded? Do you honestly not realize how completely bankrupt this excuse is?
@ William M – Leaving aside your continued attempts to discredit the character of John Loftus, I take it that you are completely comfortable and supportive of WLC take on the school shooting and the role God had to play in it then. Yes?
Of course when christians fall big time it reflects badly on them and undermines the christian message. And when they spend a lot of time on tv seeking donations and living extravagant lifestyles on those donations it also undermines the christian gospel. I have no time whatsoever for this idea that character and motivation are irrelevant., they are always informative as to why people behave and informative as to what behaviour one might expect. We analyse character and motive a lot wrt crime, history, etc why would we suddenly leave it out when debating ideas, philosophy or religion. Dont get me started on the really peculiar but current concept of character and motive being irrelevant in politics.
Paul have you actually listened to WLC on the Newton shooting in context or only to fragments intersperced with JLs sarcastic commentary full of his anti-christian and deliberately misleading interpretation of what WLC was saying. What “role” did WLC say that God played in the Newton shooting? I heard him refer to the evil actions of a young man in Newton and suggest this evil is not new, that another man had organised someting similar around the time of Jesus birth ie kill approx 20 young children. JL twisted this to claim that God was responsible for the actions of these men. JL is one of thos commentators who likes to blame God for the actions of man, a hypocrite who exercises his own free will in rejecting God while complaining that God doesnt over ride the free will of others. Given this kind of illogic maybe he is trying to hold God responsible for not preventing him from indulging in that extra marital affair. If his reasons for leaving christianity are sufficiently disparate from his arguments against it that calls into question the validity of his arguments and leaves them with the flavour of self-justification rather than rationality.
By the way JL is either ignorant or deliberately misleading, at a time when the Roman overlords routinely put down hundreds even thousands of what they considered trouble makers and brutally suppressed any revolt or opposition, who is even going to notice (let alone report on ) the killing of around twenty infants in a small unimportant village of a conquered and occupied country. Only the locals because they would be the only ones who cared. JLs claims that contemporary historians should have noticed etc is disingenuous in the extreme.
WLC does not oppose people visiting websites with other perspectives, as i said above this was advice to a particular person with a particular problem about a particular type of website pointing out that such websites would not help him with his problem. Advice that amounted to “leave the nasty opponents to a trained veteran, concentrate on training at this point”. Misrepresenting this is beneath you.
Have you spend the last years campaigning around the world claiming that the Lord of the Rings is obviously false and that everyone who disagrees is deluded? Do you honestly not realize how completely bankrupt this excuse is?
For f^&*% sake…..of course not, simply because noone to my knowledge claims that LOTR is true, and even if so probably not much harm would arise out of it.
But Dawkins is attacking mass delusions of billions of people, which he believes, with some justification, do cause great harm.
While Dawkins has given excellent reasons why religious belief is largely absurd, he is obviously not schooled up on the philosophy of religion (which philosopher Keith Parsons has recently labelled a fraud), and theology even more so. So Dawkin’s has every right not to debate a theologian on theology and the philosophy of religion, simply because on rhetoric alone he would likely appear to lose.
Craig is also infamous at obfuscations, like writing up abstruse mathematical formulas (one was famously debunked), and outright lying. Like I said, someone can very easily vomit all over you, and it is vomit, but it is a pain in the a^& to clean up.
Most of us here getting into a debate with a Holocaust denier like David Irving or David Duke…..we would probably lose the debate because we don’t have a command of all the ‘facts’ and minutiae and distortions that only a truly deluded monomaniac could have.
As for the so called character assassination of Craig —just go onto his own website Reasonable Faith and watch the video on Sandy Hook, and read his answer to the young doubter……then make up your own mind. If you can’t see that Craig is a nutjob after this, there is not much one can do for you.
Actually Dawkins was well within his rights to avoid a debate with the publicity seeking Craig. The fact is based simply on rhetoric and bombast, Craig could well have been seen to win the debate —after all Craig is basically a professional debater and has been for almost 30 years?
Actually Craig is a professional philosopher and theologian who has spent the last 30 years developing a pretty solid publication record. Moreover Dawkin’s knew this when he denied it in print, as I have pointed out here http://www.mandm.org.nz/2012/07/contra-mundum-dawkins-and-secular-hypocrisy.html
So this claim made by Dawkins and repeated by his followers this is simply false.
Also I wonder have you watched the lecture at the Sheldonain which Dawkin’s refused to turn up to, it was hosted by oxfords philosophy department, and the discussion between three professional philosophers and one scientist it was hardly rhetoric.
Instead, of trying to engage in smears, can you deal with the arguments.
While Dawkins has given excellent reasons why religious belief is largely absurd, he is obviously not schooled up on the philosophy of religion (which philosopher Keith Parsons has recently labelled a fraud), and theology even more so. So Dawkin’s has every right not to debate a theologian on theology and the philosophy of religion, simply because on rhetoric alone he would likely appear to lose.
Again, all you do is dismiss arguments with name calling, for the record Dawkin’s has not given excellent reasons ( see here http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/05/contra-mundum-richard-dawkins-and-open-mindedness.html for some reasons for this conclusion) and his attempts to do so are suprisingly poor, particularly in comparision to numerous other atheist philosophers. But if you disagree your welcome to provide an “argument” or “reason” to show me I am wrong.
Also, the fact a prolific poster on infidels calls a subject a fraud does not make it a fraud, its interesting how athiests demand evidence for claims and yet take claims like this on faith. Again address the arguments instead of simply asserting others are stupid.
Exactly, a debate mainly between philosophers —-Dawkins simply would not have had much to talk of there, but that does not mean his arguments for atheism don’t count.
Theologians come up with all sorts of ridiculous rationalisations and cook up wild rebuttals to defend their faith, but entire thing just does not hand together. However one is perfectly entitled to disbelief without having to have a doctorate in theology or philosophy. Religion is in general absurd enough in itself, and The God Delusion presents many good reasons for disbelief and its absurdity. If someone thinks wine turns into blood and a wafer into flesh, is is perfectly reasonable to call that person deluded.
Craig’s arguments are tiresome —the moral argument is pathetic and easily falsifiable, and the reason why atheist philosophers seem to lose on this is they stupidly accept Craig’s premise that moral values are objective and then try to box themselves out. The fact is there are no objective moral values, because through time and history moral values have differed between cultures and civilizations. But that does not mean one cannot dearly hold onto ones own moral values, even if they are subjective. And even with God, it is hard to make an argument that moral values are anymore objective. The resurrection debate is also pathetic and if you grant the evidence for the historicity of the resurrection on the paltry evidence provided, then you would have to, on the comparative strength of the evidence have to do so for thousands of other miracle claims through the ages, including the Marion apparitions you deny, and then that would render the resurrection not that special an event anyway.
For me an outsider looking in, it would seem that belief in God is hardly mainstream among philosophers, with 86% being non-theists, and those 14% who are theists, many, such as Craig, would have gone into philosophy, with a prior held belief in God, and not to honestly follow the facts where-ever they leave, but to defend their beliefs. Craig himself has said that he would not abandon belief, even if he did feel all the evidence was against it….I’m sure many of his fellow theists would similarly eschew hard facts for inner, spiritual testimony.
The fact is most people do not have the time to follow the weaving and ducking of rationalisers of non-rational belief systems—-for example Craig comes up with this thing about animals not being conscious of pain and do not really suffer pain, to defend against natural evil and the suffering of animals (something that to my mind really debunks the notion of an all good god ). Yet neuroscientists have very recently confirmed that animals are conscious, even fish, and I’m pretty sure my dog can feel sadness, happiness, and pain.
Like I said, I’m pretty certain the Holocaust occurred, but would probably get thrashed in a debate by a denier like David Duke who would have far more command of the details than myself. How much do you know about Islam, Matt? Probably less than some iman or some of those Islam apologists out there —but so what. You probably know enough to reject it as bs, as I do.
Now Matt, how about responding to my rebuttals to you on the Sandy Hook tragedy, at the end of the following thread?
http://www.mandm.org.nz/2012/11/back-from-the-usa.htm
Wayne, you didnt offer a single argument, nor any supporting evidence, only opinion and assertion. With that quality of standard it is no wonder you can be impressed by the embarrassingly ignorant opinions of Dawkins. Anyway given that it is so easy, how about a rational well argued falsification of the moral argument, one that first shows you have actually understood it and then demonstrates how and why it is wrong.
“The fact is there are no objective moral values, because through time and history moral values have differed between cultures and civilizations.”
So you’re admitting that things such as murder, rape and theft, and atrocities such as the Holocaust are not in fact objectively wrong, but subjectively wrong, and that if we were just a little bit more open minded and accepting and tolerant, we should in theory be able to come to the conclusion that these events weren’t actually bad, but something to be seen as beautiful and admirable? If you say no, then morality isn’t subjective, or you’re blind to your own moral biases. By saying there is nothing objectively wrong, you are admitting that moral views are just opinions, that people are saying “boo” when you say something is bad, and “woot” when something is good. If someone were to try to enforce their own moral views with violence, that that would be okay, since violence isn’t objectively wrong, but subjectively wrong, and those people who are coerced really need to just lighten up and open up their minds to other systems of subjective morality.
“But that does not mean one cannot dearly hold onto ones own moral values, even if they are subjective.”
Why? If I entertain the notion that morality is subjective, why shouldn’t one person force others to share her code of morality upon others? By saying one can hold their own particular subjective moral views, you’re making a moral statement. You’re saying a person has a right to choose their own moral beliefs. If moral subjectivity is true, then affirming the rights of others to hold their own subjective systems of morality is silly, because the moral subjectivist who denies the rights of others to hold their own subjective systems is just as right, and if you tell him he’s wrong, then you’re being a hypocrite.
Yes Alabaster, it is one of the great ironies in the debate about the nature of morality. I always find it amusing that those who claim morality is purely subjective dont seem to understand their own position and what it entails, specifically that when they say morality is only subjective they give away any basis for any moral claims they make other than personal preference. They leave themselves with no basis for objecting to anything, all someone who disagrees with one subjective position has to do is claim their own. Then the only position is “because i want to and because i can”. Which leaves us with Mao Zedong and ” power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. So far i have never met an atheist who actually wants to live under those terms.
So you’re admitting that things such as murder, rape and theft, and atrocities such as the Holocaust are not in fact objectively wrong
Whether it is labelled subjective or objective is beside the point. As far as I am concerned atheists would oppose these types of atrocities as strongly as most religious people, perhaps more so. So it simply comes down to what we mean by objective and subjective.
Its like this you see. If I say the Holocaust is wrong, but some Nazi says it is right, I simply cannot prove its wrongness like I can prove that water runs downhill or gravity. So in that sense morals are subjective. But that hardly means that by saying so one is any less opposed to the Holocaust than those who say morals are objective.
In any case Christians do not necessarily hold that murder, rape and theft are necessarily wrong. They simply say that what God commands is objective morality. So if someone thinks they hear a command to offer their first born as a burnt offering, that is not objectively wrong, so long as God commands it.
So Christians can never condemn any act if it could be shown that God commands it. Because the acts of God in the Bible sometimes say murder is wrong, yet at other times command it, in fact even command genocide, then it could be said that it is the Christian who has to believe that moral values are subjective and not objective, even more so than the atheist.
The Christian can thus never say murder is objectively wrong —-but only disobedience to God is wrong.
Which leaves us with Mao Zedong and ” power grows out of the barrel of a gun”
I believe Mao said that not to support the idea, but simply as a statement of fact after the Chinese communists had suffered a massacre at the hands of the Nationalists in 1927.
The facts of the matter is that it is not the atheist regimes of the 20th Century (Soviet Union and China) who committed the largest scale atrocities in history, but rather it was the Christian Western imperialists, who killed something like 50 million Africans and Asians in the 20th Century alone (refer work by Rudy Rummel —who by the way is also an arch-anti-communist).
And how did New Zealand and Australia and the US etc get established in the first case —-by the barrel of the gun of course—through Christians going in and killing a whole lot of non-Christians.
Hitlers anti-semitism launched off a foundation prepared by Martin Luther (have a read of On The Jews and their Lies – described as a blueprint for Kristallnacht), and it is doubtful that Hitler was an atheist —he fluctuated between support of the Church and paganism —but he never came out as an atheist).
Martin Luther on the Jews:
“a base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.”
“”[w]e are at fault in not slaying them”.
“First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom”
The Holocaust was the inevitable end result of centuries of Christian anti-semitism in Europe —–it had nothing to do with atheism —–it is just a complete inversion of historical fact to say that Christianity ensures high moral standards —the whole history of religious wars in Europe, the Holocaust, and Western imperialism shows what a sham that claim is.
we should in theory be able to come to the conclusion that these events weren’t actually bad, but something to be seen as beautiful and admirable?
Well some people in some cultures thought human sacrifice was something beautiful and admirable. They genuinely felt this.
I think it is something that is quite disgusting. My feelings are also genuine.
So there you have proof that moral values are something that is subjectively felt, but can simply not be objectively proven, like the laws of gravity say.
But even if we say values are not objective, that does not mean secularists or atheists are any less committed to promoting their values as if they were objective, almost as fanatically as any religious people
After all the communists truly felt they had the truth, and tried to get as many countries in the world to enjoy the benefits of their brand of socialism, and secularists today promote democracy around the world almost as if it was a religion.
So belief in God or not does not seem to correlate to whether or not people act in a way as if morals were objective.
And even if one were to believe morals were objective, it is ridiculous to assert that this is a case only if there is a God…..the God of the Bible is hardly any sort of consistent benchmark.
An atheist could perhaps establish a benchmark of the greatest good to the greatest number of people is moral —and that could be considered an objective measure if you like.
You make some interesting points Wayne, but you miss one really basic one. Since you claim that Christianity is false and God does not exist, then you are left with the reality of those actions but not the thing you blame for them. In other words they are all cases of people just behaving like people, and given your denial of objective morality you have no basis for claiming any of it wrong other than personal preference, and why would anyone pay any attention to your preferences over their own? I am sure you a re genuine in your feelings and preferences, but so what, who cares. Certainly not some one whose preferences might conflict with yours.
Many people who call themselves Christian and many more who others mistakenly label as Christian fail to consistantly live up to Jesus Christs teaching and example. Which raises a question, on what basis do you call the leaders of the West Christians? To a Moslem jihadist you are a Christian, because you are a westerner, but i guess you would deny the label. I will research Rudy Rummel though i suspect he catergorises people as Christian much like the Moslems do. (3hours later) I have done a little research on Rudy Rummel, so far he seems to be talking about death by government, suggests that democracies are less likely to be responsible for this, talks about war (defined as any conflict involving more than 1000 people) and includes death by famine if he attributes the famine to being as a result of policy (whether this was intended or not). “Christian Western Imperialist” so far appears to be your characterisation not his.
I think you are right in raising the disturbing antisemitism of Martin Luther, it is suprising that a man who did so well on pointing Christianity back to Gods word could be so blind on what Gods word had to say on the subject of his own prejudices, but it is a very human and common fault.
I think you are wrong in claiming it provided the foundation for the holocaust, the Jews have been subject to atrocities for centuries by people with no connection to ML, Christianity or even the West. Whats more you are ignoring another unpleasant human trait whichis to pick a scapegoat ( usually someone identifiable different in some way small or large) and focus blame and hatred on them. The holocaust is different only in scale not in nature.
No one is denying that subjective moral values exist, we may be pointing out how useless they are, but the existence of subjective values has no bearing on whether or not there exist objective moral standards, ie standards that exist independant of human kind and independant of human culture, fashion and history.
I see you didnt bother to read up on utilitarianism, ironic given your comment wrt greatest good to the greatest number. You suggestion also seems at odds with your dislike of Matts example of organ harvesting. GGGN implicitly does nt worry about justice, fairness, right or wrong as they impact individuals, minorities. GGGN is exactly the type of justification Hilter used wrt the Jews, Stalin and Mao wrt dissidents.
Lastly for the moment some of you figures seem a little wonky, Mao is generally credited with killing off between 60 and 100 million chinese, Stalin more than 20 million russians, plus several millions also in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia by various communist leaders.j
Which raises a question, on what basis do you call the leaders of the West Christians?
I don’t know the inner spiritual lives of these leaders – I am comparing regimes informed by Christianity vs regimes informed by an ideology that is atheistic. Which of these two have killed more in history —obviously it is the former – both in the past and even now (compare the millions of deaths caused by Us foreign policy just the past 20 years —grossly exceeds the total number of innocents killed by say the Chinese ‘communists’).
On colonial ‘democide’, by Rudy Rummel
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.7.1.03.HTM
I think you are right in raising the disturbing antisemitism of Martin Luther, it is suprising that a man who did so well on pointing Christianity back to Gods word could be so blind on what Gods word had to say on the subject of his own prejudices, but it is a very human and common fault.
It was actually his interpretation of the Bible that directly led to Luther’s anti-semitism. Luther’s animus was primarily theologically driven, not so much racially based, and in his early years he was relatively sympathetic to the Jews —and wanted to convert them. It was what he considered the obduracy of most Jews in this regard that led to his extreme anti-semitism.
It was precisely God’s word, as interpreted by Luther – which brought on his anti-semitism, with appalling ramifications later in history.
You suggestion also seems at odds with your dislike of Matts example of organ harvesting. GGGN
I agree that GGGN by itself does not provide a solid ethical foundation for any society —–but that does not mean that the principle is not useful some of the time —after all it is used when deciding on medical spending, roading improvements etc. The US used it to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and also sanctions on Iraq which killed hundreds of thousands of children.
Lastly for the moment some of you figures seem a little wonky, Mao is generally credited with killing off between 60 and 100 million chinese, Stalin more than 20 million russians
You are a bit out of step with the latest research. Timothy Snyder puts the total number of non-combatants killed by Stalin at around 6 million vs 11 million for Hitler.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/?pagination=false
The number actually executed or died in the Gulags was around 1 to 3 million, according to Snyder. The other’s died due to famine, apparently, and the argument is whether or not these were deliberate or not. My personal view is they were not, but obviously I won’t convince you otherwise here.
As for Mao, the number of executions carried out under him was probably 1 to 2 million. Most of the deaths attributed to Mao came about as a result of the Great Leap Forward famine —but this was a result of policy cock-ups, not deliberate mass murder. And even here the figures are sort of cooked up, because it is clear that the mortality rates during the Great Leap Forward were actually typical of other developing countries of the time —-what happened was the communists reduced mortality very quickly in the first decade of rule, and then mortality shot up again through mismanagement and natural disasters, and it is these ‘excess’ deaths that are counted as mass murder against Mao.
The fact is Maoist China saw the greatest overall decrease in mortality and increase in life expectancy of any regime in perhaps all of human history, and there is a consensus on this among Western experts:
Indeed, despite the higher death rates associated with the Great Leap Famine of 1959-1961, China’s growth in life expectancy from 35~40 in 1949 to 65.5 in 1980 ranks as the most rapid sustained increase in documented global history
http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/23743/AHPPwp_29.pdf
The inescapable conclusion is that societies informed by Christianity (includes Nazi Germany), at least over the past 500 years, where the most genocidal and murderous in all of human history. Not the Soviet Union and China.
Christian Persecution of Jews over the Centuries:
http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/church/persecution/persecution.pdf
“I think you are right in raising the disturbing antisemitism of Martin Luther, it is suprising that a man who did so well on pointing Christianity back to Gods word could be so blind on what Gods word had to say on the subject of his own prejudices, but it is a very human and common fault.”
Sorry. It was exactly God’s word which forced Martin Luther into anti-semitism. It was theology, not racism, which made Martin Luther a frothing at the mouth anti-semite.
Just because a Jewish commentator/author read the NT in that manner ( in the article you linked to ) doesnt make that true, it makes it that authors opinion. And yet again you have failed to answer the question posed by you own statements. If there is not absolute morality and only subjective morality what would actually be wrong with the holocaust? Sure the Jews didnt like it but maybe the Germans did, on what basis would any particular morality take priority? Alternatively you raised the very utilitarian GGGN, the Jews were very much a minority in Germany. Given your own position why do you raise the issue.
By the way how about chapter and verse in context ( subject and principles) on where Gods word teaches antisemitism let alone forced ML into it.
I read that pdf, couldnt help but notice his comments that anti jewish feeling was widespread in the ancient world long before christianity showed up and also his comment about Hitler choosing a SCAPEGOATS to focus hatred upon and that this included the Roma and the Slavs (also though not mentioned here, homosexuals, IHC, and in fact just about anyone it suited him to get rid of).
Wayne I always love it when a scientist tries to pontificate on moral philosophy.
You write:
This argument is doubly bad, First you think the claim that moral obligations are “objective” is falsified by the claim that peoples moral opinion have differed throughout history. This is a non sequitur note it relies on the following premise: If people have disagreed about the truth of X throughout history then X is subjective This premise however is clearly false, people after all have disagreed about scientific claims throughout history as well, so by this premise science is subjective and not objectively true. As to your suggestion that philosophers are bamboozled because they are unaware of this, actually if you look at many first year ethics texts you find this argument is often presented and critiqued in them.
Second you state that something being subjective does not mean . “one cannot dearly hold onto ones own moral values, even if they are subjective.” I agree , it doesn’t stop people holding to those values it does however logically entail that those values are not true or binding on anyone who does not hold them, which means that when you criticise Luther for anti-Semitism or criticise Christian colonists for atrocities your actually contradicting yourself. Of course people can hold dearly and strongly to contradictions, but that only shows that those people are irrational.
I agree no one has denied this, in fact as you note most atheists philosophers accept that moral obligations are objective that’s because objectivity is presupposed in moral discourse. You for example have criticised other cultures and people for engaging in certain actions, which only makes sense if moral statements are true and binding on people regardless of wether they themselves accept those beliefs or agree with them. All your comments here show is a typical example of atheist special pleading. To avoid grounding morality you claim moral obligations are not objective. Then to criticise Luther and theists you presuppose it is. In otherwords whatever leads to a criticism of Christianity is accepted as true even if it contradicts itself. That’s shows your position is actually not rational at all.
And hear all you do is, assert another position is ridiculous, I don’t know about science but in moral philosophy you don’t refute position by simply asserting another person is stupid, you actually have to offer an argument against the position. An actual argument that something like a divine command theory is false is needed.
Second, here you engage in a pretty obvious non sequitur, even if we assume you claims about the God of the bible is true, note the clear leap in your argument. The God portrayed in the bible is not a benchmark for morality, therefore God is not a benchmark for morality.
Unfortunately that pretty obviously does not follow all, and its amazing someone trained in the sciences could offer such an obviously fallacious inference.
That’s an inadequate answer, you seem to think that simply because you strongly oppose or believe something then its objective truth or falsity is irrelevant. Clearly that’s not correct, if the holocaust is not objectively wrong then no matter how strongly athiests feel about it and how strongly they oppose it, there opposition has no basis and is inconsistent with the facts. Its kinda interesting to see athiests claiming that because they strongly believe in something the facts are irrelevant.
The problem is that in moral philosophy when people use the words objective or subjective in terms of morality they don’t mean it in that sense. In fact that’s not a sensible sense of the word objective at all. What your pointing out there is that certain claims cant be scientifically proven. But wether something can be scientifically proven is not the same as wether its objective. To be objective something is true or false independently of wether we believe it. In 1612 big bang cosmology was objectively true, yet at that point in time it could not be scientifically proven.
Moreover there are many claims which cant be scientifically proven the existence of other conscious people for example or the principle of inductive reasoning. Or the reliability of the scientific method, it does not follow those things are “subjective”
All this comment shows is you don’t even understand how terms are used or what certain philosophical terms mean. To wade in insulting others as ignorant in such a context simply shows up your own hubris.
Wayne
That’s actually a telling confession on your part, you dismiss philosophical defences of theism is “rationalising of non rational belief systems” but admit you have not really had any time to study or look into those defences. In otherwords your making a claim for which you have no basis.
Actually now your telling lies again. Craig did not say dogs were not conscious, he said that animals do not have self awareness in the sense that they are aware of themselves being conscious and in pain. That point actually, is actually fairly standardly made in the atheist secular literature on abortion and animal rights. Peter Singer for example makes that very point in his works on animal rights. I could cite you half a dozen mainstream secular ethics articles which argue that animals, while conscious are not self aware.
This fails to take into account breakdowns in terms of area of specialisation and expertise. In terms of the subject philosophy as a whole that figure is probably correct. However, if you look at area of specialisation its clear that the atheist philosophers dominate in subjects other than philosophy of religion. In otherwords its those who do not study specialize or work in the branch of philosophy that asseses the rationality of religious claims. Within philosophy of religion the subject that does study the arguments for and against the existence of God, in fact around 80% are theists.
What the stats actually show then is that those who do not study the arguments for and against Gods existence tend to dismiss theism, those who do tend not to. Quentin Smith the atheist philosopher made this point many years ago in the journal Philo. Here: http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_4_2.htm
Actually this again is a caricature, you clearly don’t understand the position he advanced or you are being deceptive.
What Craig argued in fact was that even if the “public” evidence was against theism that could be rejected if he has strong non public evidence. He also offered an argument for this drawn from the work of Plantinga. Seeing you omitted to mention the argument I’ll present it
Here is the example: Suppose I am accused of a crime, three reliable witnesses say I was at the scene, and the police lab states they have found my prints all over the scene. However, I in fact was walking alone in the woods on the day in question and so know I did not do it.
In this situation, the public evidence supports the claim I am guilty, given I was alone in the woods, no one else saw me there and no one else has my memory of being there, the public evidence is that I claim to have not been there it and three credible witnesses plus lab evidence from the police suggests I clearly was. Despite this I am perfectly rational in believing I was not there because I know I was in the woods, this however is information that only I am privy to because I remember being there. The conclusion: the fact all the public evidence is in favour of a position does not automatically mean I am rationally required to accept the position.
Now your welcome to offer an argument against this. Am I rational in believing I am innocent in this situation? Yes or No.
Again I look forward to you ignoring the argument and engaging in “I hate Craig therefore God does not exist” arguments. Don’t however pretend defaming people, caricaturing and insulting counts as a rational exposition of atheism.
This is what Craig said about animal suffering:
“Even though animals feel pain, they’re not aware of it.. . Even though your dog and cat may be in pain, it really isn’t aware that of being in pain, and therefore it doesn’t suffer as you would when you are in pain’
A similar point has been made about people from different cultures which are less individualistic –pain is endured as pain, with less ego and self awareness to be ‘pissed off’ about the pain. For example some people may lose a finger, be in pain, but then not reflect too much on it. Others who have a stronger sense of self will mourn the loss of a finger not simply because of the pain or inconvenience, but because of a fact that having all body parts may be part of their self-image of completeness, or something like that.
So if say a modern weakling like myself had my leg blown off, the shock would not just be because of the pain and the future inconvenience —-it would be because of my thoughts on it —“F*&$, I have lost my leg”. Whereas there have been stories of Soviet soldiers in WWII losing a leg, and happily playing cards not too long afterwards (read somewhere before).
However given all that, lacking an ego, or lacking a sense of “I am in pain”, does not mean that pain is not felt, nor is it experienced in a very negative (or evil) sense. A dog, like a young baby, may lack a sense of self, but it feels that pain in a very real sense, and that suffering is surely a terrible evil, even if not as terrible (arguably) as for a living being with higher self-awareness. Animals also have the ability to feel mental anguish and grief, this can be felt regardless of how self-aware an animal is. So dogs will definitely grieve over the death of an owner or another dog, and I believe from experience, even cows have this ability.
So animal suffering is an undeniable evil, and has at least existed since the time of the rise of warm blooded creatures, perhaps even before. And this has been happening all along way before Adam and Eve arrived on the scene.
So it was not the fall that brought evil into the world, rather evil existed way before the fall (assuming there was such a single event in history).
What Craig argued in fact was that even if the “public” evidence was against theism that could be rejected if he has strong non public evidence.
And what would this non-public evidence be?
I can only imagine two types:
* mystical experiences, or a feeling of certainty in one’s heart
* fortuitous twists of events or uncanny coincidences.
But the thing is people of all variety of faiths have had both of these, so these in themselves cannot confirm the objective reality of one’s own particular faith system.
Within philosophy of religion the subject that does study the arguments for and against the existence of God, in fact around 80% are theists.
Similarly it could be argued that those going into the philosophy of religion field are theists beforehand, or at least have a predisposition towards theism.
first you think the claim that moral obligations are “objective” is falsified by the claim that peoples moral opinion have differed throughout history. This is a non sequitur note it relies on the following premise: If people have disagreed about the truth of X throughout history then X is subjective This premise however is clearly false, people after all have disagreed about scientific claims throughout history as well, so by this premise science is subjective and not objectively true.
Scientific claims are different. Either the earth is spherical or it is flat — that is an objective matter.
Morals, as you know are objective (I will use this word for the sake of the argument) in a different way from scientific laws.
So even if morality is objective, one cannot make such a claim, unless one has a reason to make such a claim. Where is the evidence for objective morals?
The only evidence I can think of is a feeling of general disgust and aversion to a particular act like murder or stealing, for example (but this near universal revulsion towards these very elementary immoral acts can be explained by evolutionary theory).
However where it comes to societal institutions such as human sacrifice, slavery, etc, different societies and cultures have had completely different feelings about whether such acts are good or evil.
Because the evidence for objective moral values can only come from how humans naturally ‘feel’ about certain acts, the fact that humans in different parts of the planet have such variation in what they hold to be moral or immoral would be an argument against objective moral values.
And you cannot say that objective moral values exist because God exists. I believe the argument theists use is objective moral values exist, therefore God exists.
So where is your evidence that objective moral values do exist?
By the way, I apologise for my tone in past correspondences. I have never studies philosophy and it is great to engage with someone who is obviously very clued up in the field.
I agree but I dont think Craig disagrees with this either you’ll note from what he said he grants animals feels pain what he suggests is they are not aware they are in pain, that is they dont have self awareness. Incidently, I dont know that Craig things animal pain is due to the fall he is not a literal creationist so its quite likely he doesn’t think this. So I dont think there is any rebuttal of his views in your comments.
Not clear to me this is correct, suppose for the sake of argument a friend tells me he saw a cat in a room, his friend said there was no cat but a dog, another tells me he saw a bird not a cat, and another says there was nothing. I am curious as to who was right. So I look into the room and clearly see a cat and conclude my first friend was right and the others are mistaken. This does not seem obviously mistaken to me.
Second, Moreover, I think this objection runs into logical difficulty which I have spelt out before here: if its irrational to assume my belief is correct and assume that all the others are unreliable then any stance I take will be irrational, if I say there is a nothing in the room then by denial is contradicted by the claims of who claim to have seen something different and so I am assuming all of them are unreliable. So If I suspend judgement I will again be contradicting something they all claim to have seen and so asserting a stance which entails they are all unreliable and so on.
I agree, many were probably theists before they go in, so they may not have become convinced by doing Philosophy of religion. However the point is that those who do philosophy of religion don’t seem to abandon theism in large numbers. So whatever there reasons for being Theists before going in its not the case that they find the sceptical arguments against theism so compelling they give theism up. You could say this is just because 80% of those who study it are irrational or gullible, but that’s an implausible thing to say about a group of professional philosophers many whom are known to be highly skilled and intelligent philosophers in other areas.
Moreover whats also interesting is the response of atheist philosophers of religion. The leading athiests in the field such as William Rowe for example and Graham Oppy tend to advocate what’s called friendly atheism they maintain that while they think atheism is true one can rationally and intelligently be a theist, they don’t think there own case is so compelling that no intelligent informed person could think otherwise. So the picture painted by Dawkins is almost at odds with the consensus of both sides of the debate in the field rejected by both theist and atheist philosophers. That should give scientists who don’t work in the field pause.
I disagree, I ( like majority of ethicists) maintain that moral claims are objective in the same way.
When a person says the world is spherical they make a claim about the earth and state it has a the property of being a sphere.
When a person says rape is wrong they make a claim about rape and state it has the property of being wrong. Both claims are either true or false in virtue of the facts. The world is round if the earth in fact has the property of being a sphere and rape is wrong if rape in fact has the property of wrongness.
Similarly if a culture believes the world is flat no matter who sincere they are they are mistaken. If a culture believes raping women is not wrong no matter how sincere they are they are mistaken..
This actually is not correct, If I cannot believe P unless I have a reason to believe it I end up in a regress. I believe P on the basis of facts Q and R, and I believe Q and R on the basis of fact S and T and I believe T on the basis of….. In there end there has to be a terminus where we are immediately away of truths independently of any reasons we have for them. They will be truths which are inutively or immediately obvious.
However the point is that those who do philosophy of religion don’t seem to abandon theism in large numbers.
That’s not saying much, most people are pretty much consistent in their belief systems throughout life —maybe their beliefs evolve, but not radically change. And would I be correct to assume that many in the philosophy of religion field are there to confirm their prior belief systems and also out of a desire to be apologists for their faith?
So the picture painted by Dawkins is almost at odds with the consensus of both sides of the debate in the field rejected by both theist and atheist philosophers.
Dawkins is not wrong —-he rightly points out the follies of faith and how what he sees is the damage out there in human society. Philosophers at universities engaging in civilized academic debates about the first cause of the universe is far from representative of how faith actually plays out in society, and the nutbar Islamic and Christian fundamentalists that abound throughout the world.
Its like saying that communism cannot be attacked because of its supposedly disastrous consequences in human society, and that it should be assumed a rational ideology simply on account of the fact that you have civilized Marxist leaning professors at universities who are highly intelligent and engage in civilized debate?
A couple of things.
First its actually extremely common for people (outside philosophy of religion) to give up there religious faith when they come to university and are exposed to critical arguments and academic work against their faith. I believe in fact around 70% of students with a religious belief give it up in university. So the “most people” claim here is not really true in this context.
Second, with in this context, we are not talking about most people. Who spent most of their life relatively immune from sceptical arguments against their position and who don’t put huge premium on philosophical argument or who are sloppy and careless in assessing the force of arguments. Here we are talking about people remaining consistent in their beliefs while they spent their life studying the most sceptical arguments there are against their position and also in a context where those who did the study were philosophers and so people who were experts at analysing such arguments and assessing their force and people who pay more attention to the value of careful argumentation than most of the population. It would also occur in a context where probably the most intelligent and able critics of their beliefs were pushing the arguments on the other side.
If the arguments are powerful and so compelling that no rational person could believe in God then in this context it would be extremely unlikely that , 80% of the field would maintain belief and extremely unlikely that the athiests would hold to “friendly atheist positions.”.
Sorry Dawkins is wrong, his attempts at addressing the philosophical questions are laughable. Moreover his discussion of the history of religion and sociology of religion are not much better. He is trained in neither and his knowledge of religion is poor. This is almost the consensus of reviews of his book.
What you see is biologists and physicists, people not trained in philosophy or theology or the humanities, praising his work when the work is not in the field of science.
This assumes the historical narrative about religion being the cause of violence and war and suppressing science and so on is accurate. Unfortunately you’ll find that this narrative ( popular in the 19th century) is also no longer widely believed in history. Historians no longer talk of a “dark ages” people like Edward Grant have rejected the picture of the middle ages as backward and violent. The conflict thesis about science suppressing religion is in tatters amougst serious historians of science. The stories about a flat earth, Galileo, Copernicus have shown to be false to the history. The picture of the Inquistion and witch hunts have shown to be extremely exaggerated and not the simple picture painted and so on.
But there are deeper issues here: First, suppose its true a belief has in historical contexts caused suffering. Does that mean its false? Here you seem to be basing what you believe on the basis of what is helpful or useful not what is true. Second, your position is incoherent because I have just had a thread where you were rejecting there were objective moral claims.
So what we have is someone claiming religious groups are responsible for great evil and yet denies there is such thing as evil. That I am afraid is ridiculous
A final thing Wayne, when I was in the US recently I spent some time with some professors from oxford university. They told me that there was some consternation at Oxford that Dawkins was being considered a bone fide professor in science. The pointed out three things .
First, Dawkins has never had a professorship in science, in the US the word professor is used of anyone who is a lecturer but in the European system a professor is someone with a protesgious chair. Due to this ambiguity in terms Dawkins had been promoted in the US as a professor in science.
Second, they pointed out that the chair Dawkins does hold is in education, it’s a chair not in science but the public promotion of science.
Third, they told me, what I did not know, that his chair had in fact been purchased for him by an atheist charity. A prominent atheist businessman had approached oxford and paid for him to have this chair it was not granted on the basis of academic merit.
Now this does not mean Dawkins arguments are unsound, but it does suggest strongly that his credentials have been exaggerated, also I am willing to beat that if these things were true of William Lane Craig then you and other athiests would shout it from the roof tops. Its worth reflecting on whether you are just being arbitrary and one sided in some of your claims.
Great article! Thanks!
Quickly about Dawkins, obviously I am unaware of how he is touted in the US, but it has always been widely known that he as the first holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. In fact I think it is even stated in most of his books.
Obviously some will interpret this or unwittingly call him a professor of science, but I would hardly think there is any genuine fraud or wilful misrepresentation going on here.
Fair enough
And for the record William Lane Craig is a research professor at Talbot school of Theology.
He has two doctorates one in Theology done under Wolfart Pannenberg another in Philosophy under John Hick. He has published over thirty books and over a hundred peer reviewed journal articles. His work on the cosmological argument is something of a classic and is the most widely discussed work in philosophy of religion. He is also former president of the philosophy time society. Dawkins was also informed of this by Dr Daniel Came a philosopher professor at oxford before he made public statements that “no philosopher he had consulted had heard of him” and that he was a professional debater.
Don’t get me wrong, I criticise some of things Craig does and he has publicly criticized something’s I have written. , and I think his work in ethics ( of which almost none is published) for example is considerably less impressive than his work on the issue of God and time. But the picture some skeptics paint is simply untrue.
….which I have spelt out before here: if its irrational to assume my belief is correct and assume that all the others are unreliable then any stance I take will be irrational…
I have heard it argued that the huge number of contradictory faiths in the world, does in itself not logically imply that one of these faith systems cannot be true, and the others false.
That is true. Among the hundreds, or thousands of believe systems in the world, perhaps only one is true. Of course that is not logically impossible.
But it could at the same time be argued that the plethora of faith systems, makes it more unlikely, to the impartial outsider looking in, that any particular faith system is true.
If 5 random people reported to me that they all saw a dog in a room, then I would consider the likelihood of a there actually being a dog in the room vastly higher than if person 1 reported seeing a cat, person 2 a rat, person 3 a dog, and person 4 a tiger.
Considering the latter case, I would, without closer examination of the details, have to make a guess that there was only a 20% probability that what was in the room (if in fact an animal was in the room at all), was a dog.
Now going back to religious faith, if we assume that God is all loving, and truly desires that as many people, if not all, come to him, then to my mind it would be unlikely that God reveals himself in the only legalistically correct way to a small percentage of those people who have transcendental or mystical or whatever experiences happens to induce religious certainty, and that only that small group has it right for salvation, while the others who have similar religious feelings and certainty are not saved because they were unlucky enough to be born into the wrong belief system.
So in all likelihood, if God does exist, and he is all loving and loves every single human being that has ever existed, then it is highly likely that most religions or faith systems (not necessarily all) contain some grain of truth to genuine seekers of goodness, because the spirit (or whatever you call it) would hardly be there to fool people who have a genuine desire for God.
Of course, if God does not exist, then the wide variety of religious experiences and beliefs around the world can easily be explained as entirely what would be expected, that peoples brains hallucinate and belief systems evolve in their own peculiar cultural contexts.
Either of the two possibilities above would seem to rule out Christian particularism.
“First, suppose its true a belief has in historical contexts caused suffering. Does that mean its false? Here you seem to be basing what you believe on the basis of what is helpful or useful not what is true.”
Of course it is not logically impossible that that particular belief is false. One could argue that it is not logically impossible that Satanism (assuming such a religion exists) is true, even though I am sure Satanism would wreak all sorts of havoc across the world.
But when it comes to belief systems, it is impossible to prove one is true, in the same way that one proves gravity or evolution to be true. Unless one is born into a belief system, one way to consider a faith system is to “know them by their fruits”, of course. And one is then duty bound to follow the system which has the best fruits —because spiritual truth can simply not be logically proven (if it could, everyone would believe more or less the same thing) and if it could, then it would not be spiritual.
If you came across a belief system that supported child sacrifice, I’m sure you would reject it out of hand, without trying to engage in esoteric debate on the merits of the belief system and whether it could or could not be possibly true.
There are also, marvelous and eloquent defenses of slavery from the 19th century. But am I going to consider the fact that slavery may after all may be right? Of course not.
I believe the humane, secular society, that places science as the only way to certainty, is vastly superior to societies that are centered on faith and religious belief, whether we are talking of those run by Islamic theocrats, Tibetan lamas, or Roman pontiffs.
This is of course notwithstanding the fact that the humane values of modern secular society are rooted in both Christianity and the Greek civilization, in particular the dignity of the individual.
But while I can accept that Christianity made a great contribution to Western civilization and its values, that does not mean it is not time to step aside now, or that the Bible is applicable to today’s world, or that it is true.
Modern secular civilization and the type of societies it produces (the North West European democracies, and Japan) to be vastly superior, less violent, more tolerant, than other parts of the world which are soaked in religion —in fact I posted somewhere earlier that some of the most law abiding, peaceful countries, and even most happy (refer Denmark) in the world happen also to be the most atheistic (although of course I am not saying that it is because of atheism they are they way they are, but only that it does not seem that atheism spawns the sort of immorality and nihilism that is is accused of).
In the same way one can appreciate the influence of Ancient Greece on Western civilization, that does not mean that we would want to believe or model our societies now on ancient Athens. We can look at Christianity in the same way, honour a lot of what it has given us, while at the same time having every reason to believe its supernatural elements are absurd, and even some of its ethical teachings.
That seems to avoid my question which was not wether its logically possible for Satanism to be true but what basis there is for believing the claim : If a belief has in various contexts caused suffering that belief is false.
I think in fact one can show this claim is pretty obviously false, but I am interested in hearing you justify it.
This seems to be a non sequitur, you argue we can’t prove certain belief systems they way we can prove gravity, you then suggest this means the only alternative is to follow the system with the best fruits. That however does not follow, it’s simply false that the only two options are empirical proof or pragmatism.
But second, this position seems incoherent, because to know which is the “best” fruit one all ready needs to have moral knowledge, but moral knowledge is something one cant prove the way you can prove gravity, and so one can only accept as true moral systems which have the best fruit, the problem is you need to have moral knowledge to know what is the best fruit so basically the method you spell out ends up in incoherence.
That’s not because of its “fruit” it’s because I believe the claim “its permissible to sacrifice children” is false and I think I know that’s its false. So the belief system has a false implication.
Note however in principle: if a position that entailed child sacrifice was more justified or warranted , given the evidence, than the claim that child sacrifice is wrong is warranted given the evidence then you would rationally be required to accept this belief system.
This creates serious problems for you seeing you have stated that objective moral truths such as its wrong to sacrifice children are not supported by the evidence at all.
Your basically dismissing belief systems on the basis of principles you yourself admit are unjustified.
Well If one is committed to the claim that Chattel slavery is wrong ( which I am ) then I am rationally committed to denying that these arguments are sound arguments, if they are sound arguments then there conclusions would be true.
Its interesting however what you say here, your claiming you have certain moral claims about slavery about which you are so certain that you would not even consider they are mistaken instead you would dismiss any argument against them because it is an argument against them. I agree moral claims can have this kind of high status of justification
Yet in the next paragraph you state:
Here you claim that the only way to certain is through science, But note you cant justify moral claims such as “slavery is wrong” or “sacrificing children is wrong” from science at all, and you certainly cannot get grounds for thinking these claims are highly probable or even certain.
So again all we see here is a string of contradictions, you dismiss belief statements and arguments because they conflict with moral claims you think are correct, yet your own position entails these moral beliefs are not even justified or even probable.
Moreover, note if you follow science, seeing you can justify the truth of moral claims, then it follows from this perspective that the claim “child sacrifice is wrong” is not a justified claim. Hence one should reject this claim. Hence your own position entails that child sacrifice is permissible. Above you said that if a belief statement had this implication youd dismiss it out of hand, so why don’t you dismiss this view out of hand.
Wether a belief system entails or implies nihilism is a different question as to wether those who believe the system embrace nihilism. Its quite possible for people to hold to rationally inconsistent positions. So for example you yourself seem to accept that (a) scientific evidence is the only way to gain serious knowledge and (b) you cannot prove moral claims scientifically and also (c) rely on substantive claims to moral knowledge to motivate your rejection of religion
As to the most “lawabiding countries in the world being atheistic” I think that’s a simplicitic analysis, which at least debatable see for example http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0039048 which found that there was actually correlation between certain types of religious belief and lower crime across various nations.
Also if you want to limit your examination to western European nation even then things are not so simple as you say compare for example : Denmark to Ireland http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Denmark/Ireland Ireland has lower crime and higher reports of personal happiness for example.
….which I have spelt out before here: if its irrational to assume my belief is correct and assume that all the others are unreliable then any stance I take will be irrational…
I have heard it argued that the huge number of contradictory faiths in the world, does in itself not logically imply that one of these faith systems cannot be true, and the others false.
That is true. Among the hundreds, or thousands of believe systems in the world, perhaps only one is true. Of course that is not logically impossible.
But it could at the same time be argued that the plethora of faith systems, makes it more unlikely, to the impartial outsider looking in, that any particular faith system is true.
This argument is persuasive because you limit the analysis to “religious faiths” The problem is that, if this is a good argument against Christianity it’s a good argument against every secular philosophy as well.
Its true there is a plethora of religious faiths, but that just a subset of the equally large pletora of belief systems or philosophies in the world (religious or secular) all of which contradict each other.
So if your argument is correct then, it more unlikely, to the impartial outsider looking in, that any particular philosophy is true. In which case it’s as arbitrary to believe any secular philosophy as well.
So if the vast majority of religious philosophies all called there was a God, then you consider it more likely there is a God.
Yet you despite the remain an atheist, again you show you only apply your sceptical argument to religion and then abandon them when its your own secular beliefs.
This ignores my analogy which was where you looked in the room and saw a dog.
First, Why do you assume God only reveals himself to a small percentage of people? If one believes ( as I do) that a loving and moral duties are constituted by Gods commands then anyone who is aware of what is right and wrong is aware of Gods will. So in fact God has revealed himself to pretty much everyone.
Second, you seem to think God desires that all people “come to him” means he wants all people to simply believe in him. But that’s not correct what God wants in Christian theology is for all people to follow him in a path of moral transformation and development. There seems to me little reason for God to make it plain that he exists to everyone apart from this.
Third, in fact most people historically and today believe God exists, so in fact knowledge he exists appears widely known.
The same argument can be given for nihilism, the diversity of moral beliefs suggest brains hallucinate that there exist moral duties and these evolve in there own peculiar contexts.
Yet in the last post I responed to you denied atheism had nihilistic implications, again you contradict yourself adopting a sceptical argument as sound when it suits your rejection of God and then claiming its not sound when the same argument leads to a rejection of atheism. This is not a rationally justified position it’s a contrived position.
Paul B “would you agree that the resurrection of Jesus after three days of being clinically dead is, according to the best Scientific knowledge and verifiable evidence available to us to date, impossible?”
I would agree that on the basis of science it is impossible, that’s why it’s called a miracle. And why we don’t believe science is the only way to describe reality. It is very good at describing physical realities but we contend that there is more than physical reality. Just because it is inexplicable to science does not make it irrational any more than a three dimensional object is irrational to one in a “two dimensional world”
@ Kerry
My perspective concerning rational or irrational belief related specifically to myself.
I personally find a belief in the resurrection of Jesus after three days of being clinically dead irrational as according to the best Scientific knowledge and verifiable evidence available to us to date, that would be an impossible event.
Obviously, you and anyone else are completely entitled to hold such a belief as you see it as a miracle.
As I’ve tried to explain previously, my atheistic perspective does not expect to convince others that they should hold the same view, but like Matt’s original post, I’m more than happy to explain why I hold it.
Paul B I personally find a belief in the resurrection of Jesus after three days of being clinically dead irrational …
You seem to have a private interpretation of rationality which you use in a completely arbitrary manner.
To judge whether something is irrational or not means you are applying a universal standard of rationality. You may say the resurrection is unlikely or any number of things, you can even say it is impossible (according to science, which wouldn’t prove much since “impossibilities” are often found to be true, like the particle/wave understanding of light) But to say it is irrational is either misleading by negating an argument on a false basis, or you didn’t realize what irrational means. It follows that if we don’t use language the same way then dialogue becomes useless. If you relativize language to suit yourself then your arguments pro or con become impossible to contradict not because they are right but because it’s like trying to hang on to a slippery eel.
Paul, further to this, your veneration of science seems to force you to believe ” Whatever science doesn’t approve as true, cannot be counted as knowledge” The problem with this view is that all science, that is- all good science is under-girded by good philosophy. But philosophy, particularly first principles, not only aren’t proven by science they can’t be proven by science. Rationality is not proved by science. Another problem is that much of the knowledge from science is, in a technical sense, not the result of an unbroken series of purely logical steps.The principle of the uniformity of nature is arrived at, and can only be arrived at by applying an inductive argument, which David Hume, if my memory serves correctly, discounted over two hundred years ago as not strictly rational. “Hume’s analysis of induction has shown that induction is not rational, that our knowledge and expectations about the future are not based on the use of reason or logical argument.”- THE EMPIRICISTS: A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED by Professor Laurence Carlin.
Therefore to say that the resurrection is irrational on the basis that “dead bodies always stay dead” (the future will be just like the past) is to invoke the principle of the uniformity of nature which is an inductive argument not based on rationality On this basis then, it is your statement of the irrationality of the resurrection that is strictly speaking- irrational.
I would agree that on the basis of science it is impossible, that’s why it’s called a miracle. And why we don’t believe science is the only way to describe reality.
But you do. As do most Christians. Except of course when assessing the truth claims of their own religions.
Miracle claims are not uncommon, throughout history, and today. Particular among pre-modern, superstitious cultures. Of the Polynesians and Chinese I know, it is not uncommon of the older generation to have seen ghosts, and even real live dead people (my cousin saw here dead landlord and spoke to her at the foot of her bed one night). A mate of mine was in the Cook Islands (I think it was the Cooks), and he claims he was among a whole group of villagers on the beach who saw a ghostly apparition approach them from the sea.
Also as a Protestant Christian in the reformed tradition, do you accept the Marion apparitions at Fatima and Zetoun? In spite of a ton of eye witness testimony that is far more reliable than can be claimed for the New Testament?
OK —let us for the sake of argument grant the possibility of miracles.
If you do this, then you have to apply the same evidential standards to all other miracle claims, not just the New Testament claims. When you do this, miracles then become almost commonplace and the specialness of any particular one is diminished.
This argument is persuasive because you limit the analysis to “religious faiths” The problem is that, if this is a good argument against Christianity it’s a good argument against every secular philosophy as well.
But religions make particular truth claims supposedly grounded in concrete reality. Often they base knowledge on what they ‘feel’ in the heart or the testimony of some spirit or whatever. The likelihood that people actually do experience genuine spiritual feelings of awareness is high —because it is something that occurs all over the world.
Now if these feelings are induced by the one true God, then why does he give feelings to Muslims which confirms the truth of Islam in their hearts, while making Christians feel that Christianity is true, making Hindus believe in Hinduism. Is God tricking Muslims and Hindus?
So the fact that spiritual feelings confirm the truth of different contradictory religions to different people is evidence that God does not exist.
As for secular philosophies, these can be assessed solely on what is written down and claimed for them. Unlike religion, they rarely rely on belief in some hard to verify miracle, or the inner testimony in the heart of a religious adherent.
If one believes ( as I do) that a loving and moral duties are constituted by Gods commands then anyone who is aware of what is right and wrong is aware of Gods will. So in fact God has revealed himself to pretty much everyone.
Well he has certainly not revealed himself to pretty much everyone in terms of having the right knowledge for salvation, which really is the be all and end all of evangelical Christianity (as opposed to moral teachings for the betterment of society).
The likelihood that a Hindu in the middle of India will spontaneously worship Jesus in the right way, has about the same probability of an Eskimo spontaneously worshipping Shiva, in spite of never having met a Hindu.
“if theses feelings are induced by the one true God”, maybe so but this is a claim no one is making, so its a pointless argument. Further scripture teaches that “feelings” must be tested against scripture ie feelings are not a basis for belief or doctrine, many people forget this or more likely cant/wont choose obedience over how they feel.
“miracle claims” are not the same as “miracles”, and what constitutes a miracle changes with a societies capability and access to those capabilities. Who claims seeing a ghost is a miracle?
You seem to be making a whole big bunch of assumptions about what constitutes ” right knowledge for salvation” from a Christian perspective, you had better spell them out, as best as i can tell you are wrong. What has “worshipping Jesus in the right way” got to do with salvation?
As to evidential standards for miracles, i am not an RC but the RC church makes serious investigation into miracle claims by its adherents and discards most of them, they are very careful to make sure no alternative explainations are possible before officially recognising a miracle.Wrt Marion visions as best as i understand the RC position is that they are “worthy of belief” but that members are not bound to believe private revelations nor are they part of deposit of faith of the RC church. If the RCs dont insist for their own people, why would they be an issue at all for Protestants?
I am not sure that anyone considers “visions” to be “miracles”
Wayne:spiritual feelings of awareness is high —because it is something that occurs all over the world…So the fact that spiritual feelings confirm the truth of different contradictory religions to different people is evidence that God does not exist.
Interesting assumption you make here Wayne. People all over the world also have feelings of hunger does that also mean food does not exist?
People all over the world feel that 2+2=4 and they express it with different language and symbols and even if they come up with a wrong answer doesn’t negate the universality or truth of the existence of maths.
Now I better get the capcha right hadn’t I?
Wayne:let us for the sake of argument grant the possibility of miracles…then you have to apply the same evidential standards to all other miracle claims, not just the New Testament claims. When you do this, miracles then become almost commonplace and the specialness of any particular one is diminished.
Even if I granted the existence of those other miracles (which I don’t) it is not just the miracle that is important to Christianity, it is the significance attached to the miracle that far exceeds the importance of the miracle per se. Fatima may have been the object of a miracle but there were no corresponding claims on her part to be the embodiment of truth or to be the saviour of the world.
Wayne: “But you do.”[ believe science is the only way to describe reality]As do most Christians. Except of course when assessing the truth claims of their own religions.
Wayne:“I believe the humane, secular society, that places science as the only way to certainty, is vastly superior to societies that are centered on faith and religious belief, whether we are talking of those run by Islamic theocrats, Tibetan lamas, or Roman pontiffs.”
Firstly Wayne if you read my comment with a little more care, you will see that my statement re. scientific veracity is a qualified one. Of course we believe in science, and we believe in it with more justification than that required by many scientists. By that I mean theists have more reason to believe in the uniformity and intelligibility of nature than scientists who mistakenly believe that nature is all there is and therefore do not offer satisfactory accounts for all the order and intelligibility. But, because we are not only interested in physical realities we understand the limits of science, and that science itself is really only the result of philosophical truths that support and have developed the scientific method. If you are such an ardent student of science then you will be quite aware that the “big bang” is currently the best scientific explanation of our universe. The thing is, these scientists also recognize the limits of science, the fact that all scientific explanation breaks down at that singularity, the laws of nature do not apply beyond a certain point, just after that singularity occurred.
To make science the explanation for everything is to do what G.K. Chesterton spoke against when he said: “Science must not impose any philosophy, any more than the telephone should tell us what to say”
Wayne here is an example of when science tries to dictate to philosophy, Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga tackles Richard Dawkins’ “scientific” account of cognition:
“Since we have been cobbled together by (unguided) evolution, it is unlikely, he thinks, that our view of the world is overall accurate; natural selection is interested in adaptive behavior, not in true belief. But Dawkins fails to plumb the real depths of the skeptical implications of the view that we have come to be by way of unguided evolution. We can see this as follows. Like most naturalists, Dawkins is a materialist about human beings: human persons are material objects; they are not immaterial selves or souls or substances joined to a body, and they don’t contain any immaterial substance as a part. From this point of view, our beliefs would be dependent on neurophysiology, and (no doubt) a belief would just be a neurological structure of some complex kind. Now the neurophysiology on which our beliefs depend will doubtless be adaptive; but why think for a moment that the beliefs dependent on or caused by that neurophysiology will be mostly true? Why think our cognitive faculties are reliable?
From a theistic point of view, we’d expect that our cognitive faculties would be (for the most part, and given certain qualifications and caveats) reliable. God has created us in his image, and an important part of our image bearing is our resembling him in being able to form true beliefs and achieve knowledge. But from a naturalist point of view the thought that our cognitive faculties are reliable (produce a preponderance of true beliefs) would be at best a naïve hope. The naturalist can be reasonably sure that the neurophysiology underlying belief formation is adaptive, but nothing follows about the truth of the beliefs depending on that neurophysiology. In fact he’d have to hold that it is unlikely, given unguided evolution, that our cognitive faculties are reliable. It’s as likely, given unguided evolution, that we live in a sort of dream world as that we actually know something about ourselves and our world.
If this is so, the naturalist has a defeater for the natural assumption that his cognitive faculties are reliable—a reason for rejecting that belief, for no longer holding it. (Example of a defeater: suppose someone once told me that you were born in Michigan and I believed her; but now I ask you, and you tell me you were born in Brazil. That gives me a defeater for my belief that you were born in Michigan.) And if he has a defeater for that belief, he also has a defeater for any belief that is a product of his cognitive faculties. But of course that would be all of his beliefs—including naturalism itself. So the naturalist has a defeater for naturalism; natural- ism, therefore, is self-defeating and cannot be rationally believed.
The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins’ naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can’t rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.
The God Delusion is full of bluster and bombast, but it really doesn’t give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a “delusion.”
If you are’nt happy with my reference to a Christian philosopher then listen to Plantinga’s review of atheist Thomas Nagel and his book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False in which he also objects to the mantras of scientific orthodoxy: (Plantinga referrring to Nagel) Materialist naturalism, says Nagel, cannot account for the appearance of life, or the variety we find in the living world, or consciousness, or cognition, or mind—but theism has no problem accounting for any of these. As for life, God himself is living, and in one way or another has created the biological life to be found on Earth (and perhaps elsewhere as well). As for the diversity of life: God has brought that about, whether through a guided process of evolution or in some other way. As for consciousness, again theism has no problem: according to theism the fundamental and basic reality is God, who is conscious. And what about the existence of creatures with cognition and reason, creatures who, like us, are capable of scientific investigation of our world? Well, according to theism, God has created us human beings in his image; part of being in the image of God (Aquinas thought it the most important part) is being able to know something about ourselves and our world and God himself, just as God does. Hence theism implies that the world is indeed intelligible to us, even if not quite intelligible in Nagel’s glorified sense. Indeed, modern empirical science was nurtured in the womb of Christian theism, which implies that there is a certain match or fit between the world and our cognitive faculties.
Nagel rejects theism. “I confess to an ungrounded assumption of my own, in not finding it possible to regard the design alternative [i.e., theism] as a real option. I lack the sensus divinitatis that enables—indeed, compels so many people to see in the world the expression of divine purpose.” But it isn’t just that Nagel is more or less neutral about theism but lacks that sensus divinitatis. In The Last Word, which appeared in 1997, he offered a candid account of his philosophical inclinations:
I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers…. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.
Note that though he rejects the incoherence of scientific naturalism’s account of consciousness he is very honest about his own “ungrounded assumption” that theism is not a real option.
“I also wonder, however, how many of my “post-modernist” colleagues with their youth churches and really “cool” music, would have been able to have that conversation with any real meaning with the urbane elite of Auckland.”
Probably a wee bit more than in the U.S., which is so near zero as to be almost invisible. 99.9% of Christians in the U.S. are epistemologically sociopathic.
There’s three things going on at such events: sexual prowling, social/business/political climbing, and philosophical questioning. Christians, almost to a person, are simply judgmental/despairing about the first two, and either silent or logically convoluted/defensive/condescending about the third.
Unrelated, but I love how naturalists affirm this kinda thing when it suits them but suddenly abandon this when faced with problems such as how the universe came into being, where suddenly it’s perfectly rational to accept that it popped into existence uncaused from nothing.
There is no such obligation to “equally” accept other testimonies. Why does simple logic fly out the window when you try and attack Christian view points? Do you think that since some eye witness testimony is accepted as evidence in court therefore all alleged eye witness testimony everywhere is valid legal evidence? Obviously there are criterion for assessing alleged eye witness testimony to establish credence of their claims.
http://beyondallreligion.net/2012/01/21/how-christianity-was-invented/