Prof. Helmut Koester: A Reality Check for Him

Prof. Helmut Koester of Harvard Divinity School attacks The End of Biblical Studies by clinging to religionist arguments for biblical studies.

In the September/October 2008 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review (aka, BAR, pages 11-12), Prof. Helmut Koester, a retired and eminent member of Harvard Divinity School, launched an attack on my recent book, The End of Biblical Studies.

Unfortunately, Prof. Koester’s critique (which is not currently accessible on-line) is short on facts and long on routine religionist apologetics for biblical studies. He begins his critique as follows:

"Perhaps I should not be surprised that a scholar who
has advocated a Biblical nihilism and has recommended
that Biblical Studies should be ‘tasked with eliminating
completely the influence of the Bible in the modern world’
would launch an attack on the discipline of Biblical archaeology
and on a magazine that is Biblical archaeology’s
most important outlet...What would be required for such
an endeavor, however, is knowledge of the realities of
American religious life and Biblical scholarship in general,
as well as the details of the controversial issues in present
debates. Unfortunately Professor Avalos reveals a deep
ignorance in both respects."


He concludes, by saying:

"The relationship of American religious life,
Bible and scholarship is a vital and undeniable
factor in our society—especially in the United
States—however, controversial."


At once, we are introduced to one of the most common defenses of biblical studies today. That defense rests on the illusion that “the Bible” is uniquely vital and essential for Christianity and the American religious life.

Curiously, Dr. Koester seems to privilege a more traditional view of the biblical canon in his attack on my book. But his own past work shows that he did not always think that the Bible, as we currently know it, was uniquely essential or vital for Christians in all periods.

For example, in his own Introduction to the New Testament: History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), he tells us the following about other early Christian writings (Volume 1, p. xx1):

"These non-canonical works are witnesses to early Christian
history no less valuable than the New Testament."


So, why is Dr. Koester not incensed that these non-biblical witnesses are not deemed as essential and as vital for modern Christians?

In his article, “The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century,” (in W. L. Petersen, ed., Gospel Traditions in the Second Century [Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1989] p. 19) he says:

"In the late period, the Gospels were considered holy
scripture; no such respect was accorded to them
in the earliest period."


Indeed, the majority of Christians in the first two centuries did not really have what we call “The New Testament.” We know that some early Christian communities got along well with just one or a few Gospels. Jews get along just fine without the New Testament (note that, for Koester, a Christian, “Bible” includes the New Testament).

So what about the role of the Bible in modern American religious life? Here, Prof. Koester, who is an eminent biblical scholar, shows himself to be an astonishingly poor student of the modern American religious life. He offers no facts, no statistics, and no sociological studies to support his claim about American religion.

The reality is that few Americans actually read or know much about the Bible. In The End of Biblical Studies, I cited, as one example, the survey published in 2006 by Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion. It showed that 21.9% of Mainline Protestants and 33.1% of Catholics “never” read Scripture. So how “vital” is the Bible if a sizable group of Christians can get by without ever reading it?

Yes, one could argue that the Baylor survey means that the majority of Christians are reading scripture, but that also would be an illusion. Other studies show that even those who read scripture more than “never,” don’t read or apply much of it.

Prof. Michael Coogan (“The Great Gulf Between Scholars and the Pew,” in Biblical Studies Alternatively: An Introductory Reader, ed. Susanne Scholz [Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall 2003] p. 7), a former colleague of Dr. Koester, tells us: "Although the Bible is acknowledged in theory as an authority, much of it has simply been ignored."

In fact, most Christians probably use a miniscule amount of the Bible in their lives because they do not find most of it relevant. This is not just my judgment, but that of many conservative evangelical scholars and sociologists. Dr. Koester should read, for example, Josh McDowell’s The Last Christian Generation (2006) or Robert Wuthnow’s After the Baby Boomers: How Twenty-Somethings are Shaping the Future of American Religion (2007).

Dr. Koester, who has spent almost his entire academic career in a private divinity school, also is oblivious to the realities of the job market out in the real world, where most colleges are public or are afflicted with constant budget cuts. I hate to break the news to Dr. Koester, but Harvard Divinity School, my alma mater, is not a microcosm of American academia.

So, allow me to inform Prof. Koester of a few realities. The March 2008 edition of Religious Studies News, published by the American Academy of Religion, counted 152 registered positions in religious studies in 2007. In biblical studies, there were 9 primary employers and 81 candidates for positions in Hebrew Bible. There were 16 primary employers and 83 candidates for New Testament jobs.

That means a total of 139 candidates in Hebrew Bible and New Testament will not get one of those jobs even if all 25 jobs are filled. As I point out in The End of Biblical Studies, when we study closely the quality of jobs in biblical studies available, the picture goes from bad to apocalyptic.

The real scandal, and one about which Dr. Koester and Harvard Divinity School remain silent, is why even excellent job candidates with recent doctorates in biblical studies from Harvard may end up working in grocery stores or in fields outside of their doctorates. Others leave the field quietly or never finish their graduate work.

In the real world, professors of biblical studies have to explain to a dean why their positions should be retained, when a university could use another expert in biofuels or in food economics. Few colleges have the luxuries of a Harvard Divinity School, and even it finds itself struggling at times to attract students. This evident from the HDS recruiters who have visited me in the past at Iowa State University.

I am not actually certain that Dr. Koester has read my book, and he often seems to be working with extracts. That would, of course, violate a basic principle of fairness and diligent scholarship. But, if he did read it, then Dr. Koester misses the larger argument in my book, which shows that:

1) The Bible has already lost much of its influence in American religion;

2) Any influence still left is partly the result of an ecclesial-academic complex, of which Dr. Koester is himself a part, which keeps promoting the illusion that the Bible is important. Without the constant effluence of “new translations,” among other marketing devices, the Bible would probably die.

Dr. Koester may not like the fact that academic biblical studies is dying, but it won’t make the reality go away. Biblical scholars must to do more than become defensive and assert that the Bible is “vital” if they are to survive in modern academia at all.


Postscript: Dr. Koester’s critique in BAR also includes specific misreadings of my comments about Biblical Archaeology Review. Those misreadings may the subject of a future post.

112 comments:

Anonymous said...

Koester..."These non-canonical works are witnesses to early Christian
history no less valuable than the New Testament."


I was looking for the citation for this quote and couldn't find it for my book. Now I know where it is.
---------------

Let's put this into perspective. Just place studies on Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, or the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or the Mesopotamian Enuma Elish or Dante’s Divine Comedy in the same place as Biblical studies today and see what happens. There were societies which regarded these works as important for all the same reasons Koester argues on behalf of the Bible. But these studies “ended” in the same way Hector is arguing that Biblical studies should end. What’s not to understand about this? Just place what Koester is arguing for into this larger context. Biblical studies will end, and Biblical scholars only have themselves to blame, in the same way that studies for the Egyptian Book of the Dead ended!

Not that no one ever studies the Egyptian Book of the Dead, because scholars do. They just do not focus on it as the basis for our present societyy and they do not think it has anything to say about religious realities. They study such things as human documents and place an equal level of importance on these works as other works.

Sheesh!

geoffhudson.blogspot.com said...

May be the bible should be studied for the sake of establishing the true history of the period, particularly the related Roman history. And if you want to debunk Christianity and challenge the Christian debators on the professional circuit (D Bock, W L Craig, G Habermas, N T Wright et al) you have to know their game.

Incidentally, I was once very surprised to come across an expert on the DSS cleaning windows.

Harry H. McCall said...

Back when Ralph Nader published “Unsafe at Any Speed” the engineers at General Motors fired back that Nader was unqualified to evaluate the Corvair (1960 - 1969) and that this low price popular car had society’s endorsement.

In the end, GM had to face the hard facts and the production of the Corvair was finally drop as unsafe just as Nader claimed (as well as not being able to update other design factors).

In the Christian religion business, the general religious public may not want to hear that Biblical studies are basically flawed and out dated. The old engineers (Helmut Koester) in the departments of Biblical studies
(just like GM’s design engineers for the Corvair) try to deny the truth, but denial is not reality.

Just as Nader’s book signaled the end of the Corvair, so too is Hector Avalos’ book “The
End of Biblical Studies” signaling the end of the mythical “Holy Bible“.

BahramtheRed said...

Not to mention the problems that the church has in finding preists to maintain their churches. Every couple months I hear about a church closing due to lack of men of the cloth.

I really think chrisitanity is in trouble, I just hope I live long enough to see it die.

Unknown said...

I find Hector Avalos' comments a bit confusing. What exactly is a "primary employer" for candidates with degrees in Hebrew Bible studies or New Testament studies? Does he only consider positions listed in Religious Studies News?

I am a PCUSA pastor. There are 8 PCUSA seminaries all of which require professors in Old and New Testament studies. Now all of them might not be primary employers. In fact non of them may be considered primary employers because they are divinity schools. But to get a Master of Divinity you have to take Hebrew and Greek and classes in Old and New Testament.

There are also over 50 Presbyterian colleges and universities. And the PCUSA is by no means a fundamentalist or even and evangelical denomination.

Now the statistics on the deplorable lack of knowledge of the Bible are accurate. The number of teens who claim to be Christian who think that Moses was one of Jesus' disciples is shocking. But that doesn't mean that one cannot find a course in an private Christian college and learn something about the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament. In fact in many Christian colleges such courses are required.

So if one looks at a state or secular university one might find that positions for Hebrew Bible or New Testament scholars are lacking. I suspect that if one is a person of faith one will find that there are many positions open. But I will agree that there are not as many positions as there are people with doctorates.

Dr. Hector Avalos said...

Dear Pastor Bob,
The category "primary employer" is not mine.
It is a category used by the American Academy
of Religion, and so I wanted to be as accurate
as I could be in describing their job categorizations.

Usually, in posting jobs, an employer might
list a "primary field" and secondary fields
they seek in candidates. Thus, it may
mean that "Hebrew Bible" or "New Testament"
is the primary field being sought.

It does not have to do with whether a college is public, private, religious or non-religious.

I hope that clears up the confusion.

Pastor Bob said...

Dr. Avalos

Thank you for clearing that up. I think what you have proven then is that there are more people seeking doctorates in Hebrew Bible and New Testament studies than there are currently positions, not that the number of positions is shrinking. Do you have stats on shrinkage of the number of positions over the years, say since 1970?

I also think you may need to divide your class of religious colleges that you mentioned in your response to me into groups. I suspect that one has more academic freedom at, say, Princeton Seminary than one has at Liberty University. (And yes I know of the case at Westminster Seminary) Can't speak about salaries.

Pastor Bob said...

A couple other comments about your original article:

There may be other articles on this site about the process for deciding what should be included in what is now the Bible and what should not. Clearly Christians and Jews will be more interested in those that made it in than those that didn't.

As to your comments about Biblical illiteracy, you are absolutely correct. I am continually shocked at the lack of knowledge of the Bible among Christians. This was not true in the past in America.

Christians need to study the Bible. Then, of course, they might be shocked by what it actually says.

I'm not.

Dr. Hector Avalos said...

Hello, Pastor Bob,
I do provide statistical trends in The End of Biblical Studies. I also discuss the different types of colleges a bit more.

Briefly, I compared these intervals:
1996-98 and 2003-05, and I found a 43% drop
in the positons in Hebrew Bible, and a 50% drop
in NT positions. That would be 61 positions
in HB in 1996-98 compared to 35 in 2003-05;
76 positions in NT/Early Christian lit. in 1996-98 compared to 38 in 2003-05. All statistics are from the AAR.

Anonymous said...

Do you have a link for these data? The following data set shows that applications for available positions in the fields in question are very consistently outpacing them. How is it that there is a trend towards the end of a discipline when applicants are outpacing the need? It is a more competitive field now more than ever. So something is missing in the market data that Prof. Avalos appears to be using.

http://www.scu.edu/cas/religiousstudies/careers/upload/jobstats.pdf

T said...

Pastor Bob,

While I agree with you that we need more evidence to fully assess the current condition of American religiosity, Dr. Avalos is at least making an attempt to answer that question by providing data for the reader to analyze. As Dr. Avalos explained,

He offers no facts, no statistics, and no sociological studies to support his claim about American religion.

I think it is telling the Dr. Koester made no such attempt to back up his argument with any data. Indeed, might it be just as Avalos argues, that American religiosity is on a significant decline? I don't know for sure because I have not seen enough relevant data to fully assess either way.

Which statement do you believe is best supported by your own observations (just as a guess):

1. American (US) religiosity is significantly increasing (faster than its decrease or those abandoning the faith).
2. American religiosity is significantly decreasing (faster than its increase new or returning converts).
3. American religiosity is currently currently stable, neither growing nor diminishing.

I chose the term religiosity because it encompasses more than just attendance or people of the books. As you know, many denominations count their church size, not by attendance, but by their membership, regardless of attendance.

I would argue that we are constantly becoming more secular as a society, even in the church. What does it mean if religiosity is decreasing inside of our churches as well as outside. For example the number of Christians who believe that the creation story in Genesis is myth polls around 60% and the number who believe in evolution polls around 40%. When I was in seminary, polls were indicating that only 5% of the US population was atheist, and now its 12-15%? Is there a sampling error where somehow the atheists are being over represented? No, I think rather with the internet becoming a significant medium in the spread of knowledge, and because of the anonymity is provides, people are learning that there are alternative choices to mainstream.

Final thought: I have read Dr. Avalos' book and it makes a strong case against Christianity, and to a lesser extent Judaism and Islam. However, it does not argue that theism is faulty per se, but rather I think the book encourages using empirical evidence and logic to support beliefs, as opposed to dogma, tradition, and emotion.

Anonymous said...

The secularization theory in sociology of religion has long since not been supported by the data.

The Pew data supports the hypothesis that while Americans are less dogmatic overall in their mode of belief, actual belief in God as evidence of religiosity is not trending downward in any significant manner.

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

To be sure, the US is not the center of Christianity as it once was. However, there is no sign that religion is fading from the public square as an area that is, certainly in comparison to Europe, a significant factor in the lives of most people. This is why the secularization hypothesis from the 1960's and 1970's has failed.

Dr. Hector Avalos said...

Dear Drew,
I have already analyzed many of these trends. The data come from Religious Studies News, which
is on the AAR website, which is restricted
to members. If you are member, you can look
them up yourself.

But look at Drew's own data set, which shows the following job openings in Hebrew Bible in these years:

1996: 27
1997: 20
1998:14
1999:15
2000:18
2001:21
2002:15


If the numbers of open positions are clearly trending downward from 1996 to 2002, then how is that healthy? There are FEWER jobs in 2002 compared to 1996? Is that good? Statisticians
would call that a DECLINE.

The fact that we have so many candidates is not a good thing for candidates. That means more people who worked many years and paid for a PhD will not get a job in the preferred field. Could Drew explain how that is good for those going into this
field?

What that shows is that we are still producing too many PhDs for very few jobs.

And the picture is worse because Drew is not really showing the quality of the jobs. Very few of those jobs are at higher paying public institutions. Some jobs are part-time or adjunct positions, etc.

You can see this by looking at the job listings one-by-one in any particular year. If you go to the AAR website, go and look at what specific institutions are hiring.

And who in computer science or biomedical
fields would think it HEALTHY that there
are 27 jobs (the highest number for Hebrew
Bible) in Drew's data set?

You don't judge the health of a field by
the number of candidates it is pumping out,
but by the numbers of jobs that there are
for those candidates.

Otherwise, all you are producing are jobless
people with a PhD, or people who end up
working in fields for which they were not
trained. That in itself will cause fewer people
to go into those fields eventually.

Pastor Bob said...

I think the questions in surveys may skew the answers. Simply asking if people believe in God doesn't tell us much. For that matter asking how many people believe they are born again doesn't tell us much unless there is a clear definition of what it means to be born again.

What I do know is that statistics for attendance at worship are faulty. If you ask people if they attended worship last week you get a figure of around 40%. But if you ask churches how many attended last week the figure is closer to 20%. So if religiousity is measured by worship attendance it's pretty low.

I don't think asking whether Genesis 1 is literally true or not tells us much about religiousity although it may tell us how people read the Bible now as compared to how they did say 75 years ago.

Anonymous said...

These are available positions. It says nothing of the health of the discipline. Sure there are many many more openings in the sciences, but that is nothing new. If biblical studies was on its way out, we would also see a decline in PhD's awarded and that is just not true.

All you are showing is that biblical studies is a smaller field that is continuing to pump out research and scholars at a rate higher than available positions at divinity schools since that is where most of these positions will be found. To say that is is predictive of any trend towards any end of biblical studies is a clear error.

Anonymous said...

One more thing. This argument is old hat. After all, by the predictions of Flexner and others at the beginning of the 20th century, liberal arts education should be gone. This is an old argument that has never panned out and there is no reason to believe that it will pan out now.

Dr. Hector Avalos said...

Dear Drew,
I actually think it is worse because you
are assuming all of those positions are
equal in pay, job security, etc. They are
not. A lot of those jobs advertised in the
AAR are at small colleges, whose budget
is often volatile, and the positions are temporary.

Most economists I know measure the health
of any industry by how many jobs are being
created, not by how many unemployed
persons are being created.

As your own data set indicates, there were
27 job openings in Hebrew Bible in 1996,
and in 2002 there were 15. In 2007 there
were 9. How you can say that is GREAT
is beyond me.

And how you can say that it is great to pump out
more PhDs for fewer jobs is beyond me.

There is a huge trend towards temporary
and part-time positon that is besetting
all of academia. Technology and budget
cutting is forcing a newer business model
that will affect and is affecting the liberal
arts already.

The Liberal Arts are nothing like they were
even 50 years ago.

I am not sure you have ever taught at a big
public university, but the concerns there are real.
If you want a larger and more thorough discussion
of the monumental changes that are happening
(not just predicted), you might read: J. H.
Schuster and Martin J. Finkelstein, The American
Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic Work
and Careers (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University,2006).

I also critique some aspects of Schuster's predictions for religious studies in my book.

T said...

Drew,

Excellent link you provided. I don't have time to research it out right now, but do you know of any links to similar data, so we can make comparisons, say over the last 20-30 years? I would be especially interested to learn what has happened since Al Gore invented the internet. ;) I know, I know, George Bush Jr gave us the internets.

I think what was more interesting to me in the link you provided was that only 60% professed a belief in a personal god. I am extremely curious about the 25% that believe in an impersonal god and how they realistically view this. I graduated from a seminary that would have considered belief in an impersonal god as equivalent of non-belief (lost in need of "finding" God). To me, that position is overkill, but I do think it would be helpful to understand more about that demographic's understanding of who their "impersonal god" is.

Also, what has the internet done to belief?

I think when answering this question, one has to see the internet in developmental stages as well. For example, the "blog" and "you tube" have both been revolutionary in the dissemination of information on the internet. These mediums have been profound all by themselves, consider separately from the internet as a whole. Also, the access to books via Amazon.com (and similar sites) may be not given enough credit because there was previously easy access to books via Barnes and Noble or your local library. However, because of how or society has interfaced with the internet, I would guess that more books than ever are being purchased. I don't know, just a guess.

On the other side of research, I finished a BS in the late 90's and a MS in 2000. Even for the MS, most of my research was off-line. Though online journals were becoming popular, less than half of the available journals had made it online. I finished a PhD in 2005 and I did 100% of my research online, if you consider that the books I ordered was done online. All of the journals I needed access to were readily available. I still purchase access to online journals, but I view this as prohibitively expensive for many people. I hope this changes and costs are lowered for access to online journals. Most people don't see the benefit from gathering their research through peer-reviewed sources unless they have had graduate training. I hope that with peer-reviewed journals going on-line that undergrad professors are requiring there students to use them. However, I recognize that there is probably a cut-off point in terms off what "grade-level" the typical peer-reviewed journal is written at--which may vary from journal to journal and topic.

I do know that religiosity correlates negatively with IQ. Also, we know that IQ has been raising by approximately 3% per decade (research cited previously here on DC, and I'll find the link if you want me to). To me, this would suggest that there should be a decrease in religiosity proportional to the increase in intelligence.

Anecdotally, I have become much less religious as my education has gone up. And half of my education was in theology.

T said...

Drew wrote,

One more thing. This argument is old hat

Around here, that's a compliment! (see John W. Loftus' picture at the top of the page for reference)

BahramtheRed said...

I think Drew is saying that from an employers perspective the increase of PhDs is good. The feild has become more competitive and that only the best of the best get the jobs.

I think that on the whole it's a bad thing, but one group gets to enjoy it.

NBM said...

Dr. Avalos,

Once again you strike with an unparalled unbalance and as I read your material I am beginning to better understand your evaluation process. For instance, in refuting Prof. Koester's statement regaring the bible in modern America's religious life, you stated the following from your book:

"I cited, as one example, the survey published in 2006 by Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion. It showed that 21.9% of Mainline Protestants and 33.1% of Catholics “never” read Scripture. So how “vital” is the Bible if a sizable group of Christians can get by without ever reading it?"

Then, because EVERYONE reading that statment knows that your percentages when inverted disprove what you are arguing, you state:

"Yes, one could argue that the Baylor survey means that the majority of Christians are reading scripture, but that also would be an illusion. Other studies show that even those who read scripture more than “never,” don’t read or apply much of it.

This totally CHANGES the complete argument in one fell swoop. You revert to "other studies" and those who read scripture "more than never" don't "read or apply MUCH of it"...So in essence you simply change Prof. Koester's argument to say what you want it to say by inventing a NEW argument that he didn't present.

That's not good Professor.

Then you say this, "Any influence [In by the bible upon American religion]still left is partly the result of an ecclesial-academic complex, of which Dr. Koester is himself a part, which keeps promoting the illusion that the Bible is important. Without the constant effluence of “new translations,” among other marketing devices, the Bible would probably die."

Now. so far as study is concerned I will have to aggree based on the most recent numbers:

"Only one in seven Americans report an involvement that goes beyond just reading the Bible. Fourteen percent of Americans currently belong to a Bible study group"~ Gallup, "Six in Ten Americans Read Bible at Least Occasionally

With that said to assume that the "Bible influence" would die if it weren't for people like Koester and marketing campaigns is very much an overstatement.

I had not heard of Koester before BAR and your retort, and I've NEVER bought or purchased a bible based on a marketing scheme. What's more in 27 years of ministry and travel to many parts of the country, I know of noone who EVER bought a bible for those "smart marketing" reasons either.

So far as professors in religious studies, I'll leave that to you and those more involved in the scene currently. This seems to be an interesting topic.

Once again, thanks for your observations but the Bible will live and continue to influence America greatly with or without you or me.

Richard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Richard said...

Wow! Avalos must be of the extreme left, if he finds such great argument in reference to this topic with a man who is the protege of Rudolph Boltmann!

Anonymous said...

Finkelstein is on my dissertation committee so I have been there and done that.

Regarding the data to which I linked it is the number of available positions that is decreasing. Spinning it as you have with this, "It showed that 21.9% of Mainline Protestants and 33.1% of Catholics “never” read Scripture" we could argue that it means a decrease in unemployment which is good.

Not what I would argue with the data because I am not sure that's really what it shows. But again, it shows that there is demand for the discipline. Look at it from an economics perspective - demand for good and services is never bad.

And again, you have to look at the data for the glut of part time employment for faculty behavior. For profit and comminity colleges drive that number up as well as large public university systems. I am not arguing in those samples since it is obvious that biblical studies took a back seat a very long time ago. It's not helpful, therefore to look there to see how the discipline is trending.

So you have to look at how it is fairing in the markets it actually serves and that is in religiously-affiliated schools (which have had healthy enrollments over the past 20 years that outpace other secular liberal arts institutions), divinity schools, and bible colleges/universities. That's where the markets for biblical studies are and those are the areas that inform the health of the profession.

But again, there is nothing in the data you have provided to suggest that it can predict a demise of biblical studies.

T said...

Nbm wrote,

Then, because EVERYONE reading that statment knows that your percentages when inverted disprove what you are arguing

HA! Do you imagine that the questionnaire might have looked like this:

How frequently do you read the Bible outside of church

1. Never
2. Seldom
3. 1-3 times a year
4. More than once a month
5. More than once a week
6. Daily

Or perhaps it was done on a Likert scale as follows. One a scale of 1 to 5 with one being never and 5 being daily, how often do you read your Bible?

However, to say that one can simply "invert" the data Avalos provided and say that 78% of Protestants and 67% of Catholics read their Bibles is being short-sighted as to its meaning, just as Avalos rightly points out. As I demonstrated above, of those 78 and 67 percents, how frequently do they read their Bible? This is why Dr. Avalos calls the "inversion" of this data an illusion. And no, he did not introduce a new argument to explain the Dr. Koester's data away, he simply goes back to the original argument presented in his book. Nbm wrote,

So in essence you simply change Prof. Koester's argument to say what you want it to say by inventing a NEW argument that he didn't present.

Dr. Avalos goes back to his original argument he presented in his book by discussing the average Christian's ignorance of the Bible and their lack of application of its teachings to their lives. When Christians are asked basic questions about the stories contained in the Bible, they are on average unable to present with much knowledge. The amount that Christians claim to read the Bible (just like church attendance) versus the amount they actually do are separate numbers. Which I believe the truth is reflected in their lack of knowledge of the Bible.

So, Nbm, what percentage of Christians do you believe are familiar with the stories in the Old and New Testament?

Then you go on to write,
I had not heard of Koester before BAR and your retort, and I've NEVER bought or purchased a bible based on a marketing scheme. What's more in 27 years of ministry and travel to many parts of the country, I know of noone who EVER bought a bible for those "smart marketing" reasons either.

Anecdotal ignorance is not an argument. I have a hard time believing you have read Dr. Avalos' book, The End of Biblical Studies. I for one, agree with his assessment that the representation of the Bible as being solidly backed by historical and archeological data to be highly fallacious. This is why he states that individuals such as Dr. Koester are wrongly keeping the bible alive by making only discussion the data that appears to validate its worth and leaving out the very damaging data. If there were greater dissemination of the problems with Biblical scholarship, it would be the "end of biblical studies." The assumption is that when the average person is presented with the data he outlines in his book, he or she will make the decision to abandon the Bible as an infallible or wholly inspired text. How will this dissemination of knowledge happen if scholars are only willing to present one side and they ignore the problems?

Now, I do view biblical nihilism as being overly optimistic, but what would happend if the majority of Christians were required to read Dr. Avalaos' book? How many of them would agree with his ultimate conclusion that the Bible should not be regarded as a uniquely special text with the authority to guide and shape our lives? Could that knowledge put Christianity out of business. I, like Dr. Avalos, think you are part of the "World is Round" mind frame. You are supporting you belief through popular support, but ultimately empirical knowledge and logic will prevail.

As a side note, I personally do not believe that all of the Bible is uninspired. Some of it is very inspiring. My favorite writing of all writings is 1 Cor 13, where love is placed higher than faith. I have lots of love, lots of hope, but very little faith. Please introduce me to anyone who passes the "faith of a mustard seed test" so that I can determine the usefulness of faith. You might be able to say that you have the faith of a mustard seed, but I have yet to met anyone who has demonstrated it.

T said...

Drew wrote,

Finkelstein is on my dissertation committee so I have been there and done that.

So, this statement of yours is an affirmation that you have indeed read his book, The American
Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic Work and Careers
?

I know that I did not read the majority of the publications of any of the professors on my committee.

Secondly, what did you think of Dr. Avalos' book, The End of Biblical Studies? Since you have two master degrees and apparently are ABD on your PhD, I would definitely appreciate your thoughts.

Anonymous said...

I did read that. And looked at the data in a few of his presentations.

I have not read Avalos' book. I will look for it at the library however.

Mr. Gordon said...

Dr. Avalos
I would like to ask you a question. Why should I listen to you? You are an atheist studying the bible. That is like a creationist studying evolution. Both would have an agenda that they were following. If I want to know about the bible in America I would not ask an atheist. You say that no one reads the bible. You say that it is an illusion that people are reading the bible. You also think the bible has no influence on America. Of course you believe these things you’re an atheist and you have an automatic bias against the Bible and against religion. Are your statements really based on facts or are they just conjectures. Are you only looking at the information that fits your assumptions and rejecting that information that does not fit into your assumptions; for instance the poll done by Baylor that you quote. So once more why should I listen to anything you say?

Harold

Harry H. McCall said...

Harold, for your information, atheism has absolutely nothing to do with the “truth” of a faith based Bible. Unlike in religion, truth for an atheist is based on objective facts and NOT dogmas drawn form faith and trust.

Here is an example that I have personally done myself at some conservative and Southern Baptist churches. I enjoy doing this since churches are always looking for new members.

I attend a Sunday school class where there is an open discussion of, lets say Genesis, and all I have to do is simply draw the class attention to the details of the Biblical pericope under study. I do this usually by pointing to the context of its ancient Near Eastern setting (the Hebrew Bible in its context), the problems of its interpretation, that is the un-pointed / non vowel text with the Masoretic text (MT), the MT text with the versions / Hexapla of the LXX (Greek), then finally both the Hebrew (MT) text and that of the LXX with that of the Aramaic Targums (especially the anti-anthromorphic Yahweh and interpretative tendencies of this translation (much like Philo)).

How is my complex presentation done? Simple; just use the popular Hebrew text of BHS and note its Critical Apparatus or, if it’s a study in the new Testament, I use the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament 4 edition along with Metzger’s “A Textual Commentary on the Greek N.T.” 2 ed.

By working in the context of the general Semitic world or the Greco-Roman world and engaging in a discussion of the development of doctrine in the Christian tradition, I can break apart most any denominational dogmatic faith by giving what you and your Christian counter parts either hid or don’t know yourselves: That is reality!

Yes, after I have done this, I have been asked to either sit and listen or leave. But when I have asked the class and teacher if I have been rude, unethical, immoral, LIED (your point), or not fully explained my position / facts; they can only respond that I have used FACTS to hurt people’s faith.

So Harold, we don’t need to lie. All we need to do is give you Christians a reality check and your simple faith must then deal with the facts. As such, a good objective Biblical education is the catalyst which kills any dogmatic faith.

Do atheist need to lie to defeat conservative Christianity? No, just educate the “Bible Believing” Christians and then watch them struggle to gain control of their faith if indeed they can!

So Harold, just why should anyone believe you and the rest of your kind. You have either lied to gain and keep members or you have been totally ignorant of the facts!

Anonymous said...

Harold said, "Why should I listen to you? You are an atheist studying the bible. That is like a creationist studying evolution."

So you don't think that atheists should study the bible?(How do you expect them to find salvation?) And how could a creationist not benefit from studying evolution (the correct form of it, that is)?

Apparently you think people on both sides are better of staying ignorant. (A typical christian point of view.)

You want to know why you should believe the good doctor's conclusions but nobodys asking you to believe anything.

Actually, its just the opposite...

tom said...

I would like to ask you a question. Why should I listen to you? You are an atheist studying the bible. That is like a creationist studying evolution. Both would have an agenda that they were following.

Harold -
Here's a simpler reply than Harry's: the assumptions underlying your questions show a lack of understanding of the implicit rules of rational discourse.

To be more specific...
You seem to think that being an atheist (and carrying any biases that might result from a belief in the nonexistence of God) disqualifies someone from being able to make a good argument about the Bible. This is a bad assumption.
Of course we all have biases, and we are all in danger of being motivated by those biases. But the question of motivation is distinct from the question(s) of the soundness and validity of an argument. The purpose of rational discourse is to allow us to weigh evidence and arguments without allowing bias to continue to occupy its place on one side of the scale.

Thus - back to your own example - the creationist is not dismissed simply because he is motivated by religious beliefs. He is dismissed because he makes bad arguments for his position. It is conceivable that a creationist could be motivated by his religious biases and still make a genuine contribution to science - even one that conforms to those biases. If Einstein had been motivated by a bizarre and irrational deep seated childhood hatred of the concept of "ether", that would not ipso facto invalidate the theory of relativity. So while it is sometimes instructive to consider someone's motivations, it is important that you keep that question separate from the question of whether someone has presented good evidence for a claim.

Your post fails to keep those questions separate. You say that Avalos believes X, Y & Z because he is an atheist. Maybe. But that puts the cart before the horse: you can claim that his biases are his motivation after you've shown that his arguments don't hold up. Otherwise, we may as well say that no one ever has any right to present any argument on any topic about which he holds any opinions. That would be an unfortunate state of affairs.

Finally, you should be careful with your use of rhetorical questions:
Are you only looking at the information that fits your assumptions and rejecting that information that does not fit into your assumptions (?)

Assume this is a sincere question: All Avalos has to say is "no", and suddenly your entire post is irrelevant.
Assume it's is a rhetorical question: You need a basis for your accusation. Otherwise, you're back to putting the cart before the horse.

Dr. Hector Avalos said...

Toby,
You have written an excellent response, and that
saved me a bit of time. But the main point is
that Koester's claim of the vitality of the Bible
is not borne out by the actual amount of the Bible
that people are reading even when they do report
reading it.

Drew misses the fact that my argument in
The End of Biblical Studies is much larger than
the employment statistics. It involves historical
as well as ethical considerations.

But one more item that Drew should keep in mind is the new downsizing trends that are affecting all of academia. One example can be found at
Washington State University's "Academic
Prioritizaton" plan, which may be found at:

http://academic-prioritization.wsu.edu/decisions/

The first item reads:
"Conduct a university-wide course audit with the goal of reducing the number of undergraduate and graduate courses offered across the university. Reductions will vary across programs, but should total approximately 20% university-wide."

If other universities start applying such strategies,
then small programs (and usually religious studies
programs are small), will be very vulnerable.

Anonymous said...

Again, you are focusing on a part of the market that I don't have an argument with.

To re-post this bit from above:

"So you have to look at how it is fairing in the markets it actually serves and that is in religiously-affiliated schools (which have had healthy enrollments over the past 20 years that outpace other secular liberal arts institutions), divinity schools, and bible colleges/universities. That's where the markets for biblical studies are and those are the areas that inform the health of the profession."

All the figures I have researched show quite clearly that these markets are stable.

Dr. Hector Avalos said...

Dear Drew,
I think you are overlooking my comments on
the great differentials in the quality of "Biblical Studies" programs, which I discuss in the End
of Biblical Studies.

If you look at what some small religious colleges call "Biblical Studies," they are not that far above introductory courses. These are not centers of "biblical studies" where new research is being done or which has faculty that are publishing much
that is new in biblical studies.

You are overlooking the closure of prominent biblical/NE archaeology programs such as that of W.G. Dever at the University of Arizona.

So, instead of having to recapitulate all the sections and chapters in my book, it is probably best at this point for you to read the book, and come back with a more informed evaluation of where job statistics fit in the larger argument about the end of biblical studies.

Anonymous said...

I will read your book, but I think that the categories you are setting up for variables we might call "biblical literacy" as a predictor of the influence of the bible in Christianity, the nature of a "biblical studies" program, etc. are setting up a skewed representation of what the data actually tells us. Like in Burtchaell's book where the category of a religious college he has set up makes such a very constrained set of criteria for what would constitute a Christian college that many colleges with decidedly Christian convictions are excluded from his framework.

On the one hand you want to include undergraduate studies in biblical studies from secular research I institutions which have no doubt been continually marginalized since the last decade of the 19th c. On the other hand you are now wanting to exclude those same programs at religiously-affiliated colleges, universities and bible colleges that have much larger religion and theology departments based on core curriculum requirements for bible and religion! Seems like an arbitrary exclusion to me since including these proportionately much larger programs (think Baylor, Notre Dame, and every college in the CCCU) will alter the sample enough to change how we must interpret that data. And they do!

So I think it is a question of your criteria that you are using to interpret the data. And I guess I have to read your book to understand that, because at this juncture it seems arbitrary and unconvincing at best quite frankly.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Hector you will be at the top of your game the day you are able to turn the page for Koster. You are no where in his league.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

silly little postmodern game play. lose the phenomena, re describe what you don't like out of existence.

If we don't like it we call it "religious" then it's not science anymore so textual criticism because bull shit becasue because you can call it "religious."

a trick for postmodern hacks.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

ok I blew it. trying to turn over a new leaf so the first thing I do is go insult Hector. Sorry about that. But what he's doing is not scholarship (I mean in is attack not in all that he writes). But it's not worthy of you Hector.

Anonymous said...

Joe, you are the one to say what scholarship is, eh? What is it, anyway?

Regardless, you must deal with the arguments. Can you?

Harry H. McCall said...

JI Hinman stated: “Hector you will be at the top of your game the day you are able to turn the page for Koster”.

Re: If you want scholarship, how about spelling Helmut Koester name correctly for starters!

Pastor Bob said...

Could we agree on one thing? Near East Archeology programs are on the decline. Even BAR says this

Anonymous said...

BTW toby, I like all of your comments regarding religion, internet, and so forth. I did not avoid any of it but held it aside since threads are usually not friendly in blogoland.

Cheers!

T said...

Thanks Drew, I appreciate the thoughtful words.

Dr. Hector Avalos said...

Dear Drew,
I am not sure what you mean by me wanting to exclude any colleges from my statistics. Again, my statistics are drawn from the American Academy of Religion, and they include both religious and public colleges. They can include Notre Dame or a small college.

When I examined the numbers you provided, where did I exclude any number or diminish any number on your tables? For example, your numbers shows 15 positions in Hebrew Bible in 2002? Did I say it was less than that?

However, I did say that once you look more carefully at those jobs, then the situation is even worse because of the QUALITY of the jobs. I had already mentioned some of my criteria for quality, and they include:

-Salary
-Academic freedom
-Job security (e.g., tenure track v. part time/adjunct)

All good studies must also include RESOLUTION of the data, and raw AAR numbers don’t provide resolution—they don’t tell you how desirable those jobs are.

My classification of American colleges is not arbitrary because I can use the Carnegie classifications and other measures that are accepted by colleges themselves.

Within my criteria, salary is relatively objective. I do assume higher salaries are more desirable. I do assume full-time jobs are usually desired over part time or temporary jobs. What is so arbitrary about that?

As a scholar in pursuit of truth, I want more freedom to pursue my conclusions in biblical studies, and so I value academic freedom. Would you want the same thing? If so, what is wrong with that criterion?

In the current issue of AAR listings (website restricted to members) there are about 8 jobs that involve Hebrew Bible. But when one goes one-by-one, one sees that they are definitely not equal, and so even 8 is too high. Take two examples:

JOB 1
University of the Incarnate Word
Assistant/ Associate Professor in Biblical Studies
UNIVERSITY OF THE INCARNATE WORD, a Roman Catholic university in San Antonio, Texas, announces a tenure-track position at the rank of Assistant or Associate Professor in Biblical Studies. Position would begin August 15, 2009. Preference will be given to candidates who can teach a wide range of courses in Hebrew Scriptures and Christian Scriptures. Applicants must be Roman Catholic, familiar with Catholic theological traditions and committed to the mission of the university, particularly its focus on Catholic social teaching and social justice. Responsibilities include teaching 4 courses per semester at the undergraduate level. Ongoing research and publications appropriate to one’s area of concentration are expected, and teaching experience is preferred. Applicants should hold a Ph.D. or Th.D. or anticipate completion by August 2009. Salary is competitive and commensurate with experience. All applications must be submitted online at http://jobs.uiw.edu . Position closes November 1, 2008. We will invite selected candidates to interview at the AAR or SBL 2008 annual conventions. EOE. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply.



JOB 2
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO DIVINITY SCHOOL announces a new search to make a second faculty appointment in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, to begin in the 2009-10 academic year. Rank and salary are open. The position requires thorough competence in biblical Hebrew (and cognate languages), mastery of the Biblical text, and sound familiarity with the ancient near Eastern cultural context. Demonstration of superior research skills in some aspect(s) of biblical literature, history, religion, and/or interpretation is also required. Scholars whose expertise includes Second Temple Judaism or the Dead Sea Scrolls (in addition to the Hebrew Bible) are also encouraged to apply. The Divinity School emphasizes interdisciplinary research and conducts graduate programs leading to the M.Div., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees, and also staffs a small undergraduate concentration in religious studies. The search committee will begin its review of applications immediately; the formal deadline is September 1st. Applicants should send a letter of application, a C.V., and a writing sample of no more than thirty pages, and should arrange to have three letters of reference sent, to: Dean Richard A. Rosengarten, The University of Chicago Divinity School, 1025 East 58th Street, Chicago, IL 60637. The University of Chicago is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer.



Now, let’s apply my criteria:

SALARY (average for all faculty)
U. Chicago ranks #16 ($111,390)
Incarnate Word ranks #1382 ($54,009)

Salary sources: http://www.stateuniversity.com/universities
/TX/University_of_the_Incarnate_Word.html

http://www.stateuniversity.com/rank
/salary_ft_faculty_total_rank.html

ACADEMIC FREEDOM
U. of Chicago: No restrictions listed
Incarnate Word: Must be Roman Catholic

JOB SECURITY
Both are tenure track


Notice that Incarnate Word demands 4 courses per semester, or 8 per year. Large research universities demand 2-5 courses per year.

Incarnate Word demands a huge load for anyone doing advanced biblical studies. You won’t be doing much biblical studies research, as much as you will be just teaching undergraduate courses.

If you add prestige and resources, etc., you might appreciate why most PhD candidates could consider the U. of Chicago more attractive.

The University of the Incarnate Word actually EXCLUDES many candidates, and so it is misleading to think that there are really 8 jobs available FOR ALL CANDIDATES in Hebrew Bible.

Such close study vindicates my assertion that there are really fewer jobs available (just by exclusion of certain candidates on the basis of religion) than there appear to be. It is worse than the raw AAR numbers might lead you to believe.

And as I said before, my argument in The End of Biblical Studies is more comprehensive than just job statistics, even though I can certainly defend my conclusions about job statistics.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe, you are the one to say what scholarship is, eh? What is it, anyway?

Regardless, you must deal with the arguments. Can you?

Fair enough, fair enough. My Tom Snider.

I will make a special post of it in my blog. Thanks for the material.

It's not that I detemrnie what is scholarship but that the ploy of re-describing is a postmodern ploy. I but my teeth on that stuff, I was taught it by Alex Argyros who studied with Derrida at the Ecole Normal.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

JI Hinman stated: “Hector you will be at the top of your game the day you are able to turn the page for Koster”.

Re: If you want scholarship, how about spelling Helmut Koester name correctly for starters!

No, sorry. spelling is not scholarship. It is no more scholarship than is eye sight. Obviously I left out an e because that's what dyslexics do. Its' a problem in my processing. it's an an organic problem not a matter of understanding, nor is it a matter of being careful> just as though I had astigmatism. Would that means I'm not a scholar because I need glasses?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Cheap shots are not scholarship either.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Avalos:
As a Christian, I would like to ask a very polite and respectful, so what? The Bible may be essential to American Christian "culture", but it is not essential to the core Christian experience of salvation and the experience of Christ and the Holy Spirit. These experiences precede the Bible, not the other way around, and therefore hold primacy. You could burn all the Bibles in the world or completely refute it but that will not counter the experience of the being of Christ Himself. The Bible itself confirms this: "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you." 1 John 2:27 The obvious point here is that debunking the Bible does not debunk Christ. The gospel did not come to me through the Bible, it came through the Holy Spirit, who continues to commune with me, regardless of any Bible fallacies.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

say Hector remember my critiques of your stuff?



I read it, Where's the the debate?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Curiously, Dr. Koester seems to privilege a more traditional view of the biblical canon in his attack on my book. But his own past work shows that he did not always think that the Bible, as we currently know it, was uniquely essential or vital for Christians in all periods.

For example, in his own Introduction to the New Testament: History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), he tells us the following about other early Christian writings (Volume 1, p. xx1):

"These non-canonical works are witnesses to early Christian
history no less valuable than the New Testament."


Hecotor its shocking to me that a person with a Ph.D. could make such a fallacious line of thought.

*(1) you know Koester is not a fundie. So he not an inerintist by any means.

(2) your apparent inability to see the distinction between finding two bodies of work vital and not finding one of them vital is flabergasting.

(3) I can only assume that you assume that fundie would have to spit on the non canonical texts and see them as rubbish; so you are treating Koester like a fundie and not like hte major liberal scholar that he is.

It certainly does not follow that just because other books are also vital that the NT is not vital.

Dr. Hector Avalos said...

Mr. Hinman,
My point was that Prof. Dr. Koester is inconsistent
in his distress. His actions are not consistent
with his words.

If he regards non-canonical texts as EQUAL in value (as witnesses) to NT canonical texts, then why is he not complaining about how little regard we have for those non-canonical texts?

I don't see Prof. Koester attacking anyone because they state the fact that no modern American reads,
or cares much about, The Gospel of Thomas.

T said...

Joe,

You raise some interesting arguments, but I've lost some of the thoughts "in translation" (so to speak) and would like some clarification. Dr. Avalos' hypothesis about Koester is that Koester has not always held the view that the Bible is "uniquely essential or vital for Christians in all periods."

When I read Koester's statment, "These non-canonical works are witnesses to early Christian
history no less valuable than the New Testament,"
I think this statement by Koester implies that the concept of it not being "uniquely essential" to Christians equally in all periods. Meaning that in certain periods of history, there have been other things that are as essential or equally essential to Christians.
I personally attribute the adjective "uniquely" to be vital in our understanding of Avalos' statement as well. There is a difference between the statements

"Koester does not think that the Bible is uniquely vital to Christians in all periods"
and
"Koester does not think that the Bible is vital to Christians in all periods."

Based on the context of Avalos' statement I think it is clear that he meant the first sentence, that the Bible is not uniquely vital for Christians in all periods.

What other things are of equality vitality for Christians as the Bible? Certainly most Christians would argue that the presence of the Holy Spirit, among other things, is of equal vitality.

In all fairness, I may be missing something that you saw in Avalos' words that I did not see. However, I have had time understanding your point of view when you wrote,

Hecotor its shocking to me that a person with a Ph.D. could make such a fallacious line of thought.

Does Koester believe the Bible is uniquely essential to Christians, in that nothing else is as essential?

And

Does Koester believe the Bible is uniquely vital to Christians, again, in that nothing else is as vital?

Harry H. McCall said...

Sopiesladder stated: “You could burn all the Bibles in the world or completely refute it but that will not counter the experience of the being of Christ Himself.”

All you have done Sopiesladder, is claimed that a feeling vindicates Christianity. But so too do all the other religions have feelings / personal experiences that they claim validates the truth for them. But this is a personal and highly subject method.

All commercials use this same method to get people to buy their products (the concept of testimony).

For example, I have a wonderful experience (Holy Spirit) feeling when I bit into a milk chocolate candy bar. I’m sure you’ve heard the statement that “It was so good it’s sinful”. So, based to the huge sells of chocolate candy bars and the deep feeling of satisfaction most people have when they bite into one; does that make a personal experience prove candy bar truth for time and eternity?

You simply have NOT given me one fact that proves the truth of Christian faith when compared to all other faiths.

All religions of the world feed on and recruit new members based on personal experiences whether they are called the Holy Spirit or another name.

Finally, at just what point in the history of the Christian tradition are you claiming all the Bibles could be burnt? If that’s the case, then the Christian missionary movement would be null and void since all cultures without Bibles (literacy) would be guaranteed to evolve into Christians, but this is simply not the case.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Where's the debate Hec man?


Here's my response

My blog article

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Mr. Hinman,
My point was that Prof. Dr. Koester is inconsistent
in his distress. His actions are not consistent
with his words.


sorry Hector I'm having a hard time understanding why you see it that way? I can see many reasons why one could value both canonical and non canonical works.

If he regards non-canonical texts as EQUAL in value (as witnesses) to NT canonical texts, then why is he not complaining about how little regard we have for those non-canonical texts?


He never said he does value them as witnesses. I think the distinction between witness and artifact is not one that alludes you.

I don't see Prof. Koester attacking anyone because they state the fact that no modern American reads,
or cares much about, The Gospel of Thomas.


I really don't know what internet you are on. I see people all over message boards who talk like they really love the GTom. Certainly the IIB is full of them.

what about Peter Kirby? His work was good enough he could be a professor in any Biblical studies department. He did a lot of good work on GTom and other sources as ell. He's not a professional.

Surely you should know that scholars will have different reasons for what they value than layman. No one reads Dante with the same kind of passion and depth as Simone Terbiville did, does that mean we should close down literature?


12:50 PM, September 09, 2008

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe,

You raise some interesting arguments, but I've lost some of the thoughts "in translation" (so to speak) and would like some clarification. Dr. Avalos' hypothesis about Koester is that Koester has not always held the view that the Bible is "uniquely essential or vital for Christians in all periods."

He has. I think Avalos is confusing his reasons for doing so as though there can only be one set of reasons. Perhaps Koester has changed over the years. I know professors who taught me at Perkins now they don't even hold the positions that meant so much to be at the time I took their courses. That doesn't make the inconsistent, views change over time.

When I read Koester's statment, "These non-canonical works are witnesses to early Christian
history no less valuable than the New Testament," I think this statement by Koester implies that the concept of it not being "uniquely essential" to Christians equally in all periods. Meaning that in certain periods of history, there have been other things that are as essential or equally essential to Christians.
I personally attribute the adjective "uniquely" to be vital in our understanding of Avalos' statement as well. There is a difference between the statements


I don't see anything Koester said that implies anything other than the value of those works as artifacts, nothing more. Maybe Hector studied with Koester? I don't know. But if so he does not sight very many early statements.

"Koester does not think that the Bible is uniquely vital to Christians in all periods"
and
"Koester does not think that the Bible is vital to Christians in all periods."

Based on the context of Avalos' statement I think it is clear that he meant the first sentence, that the Bible is not uniquely vital for Christians in all periods.


Yes but that's not hte point. The point is the way he's looking at Koester.

What other things are of equality vitality for Christians as the Bible? Certainly most Christians would argue that the presence of the Holy Spirit, among other things, is of equal vitality.


depends upon what you mean by "vital?" you mean as revelation? Or as historical artifact?

In all fairness, I may be missing something that you saw in Avalos' words that I did not see. However, I have had time understanding your point of view when you wrote,

what I saw in his words was his book. I read his book, I formulated an understanding of his outlook, to which I am totally and absolutely opposed, but that is not to say anything personal about the man himself. I actually think Hector is a nice guy. If I am unfairly reading in the view I see then I am sorry. But I think it's clearly there in the book, and so it must be lurking behind what he says in this article, which is an extension of his thinking in the book.

Hecotor its shocking to me that a person with a Ph.D. could make such a fallacious line of thought.

Does Koester believe the Bible is uniquely essential to Christians, in that nothing else is as essential?

And

Does Koester believe the Bible is uniquely vital to Christians, again, in that nothing else is as vital?


I don't see Koester saying that. I read a book by him too. What he says in that book, Ancient Christian Gospels, he can't possibly regard the bible as some sort of inerrant message from on high. that doesn't mean that he doesn't have some concept of inspiration, he may well have one. I too have one, I don't see the Bible as inerrant to I assume Koester could look at it in a way similar to my own. But to sayt he Bbile is vital can mean it's vital as a cutlural artifact or an a historical artifact.

do you see the use the word artifact? Just like a borken pot would be very vital as an artifcat but useless as pot.

Koester talks about redaction, he talks about orignal words of Jesus in Gpete and in GTmob in Q, he can't possibly mean that the Bible is vital in some inerrant sense, but he doesn't have to mean that.

T said...

Joe wrote,

Where's the debate Hec man?

Just curious, but how often does goading them in this type of manner get people to debate you?

What motivation does Dr. Avalos have to debate you personally? I was just thinking that if he wanted a to debate on a larger scale, wouldn't he call up D'Souza or Craig and invite them? Considering that a debate with them brings publicity to both himself and his school on the national level. Also, individuals like D'Souza and Craig bring a large audience along with them as well.

To me, I think that it would be more realistic to think that if you asked nicely, he might be willing to read and comment on your posted arguments, but I find it optimistic to think he'd be interested in devoting the time it would take to "debate" those arguments.

Also, have you responded to my questions I posted an hour ago?

T said...

Joe,

Ignore my last sentence of that last post...

Good response. Your last post did a good job of justifying your position. I don't agree with the totality of your statements, but it was a defensible position.

However, a lot of times we get so caught up into our own beliefs that we don't see that while we may disagree with our opposition, many times their thinking is not as unreasonable as we make it out to be.

For example, "How could a PhD make a statement this fallacious?" His statement was reasonable enough, and I see no intentional attempt to misrepresent Koester's beliefs or statements... just a completely differing point of view.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe wrote,

Where's the debate Hec man?

Just curious, but how often does goading them in this type of manner get people to debate you?

I don't think Hec man is insulting. they used to call Woody Alan "woodman" no one thought that was insulting.

What motivation does Dr. Avalos have to debate you personally? I was just thinking that if he wanted a to debate on a larger scale, wouldn't he call up D'Souza or Craig and invite them?

Yes, but if he wants to spar with the best opponent...


Considering that a debate with them brings publicity to both himself and his school on the national level. Also, individuals like D'Souza and Craig bring a large audience along with them as well.


Yea true but why should they debate him?

To me, I think that it would be more realistic to think that if you asked nicely, he might be willing to read and comment on your posted arguments, but I find it optimistic to think he'd be interested in devoting the time it would take to "debate" those arguments.


like he's some kind of big star? I don't think he's a big star. I think he's still fairly small fish. Ok he's bigger fish than I am because he has a Ph.D. and a job. but he's not on the level of Koester.

Also, have you responded to my questions I posted an hour ago?

I don't know I may have missed it.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Good response. Your last post did a good job of justifying your position. I don't agree with the totality of your statements, but it was a defensible position.


fair enough

However, a lot of times we get so caught up into our own beliefs that we don't see that while we may disagree with our opposition, many times their thinking is not as unreasonable as we make it out to be.


that's true, but...no intrinsic value to Shakespeare come on! somethings are just inviolable.

For example, "How could a PhD make a statement this fallacious?" His statement was reasonable enough, and I see no intentional attempt to misrepresent Koester's beliefs or statements... just a completely differing point of view.


no it was totally unreasonable. not be able to see the distinction between valuing something as an artifact and valuing it as holy writ? that' a pretty big problem. He acted like if you value the canonical texts for any reason yo can't value the non canonical tests for any reason. that's ludicrous. how far do we have to stretch credulity to be nice?

Anonymous said...

Mr. McCall:

Let me make some critical distinctions here.

First, I never said I was proving the reality of Christ. This is a site on Debunking Christianity. The burden here is on the ones making the claim that they can do just that thing, and I am saying that refutation of the Bible does does not debunk Christianity.

Second, my perception of the Spirit is not a feeling. A feeling would be something like an itchy hand or perhaps some happiness or fear. My perception of the Spirit is within the sphere of my perception of my own being, and so must hold primacy over any sensory experience (which would include things like reading the Bible). Think of Descartes finally settling on "I think, therefore I am" as the only thing that cannot be doubted. The perception or consciousness of the Spirit lies within that same sphere.

Describing the perception of the Spirit to someone that has never experienced Him is akin to describing the color red to someone born blind from birth. It cannot be done. Therefore, I have never claimed that Christianity can be proven, only that it cannot be disproven. Only the perception of red can convince the blind man that red exists. Such a perception parallels the salvation experience.

T said...

how far do we have to stretch credulity to be nice?

I'm not suggesting undo credulity, but rather civility with a touch of humility.

I think you answered your own question of "Where's the debate Hec man?" when you wrote:

I think [Avalos is] still fairly small fish.

Hecotor its shocking to me that a person with a Ph.D. could make such a fallacious line of thought.

If we don't like it we call it "religious" then it's not science anymore so textual criticism because bull shit becasue because you can call it "religious."

Hector you will be at the top of your game the day you are able to turn the page for Koster. You are no where in his league.


How would you, Joe, characterize your statements toward Dr. Avalos?


ok I blew it. trying to turn over a new leaf so the first thing I do is go insult Hector. Sorry about that.


Really?!

Harry H. McCall said...

sophiesladder: This is the same critic we often hear here at DC. That is any who posts here in defense of the goals of DC was never really “saved” in the first place. That is a dogmatic doctrine drawn form a sectarian belief and not reality.

You sated: “Therefore, I have never claimed that Christianity can be proven, only that it cannot be disproven.”

This is illogical since you can only attempt to disprove a proven / know fact. I can not disprove ghosts since they too have not been proven, yet like the Holy Spirit, they appear very real only to the believers.

I would not be able to argue with members of the Flat Earth Society since a flat earth has never been proven either yet the faitful will debate anyone who think other wise.

T said...

Sophie,

The most transcendent moments in my life I experienced during the birth of my two children. The connection I have with my children is beyond anything I can easily describe. Its interesting, but I know my children worship me. They wait everyday for daddy to come home and they yell surprise and then come tackle me. I love them with all that is in me and more. The sum does not equal the whole of its parts. It surpasses everything I know. You may have even read some of Sconnor's posts on this site. Sconnor lost his little boy to sickness. A small part of me understands what Sconnor must feel because the thought of losing one of my children scares me to death. I didn't have to experience his loss to understand the emotion connected to it.

You describe your "connection" to God as though it is beyond what anyone else here could have experienced. I think you are wrong about this. I would venture to say that most of us at one point or another felt a very similar connection to God. We just later learned that the connection we experienced was nothing more than perception, cognition not based upon empirical reality or logic, but conditioning, repetition, normalization, indoctrination, and training. Schizophrenic patients hear voices and see things that they perceive to be real. Perception does not always equate to reality. Which I why I say that our beliefs need to line up with both our empirical reality and logic.

Anonymous said...

Sophiesladder, I'm curious. What do you think of all of those christians who do think that the bible is necessary in order to find god?

And what about those who use the bible as a tool to bring about socio/political changes?

You see, I'm having trouble understanding why, if you see a clear distinction between yourself and the type of christian that this site focusses on, and you consider your faith debunk-proof, are you even bothering to post here.

Are you expecting us to just give up because you think the christian god exists?

And if you are as anxious as we are to start buring bibles, then why not help us point out the errors that bible thumpers are making?

Do you see why I'm confused? If you aren't threatened by this site, and you believe that no one who hasn't experienced the holy spirit could possibly understand it, and you reject the bible as an authority (and along with it, christians who do consider it an authority) then what do you hope your posts will accomplish?

Anonymous said...

To Mr. McCall:
I make no claims about the salvation of anyone here at D.C. If you can't know what I'm experiencing in my heart, how could I possibly know what is in yours?

With your assertion that I am being illogical and that you are "unable to argue" is getting somewhat to the point. Logic doesn't rule the world, Mr. McCall. This is a vast reality and whether you want to call it the cosmos or God, some of it is simply beyond our comprehension. Reason is a tool, which at some point, is inadequate. There is a better tool for dealing with the universe. See my posts, "Reason Is Not King" and "Gotcha" at www.sophiesladder.com.

To Toby:
Well said. I would never denigrate another's experience, especially ones so painful. I can only describe my own, which are not without fear and uncertainty and pain. For example, four years ago, my wife was diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic cancer. Reason told us she would be dead within 3-4 months. Thankfully, she is still alive, but it's not because of logic, which declared her dead. The primacy of the Spirit over reason is what is at stake here. I urge you, too, to read "Gotcha" at my website (just too long to post here).

To Tigg13:
Christians who maintain that the Bible is necessary to find God are either in error or spiritually immature. Even the Bible speaks of carnal and spiritual Christians. And as I said earlier, the Bible says that we need no one - and certainly not the Bible - to teach us because the Spirit is within us. Paul was making conversions before he even wrote the first book, 1 Thessalonians. He was writing to an established church, demonstrating the Spirit precedes the Bible.

I don't see the Spirit having a social or political agenda. He's more concerned with the salvation of a man, which comes by neither social or political means.

If you're going after a certain brand of Christianity, fine. Some of us could use a good shaking and stirring. But you need to change the website title to "Debunking the Bible" or "Debunking a narrowly defined sect of Christianity" rather than making broad claims impossible to fulfill.

If reason is indeed king, and it's demonstrable you can't rationally do what you claim, yes, why waste your efforts?

I never said I was anxious to burn bibles. I said they weren't necessary. The Bible has its uses, but the conversion of a man is not one of them. Only the Spirit can do that. The Bible speaks to me in a language a non-believer cannot comprehend - a spiritual language, not a literal, historical, rational language. Historical errors - even if they exist - do not prevent the Bible from speaking to me spiritually. Even if you take the Book away, I still have the Presence within.

Finally, my intention is to demonstrate that reason is an inadequate tool for making theological judgments. You just can't hammer a nail with a hacksaw. It's not so much what you're attempting here, it's how.

Thanks for listening.

ismellarat said...

Sophiesladder, I have many questions for you, because I think no one I've ever heard or read has ever said what you're saying.

1. Can you point to a school of thought (and give examples of theologians who propound it, or even just an identifiable group of Christians who would explain it like you do) that teaches what you say? Surely you're not implying that no one has ever figured this out before you did.

2. How do you know right from wrong, if as a Christian you don't rely on the Bible? And if you do use it, how do you determine what's true and what's not, if you're not claiming it's infallible?

If you believe the Holy Spirit tells you, wouldn't you have to say that, among "real" Christians, there should never be the slightest disagreement on matters of morality - and that whatever group you can point to that believes as you do, not one detail of their dogma has changed, through the centuries?

"If two people disagree on morality, one of them is not really a Christian," you must be saying - because the Holy Spirit does not err.

Couple that with the indescribable feeling you say is proof of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and it looks as if you're facing an enormous dilemma, if two such people should ever meet and disagree - the Holy Spirit would then either be lying or the feeling that they have it inside them would be just that - a feeling.

It looks to me as if you're solving one set of problems by creating another, although I would love to see someone figure it all out.

Harry H. McCall said...

sophiesladder, most all Mormons (LDS) claim they experiences a “burning in their bosom” as proof that the Book of Mormon and Josephs Smith are right; that is, the Holy Spirit told them the truth and that all other churches are wrong. Several Mormon missionaries told me, all other Christians are under Satan (who is their testifying spirit).

I strongly agree with isamellarat in that you have developed a theology totally on your own and thus need no Bible. The trouble is that you have maximized you theological problems.

I think you have come here to DC to test this new theology of yours.

Pastor Bob said...

Folks, sophiesladder had presented an interesting idea from a historical point of view. Prior to the writing of the New Testament scriptures the infant Church only recognized the Hebrew Scriptures as authoritative. One might even ask if the writings were included.

At that time stories about Jesus and sermons were all that there were that proclaimed any kind of gospel. We see in Paul a battle over what the real gospel is.

Now the Church, at least what some might recognize as an orthodox Church turns to the canon of Scripture for authority. But what did early Christians, even before Paul's letters, consider authoritative for the gospel?

Also, I believe the early Quakers considered personal revelation on a par with Scripture and that some Pentecostal, (a small fringe group) do the same.

So might we not say that there have been movements over the years that considered inner revelation to be authoritative?

Anonymous said...

Sophiesladder said, "Finally, my intention is to demonstrate that reason is an inadequate tool for making theological judgments. You just can't hammer a nail with a hacksaw. It's not so much what you're attempting here, it's how."

What tool would you recommend then? How should we go about debunking christianity?

Not that I'm a champion of reason myself (just ask my wife). I agree with you that there are limitations on what we can know about reality, but that doesn't invalidate reason or make it obsolete.

Consider what a little reason might have accomplished at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, or at Jonestown in Guyana, or at the Heaven's Gate bon-voyage party.

In fact, wouldn't the best indicator of a false religion be its inability to stand up to logical criticism?

(Oh wait, your religion is inherently un-reasonable, isn't it? So you'ld probably disagree with that last statement.)

SL said,"If you're going after a certain brand of Christianity, fine. Some of us could use a good shaking and stirring. But you need to change the website title to "Debunking the Bible" or "Debunking a narrowly defined sect of Christianity" rather than making broad claims impossible to fulfill."

Oh so you represent the vast majority of christianity? Are you counting the 1 billion catholics, the 200+ million eastern orthodox churchers, the 100 million pentecostals, the 70 million baptists, the 60 million lutherins, the 15 million jehovah's witnesses, etc. etc.? Or do you not consider these to be true christians?

Tell you what, you demonstrate that your's is the one true religion and then you can start complaining about the name of this website.

SL said, "If reason is indeed king, and it's demonstrable you can't rationally do what you claim, yes, why waste your efforts?"

Ah, but have you demonstrated that it can't be done? Your assertion is that true christianity is not knowable to the non-believer and therefore it cannot be legitimately refuted.

But how do you know what is knowable and not knowable to others? Are you a mind reader? Do you have special jesus-powers?
Are you perfect? Are you incapable of making mistakes?

Can you honestly say that we should have faith in you?

(Remember, according to you, we cannot experience your god and thus we cannot have faith in him.)


Ismellarat said, "Sophiesladder, I have many questions for you, because I think no one I've ever heard or read has ever said what you're saying."

I've met several people who talk like Sophie - except they are all Pagans (weird).

ismellarat said...

Tigg13, I said that, but also think he raised an interesting question worth exploring.

The church councils supposedly settled the issue of what belonged in the canon, so the real (and infallible) standards of what constitutes Christianity must have been set in stone, in plain sight - but where?

Aren't these standards what he's suggesting should be your real target?

But then again, that's just another guess. He also says that the Bible isn't necessarily true, so does that mean "real" Christians didn't canonize it, "real" Christians did but could have been mistaken, etc.

Jeff Carter said...

To Ismellarat:

As you read through this entire response, I hope you will see that much of what I am saying is present in Western philosophical and theological thought, I’m just bringing it all together. If it helps, think of me as an existentialist. I think I can say that I agree with much of the spirit in which Kierkegaard wrote, particularly his rejection of systems that try to capture God and the individual as inhuman – as long as you realize that any existentialist would resist being placed in any “school of thought”. In approaching God, you must treat Him as a living person, not a thing. Objective systems are bound to fail in this area. You will find the concepts of life, individuality, personality, human dignity and free will at the core of my philosophy and theology. I agree with Loftus that a schema that works goes a long way to understanding theological matters, but even it must eventually breakdown. Pastor Bob is right. Check out the Quakers, but do not dogmatically lump me with any group. I am free to pick and choose as “I” (and I cannot emphasize enough the ‘I’) see it.

Although I do not consider myself of any denomination, I respect much of the spirit behind the Protestant reformation: the rejection of the religious authority of the institution of the church and the emphasis on the primacy of individual conscience. There are churches that emphasize or honor the Spirit, such as pentacostalism and the primitive Baptist, though I am not a member of either. One major line that I draw is that the Bible is meant for the personal use of the Christian rather than the political or social revision of the world. (I don’t know why that should sound so strange. When asked why He spoke in parables, Jesus told His disciples that it was for them, not the world, to know the mysteries of the kingdom. For me, the Bible is one big parable). Many churches do not participate in politics, because they consider it worldly.

How do I know right from wrong? For the big stuff, morality is intrinsic – either inborn or taught. For day to day direction, I try to follow the Lamb wherever He goes. He speaks, I have the ability to hear. I have free will as to whether to obey.

Disagreement among Christians can be understood in terms of life and its growth, and personal respect. “Born again” Christians believe that a spirit is born within them and that spirit has the ability to grow and mature. Hearing can be hindered by immaturity or disrespect of God’s personhood. Disagreements are acknowledged in Paul’s letters to the Corinthians where he speaks of carnal and mature believers. If two people disagree, one of them is not as mature as the other in this area.

To Mr McCall:
Perhaps you are proving my point about hearing from the Spirit, since you seem to know what I’m thinking? If I were to say that I got all my doctrine from an established church I think you would accuse me of being one of their mindless minions or having drank their kool-aid. If I say that I reject the authority of man-made institutions, I am accused of making up my own religion, so it seems you cannot be satisfied either way. For the existentialist, it is clear that nothing stands in the way of him and God. I have to make my own decisions. I am standing up here for the concept of the individual and choice. There are other forms of philosophy than objective rationalism. I suggest you acquaint yourself with them.

To Pastor Bob:
I would even go so far as to say that Paul rejected certain views of the Old Testament. The essence of Galations is that someone is trying to impose Old Testament law on the church and Paul is upset about it. Also, you guys need to check out the Gnostics. Were they truly heretics or simply condemned as such because they lost the orthodoxy struggle?

Tigg13:
What tool? Good question. This will take more space than I have here so I will need to develop on my blog and in later comments, but the main schema I would start with is the concept that God is a living person and should be treated as such. This is the concept that relates God and man – we are persons. This is what “made in His image” means. As a person, I resist attempts to analyze me as dehumanizing, and so does God. He doesn’t want to be “figured out”. Much more on this later.

No, reason is not invalidated. It’s just that it must be used where it works – on the physical. There is whole stream of Western philosophical thought on the limitations of reason – Look at how Hume obliterated cause and effect; how Kant tried to restore the uses of reason in “Critique of Pure Reason” but acknowledged that it cannot be used to speak of the metaphysical; look at how Kierkegaard rejected objective systems; look at how Russell and the Logical Positivists failed in their attempts to establish the scientific verification principle and you will see that I am well within a train of Western thought.

To boil all this down to a nutshell (if that can be done), why is D.C. choosing objective rationalism over existentialism? Both are recognized Western schools.

This is getting really long, and I think I’ve answered most if not all questions. If not, ask again.

Regards to all.

Jeff Carter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
T said...

Jeff Carter wrote,

...but the main schema I would start with is the concept that God is a living person and should be treated as such

Yes, God came over to my house this morning for breakfast. I asked him how he likes his eggs...scrambled, who would of thought. He's shorter than I imagined he'd be, but I didn't make any short jokes, because he deserves to be treated as a person.

Okay, jesting aside. The words "living person" being attributing to God are not justifiable in any real sense, any empirical sense. "Persons" are known to our empirical reality, the "person" of God is not. Yes, I realize from your post that you like to get caught up into existential and philosophical thought. But fortunately there are people who like to get caught up into empiricism. Thanks to empiricism we have modern medicine, computers, tv, etc. Therefore, I suggest that you start with validating God empirically, then you can wax existentially all you like! In fact, unless you can empirically demonstrate God, then the only thing you can prove is God is real in your mind (imagination).

Anthony said...

Jeff Carter/Sophie,

Not just existentialism but most definitely Christian mysticism would be terms I would use to describe you.

Harry H. McCall said...

Jeff Carter stated: “ To boil all this down to a nutshell (if that can be done), why is D.C. choosing objective rationalism over existentialism? Both are recognized Western schools.”


Re: The goal of DC is plainly stated and that is the debunking of Evangelical Christianity. We are not out to do the impossible; debunk a maverick free thinker who is evolving some independent concept of “God”.

When you start a church and publish a statement of faith (dogmatics) and use this doctrinal process to get members which will inturn influence the political system curbing my freedom, then we will have a reason to debate.

Until then, enjoy your free thinking.

Regards,
Harry

T said...

Harry,

When I was an evangelical Christian, I never saw how much power our group wielded, blatantly seeking to impose our values and religious beliefs onto the political and judicial branches of government. I honestly saw our group as a beaten down, trampled upon victim of the evil liberal, hollywood movement.

Its amazing how laughable that viewpoint seems to me now. I had such a poor understanding of the separation of church and state and the utter importance of that philosophy. Perhaps if Islam were the main religion in the US, as a Christian I would have placed more value in the separation of church and state.

Harry H. McCall said...

Toby,

I think the concept of Original Sin has caused an undue devaluation in every phase of Christian thinking from self to the entire movement.

As the founders of the United States knew from personal experience, a church run state is dangerous.

Fact is, the only reason many Christian sects don’t turn on one another is simply the secular laws…the very thing most attack and oppose!

Anonymous said...

Jeff, (Sorry I haven't replied sooner.)

Jeff said, "To boil all this down to a nutshell (if that can be done), why is D.C. choosing objective rationalism over existentialism?"

My guess would be that most of the posters on this site are objective rationalists not existentialists.

I also think that objective rationalization works very well against main stream christianity. (That is, non-existentialist christians as you have not provided any reason to think that main stream christians are existentialists)

I think I see where you are going with your "the concept that God is a living person .... He doesn’t want to be “figured out”." argument. Religion is a way of figuring out god which he wouldn't like because it de-humanizes him. (like he was ever human to begin with)

The problem with this argument is that christians will point to the bible and say "god has already told us what we need to know about him" and "who are you to dictate what god likes and doesn't like" and then ignore everything else you have to say.

I think your problem is that you are trying to create a rational argument - something that existentialists just aren't very good at. (Sorry, but abandoning objective rationalism was your call.)

If I've jumped to the wrong conclusion please set me straight as I always enjoy effective anti-christian arguments.

Peace friend.

Unknown said...

tigg13

I'm not an objective rationalist or an existentialist. I'm a presuppositionalist.

It seems to me that each of us makes assumptions or presuppositions about the nature of reality. In fact I think these are absolutely necessary.

Take science. You have to make certain assumptions to do science. The basic assumption is that if something happens once it will happen again. I know I'm preaching to the choir but that's the basis of the experimental method. If you can't reproduce your results then you made a mistake in the records you kept in your experiment.

Science has to be done that way or you can't have science. After all, we all want the lights to go on when we flip the switch. When it comes to turning the lights on we all assume it will happen the same way every time or that something has caused it not to happen like a downed power line.

But the scientific method can't prove that things don't happen that can't be repeated. That's the assumption. We could call things that don't get repeated miracles.

Now objective rationalism assumes that miracles don't happen. But it can't prove that.

On the other hand, Christians and other people that believe miracles can happen can't prove that they can either. I've seen a couple miracles but I can't prove to you that they happened.

Therefore, just to get the group riled up, I assert that objective rationalism is a faith, that is a presupposition!

This should be fun . . .

Anonymous said...

Hi Pastor Bob!

Ok, let's play!

Yes, we all make assumptions based on our presuppositions. This is a consequence of being falible and limited in out ability to perceive reality.

The value of science, though, is in its ability to help us see through our assumptions by allowing us to test them as objectively as possible.

In order to test an assuption you need to be able to create the circumstances surrounding that assuption and observe the results. And multiple tests serve to reinforce the credibility and accuracy of the test.

Repeatability is, therefore, a necessity.

Now, you said, "We could call things that don't get repeated miracles."

Yeah, we could do that. But we can also call them unique phenomena - just because an event only happens once that doesn't make it a miracle.

And, from a scientific stand point, an assumption that cannot be tested cannot be considered either true or false.

But why should we think that miracles cannot be repeated? Jesus, for example, presumably could have walked on water whenever and wherever he wanted.

Imagine the headlines that would follow if faith healers began healing amputees under scientifically controlled circumstances. Would science have to conclude that these events didn't happen?

Science doesn't assume that miracles don't happen. Science tries to identify the most reasonable explaination that conforms to all of the evidence. ("It's a miracle!" just doesn't happen to be a very reasonable explaination.)

Now I noticed that you claim to have experienced a couple of miracles. But, if these were unique events that could not be repeated, how can you be sure that they were actually miracles?

It seems to me that you are left with two choices; either rely on your falible assumptions or accept that you just don't know.

Jeff Carter said...

To Tigg and Pastor Bob:

I may seem blunt below, but I'm really just trying to be concise.

Yes, I would agree, based on their comments / responses that most posters here are objective rationalists. What I want to know is, Why, and particularly in the realm of morality?

Existentialists may not be good at creating rational arguments, but apparently neither are objective rationalists. The history of western philosophy has shown that reason is pretty fruitless in establishing an ethical system. It was precisely because all absolutes had been overthrown that Nietzche was able to say, "God is dead" and that the ubermensch could create his own morals. Bertrand Russell said that science has nothing to say in the realm of values. Wittgenstein and the Logical Positivists decided that the best philosophy could do was to try to understand even what we meant by "good" and "evil". What philosopher - and this is not rhetorical, I would really like to read this person - has rationally established (a system of) morality?

Your statement that an assumption that cannot be tested cannot be considered either true or false seems to be a version of the Verification Principle. I don't think it's held in very high esteem outside of science. Take for example, the statement itself, "Anything that cannot be tested cannot be considered true or false." How do we test that? If we can't test it, then it can't regard it as true, can we?


Atheists would be much more consistent in my eyes if you just proclaimed with Nietzche that there are no absolute morals and claim the authority to create your own.

But there's another reason to reject objective rationality. I continue to assert that science and reason are fine where they work - the physical and perhaps the biological. But remember the TV show "The Prisoner" where Patrick McGoohan is shouting, "I am not a number!"? Remember "1984" where Big Brother thought you could extinguish the identity of a man by destroying his documentation? There will always be people that will oppose the intrusion of science into man's selfhood and individuality. I am not a light that can be switched on and off. I am not a rat in a maze. You can treat an electron as a particle, but the objectification of man is what leads to holocausts.

Yes, peace to all.

T said...

Jeff wrote,

But there's another reason to reject objective rationality. I continue to assert that science and reason are fine where they work - the physical and perhaps the biological. But remember the TV show "The Prisoner" where Patrick McGoohan is shouting, "I am not a number!"? Remember "1984" where Big Brother thought you could extinguish the identity of a man by destroying his documentation? There will always be people that will oppose the intrusion of science into man's selfhood and individuality. I am not a light that can be switched on and off. I am not a rat in a maze. You can treat an electron as a particle, but the objectification of man is what leads to holocausts.

You reject objective rationality? Is that really what you meant to say?

After re-reading your thoughts, I think I get your point, but rejecting objective rationality (unless it is a school of thought that implies something beyond its denotation) is completely irrational.

Perhaps what you meant to say is, "I reject that idea that objective rationality applies to the spiritual side of man." Or, "Objective rationality cannot not assess the part of humans that is beyond empirical science."

I don't know if that's what you meant? But if you really meant that you reject reason, well then, why are you discussing anything with us?

Jeff Carter said...

Toby,
Did you read my second sentence ? - "I continue to assert that science and reason are fine where they work - the physical and perhaps the biological." Reason is inadequate for THE ETHICAL.

I must have asked four or five times now for someone here to provide the rational basis for morality or a philosopher who has done so. So far, everyone has refused to address that question head on.

Jeff Carter said...

Toby,
Did you read my second sentence ? - "I continue to assert that science and reason are fine where they work - the physical and perhaps the biological." Reason is inadequate for THE ETHICAL.

I must have asked four or five times now for someone here to provide the rational basis for morality or a philosopher who has done so. So far, everyone has refused to address that question head on.

Northlander said...

I must have asked four or five times now for someone here to provide the rational basis for morality or a philosopher who has done so. So far, everyone has refused to address that question head on.

Well, how about Immanuel Kant? "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

Then there was Jesus of Nazareth, who is quoted as saying, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Was Jesus trying to "do philosophy" here, or was he just issuing an entirely arbitrary (that is, philosophically indefensible) command?

Unknown said...

Jeff

We agree, I think. Objective Rationalism is the necessary assumption for the physical sciences and, I would suggest, for some of the biological sciences.

Having said that I don't think objective rationalism works in a variety of other areas. You offer ethics as an example and I would agree. I think there are other areas of study that don't lend themselves to the use of objective rationalism either. The best example I can give is that the attempt to prove that objective rationalism is the appropriate way to view all of life. As I suggested earlier the attempt to prove that objective rationalism is the only appropriate way to look at the world is circular.

Anonymous said...

Jeff, now I see what you are getting at.

If objective rationalism can't make any determinations about morality how can you use it to discuss a theologic issue.

Right?

This is the "How can you say god is immoral unless you have an objective moral standard?" argument, isn't it?

Let me know because I don't want to waste time on this if it's really something else.

T said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
T said...

Jeff,

Yes, I did read it, I was just misunderstanding what you meant overall. But I think your post more fully explains where you are coming from.

As for your question of where morality comes from, the reason I addressed it is that I've never got much into that area of study. I agree that there are ethics and that we must adhere to them, but how we define them is very subjective by culture. You are well aware that Israelites of 1st century BC ethics are completely incompatible with our ethical standards. To say that early Christians had compatible ethical systems would even be too far of a stretch. To me, our ethical system is improving. We are moving toward equality of races, gender, etc. We have made strides in our understanding that war is barbaric. We are learning to be better communities. However, we still have such a long way to go. Because of my profession, taken as a whole, I see the ethics governing parenting as needing a lot of development. I don't believe in Christianity as commonly accepted, and to think that God has made his ethical system known to man from the beginning, or say even with the time of Jesus just doesn't sit well with me. Through my practice as a psychologist I have come to believe that we are still fairly primitive in our ethical system in many areas. I wish you were right that God made his ethical system clearly known, but I don't think that is the case. Many years before I left Christianity I came to believe that God created the universe through the Big Bang and Evolution. So, at that point in my Christian walk I was able to understand why our ethics needed to evolve as well.

In short, my answer is probably too unsophisticated to be helpful to most people. Also, I don't have any interest in developing a highly refined hypothesis for the etiology of morality and ethics. Not that I would love to contribute to society by ameliorating our understanding in this area, but the etiology of morality isn't the part I'm interested in.

Anonymous said...

Jeff,I fear I may have been a bit vague in my last post.

I didn't want to go into a discussion about absolute moral standards if that wasn't what you were talking about.

I'm a bit confused by your question. Why do you want a ratioal basis for morality?

(The most ratioal basis I know of, by the way, is the one posited by secular humanism - morals define the boundaries of social interaction within a given culture.)

You seem to be implying that without this rational basis objective rationalism is incapable of dealing with theological issues.

I believe just the oposite is true. Beginning with a set moral standard turns any theological discussion into an ideological tug of war setting one biased opinion against another.

Beginning from a morally neutral position changes the discussion from "I think your god is evil because he does x,y and z." to "How can you call your god good if he does x,y and z?"

I get the feeling that you believe that we should be (or are) trying to offer an alternative to christianity. (With a few minor exceptions) I have not seen that as a goal of anyone on this website.

But, like I said, I'm still a bit confused by your question and I'd like to know where you are going with this before I spend time researching the finer points of objective rationalism looking for its moral basis.

TTFN

Jeff Carter said...

All:

While I believe Gary makes a good-faith effort to address my question on the rational foundation of ethics, Kant’s Categorical Imperative can be and was attacked in a number of ways. What do you say to the guy who says, “Screw you, Kant. There is no universal law. I’m going to do whatever I feel like doing.” ?

Tigg – yes, “objective rationalism can’t make any determinations about morality”. But there are some prominent atheists that agree with me on this, namely, Bertrand Russell and Nietzche.

Toby – If you can make a judgment that our ethical system is improving and needs a lot of development, then you must have a standard by which you judge the system. What is your standard and where did you get it? My thesis is that, whatever your standard is, it is without rational foundation.

I will try to clear about this. I am not saying that non-believers can’t lead moral lives. There are plenty of atheists whose lives are more moral than believers. My point is that there is no rational foundation for their morality. When a man arises that says, not just by his words but by his actions, that “You know, I think all the Jews are bad and we ought to throw them all into the ovens and exterminate that race”, you have no rational response that is persuasive. Oh, I know, your feelings will be outraged and you might even decide you need to kill this guy, but you have no rational response.

Maybe an easier question for all is, Do you accept Nietzche’s approach to morality? If not, why not?

I agree with Pastor Bob on this. I am calling for the rational foundation of morality because:

1) I want to demonstrate the futility of the use of reason in ethical and theological considerations. I believe that for whatever rational system of morality you present to me, I can refute it.
2) I believe that the essence of both man and God is more than reason, which makes reason inadequate when seeking a full understanding of either God or man.
3) I believe that rational structures that try to capture God, man and morality are inhuman, besides being inadequate.
4) “Rational” moral judgments based on reason about the actions of God are invalid
5) Scientific approaches to the existence of God are invalid.
6) The simplest way I can put it is that a rational approach to God and man is barking up the wrong tree. Other tools must be brought to bear – our subjective experiences, our individuality, our personality, our humanity.

Tigg: Yes, I believe that objective rationalism – without a rational foundation - is incapable of dealing with moral or theological issues. I am interested in how you believe that we can begin without a set moral standard. That actually makes some sense to me.

Maybe it would make some sense if I quoted from W.T. Jones, "Kant and the Nineteenth Century": "The Age of Reason was sustained by three basic assumptions: 1) that there is a rational order of eternal truths, 2) that man has a mind capable of understanding these truths, and 3) that he has a will capable of acting in accordance to them...During the nineteenth century all three of these basic propositions were attacked from a variety of points of view and before long there came to be widespread skepticism about them.."
Existentialism and Romanticism were movements in reaction against the Age of Reason. I'm sort of good-naturedly chiding you guys who are rationalists as being a bit behind the times here.

I am not offering an alternative to Christianity, I am simply describing my view of it, which I have held as a believer now for about 45 years. Please remember, Kierkegaard was one of the strongest critics ever of the church and he was a believer. Just because I think that the church is unfortunately encrusted over with the ways of man doesn’t keep me from believing there’s a pearl within the oyster.

Grace and peace to all.

ismellarat said...

Jeff Carter, you're saving me a lot of breath. Exactly what I try to keep asking:

"What do you say to the guy who says, “Screw you, Kant. There is no universal law. I’m going to do whatever I feel like doing.” ?"

I don't see why no one gets it.

With every worldview, just imagine you wanted to do evil and see if there's a loophole that will let you do it. That should show anyone its weaknesses.

Now, if we could only find something foolproof to replace them with - unfortunately it seems the only perfect god is one we can't show exists, the ones who get all the attention are cruel, and with no god we have no reason to give evil people to change.

A helluva predicament we're in.

T said...

What is your standard and where did you get it?

It was taught to me by society and my family.

Where did they get their standards?

Their parents and cohorts.

You say that there is no rational reason for morality without God, but that's are very short-sighted view. You then provide the Hitler analogy and say that without God, (who did and does the same thing as Hitler according to the Bible) we would have no standards or rationale to condemn his behavior.

I can provide simplistic reasoning to condemn Hitler's behaviors:
Fact: I want to live
Fact: Others want to live
Conclusion: Condemn, discourage, call it immoral in order to stop killing so that I and others can live.

Primitive humans would have easily understood the benefits of grouping together to aid survival, in order to avoid being killed. As morality evolves we are able to improve upon the standards our ancestors passed down do us. For example, I fully believe that war will someday be done away with and humans will no longer justify using it to settle conflicts. Where does this standard come from? The acquisition of knowledge. Psychology has been teaching us and leading us in the direction learning how to resolve our conflicts peacefully. What standard is used to promote peacefulness? How ever I treat you, you are more likely to treat me the same back. Morality is a probability estimate in its simplest form. Use this idea with primitive man. If I treat a lot of people very nicely, and many of them to so back, I aid in my own survival. If I treat many people wrongly, man will do so back. Morality evolved because the humans who survived were the ones who learned from this simple behavioral conditioning. Going back to my undergrad days, it is Skinnerism 101.

Its not that all species, beings, organisms value survival, or have the traits needed to survive. Evolution teaches us that organisms with the best survival traits are the traits that get passed along--for the obvious reason that the given organism survived to pass the survival trait on.

It seems to be that this is a better hypothesis than "God gives us our morality." Given that morality does evolve. Why wouldn't God provide us with one stable moral code to follow through out time?

ismellarat said...

Yes, Toby, morality is possible to achieve without a belief in a god.

But the big question is, how is it mandatory for those who don't feel like being moral and who know they can get away with it?

Evan said...

I'll believe there is a rational standard for morality when you show me there's a rational standard for good food.

I can declare my opinion about what good food is and appeal to several components that are universal in all cultural understanding of food. I can then ask why nobody finds rat turds delicious.

Nobody asks my for my standard. Everybody understands what I'm talking about. Is it necessary then to have a universal standard for food to even discuss what good and bad foods are?

Jeff Carter said...

First, it's not necessary to condemn Hitler as immoral in order to kill him. He's a threat to your survival, so you just instinctively pick up a rock and bean him. You can rationalize about him being immoral if it makes you feel better, though.

Second, the problem with "I want to live" as being the center of your ethics is that it's not about me. How about "Jeff Carter wants to live"? I like that a lot better. Let's make that the center of our ethics. Now if I happen to be an American I might join with you in your fight against Hitler, but if I happen to be German I might be persuaded that it was in my best interest to join with other Germans and eliminate these other nations so there's more resources for me. What counts, after all, is my survival. Apparently the German nation (aren't they supposed to be the most rational?)bought into that, at least at one time. Perhaps the only reason we condemn them now is that they lost the power struggle?

"Primitive humans would have easily understood the benefits of grouping together to aid survival, in order to avoid being killed." Yes, the Germans certainly banded together with the Italians and the Japanese.

"Evolution teaches us that organisms with the best survival traits are the traits that get passed along--for the obvious reason that the given organism survived to pass the survival trait on." Right again. If we Germans can conquer the rest of the world we will get to pass on our traits, the best survival traits, to our offspring and the world will be better for it.

"If I treat many people wrongly, man will do so back." That's only if you let them live.

Jeff Carter said...

To Ismellarat:

The only option I see is to embrace Nietzchean atheism and create your own personal morality (recognizing that critiquing or condemning others' morality is sort of irrational since there is no morality; granted he didn't have any problem criticizing Christianity as being a weak-spirited girly religion)

or experience a revelation from an Absolute (which is not as un-philosophical as it sounds - see Godel's incompleteness theorems)

T said...

Jeff wrote,

That's only if you let them live.
Yes, history shows that the warfare mentality is a primary moral modality used by humans for the past ? thousands of years to get what they want (land, resources, or whatever that aids in their own survival). It may have been logical then, but it is no longer logical to keep this mindset. Can we create the utopia on Earth that has so long been dreamed about by humanists? Not with our current technology, but we are getting there. It is time for war to end, but we are still primitive as a whole. Half of our world's population doesn't even have electricity and the other half worships ancient deities that should have been done away with a hundred years ago.

Northlander said...


While I believe Gary makes a good-faith effort to address my question on the rational foundation of ethics, Kant’s Categorical Imperative can be and was attacked in a number of ways. What do you say to the guy who says, “Screw you, Kant. There is no universal law. I’m going to do whatever I feel like doing.” ?


If you will recall, your original statement, to which I responded, was:

I must have asked four or five times now for someone here to provide the rational basis for morality or a philosopher who has done so.

I suggested that, regardless of the number of ways one might attack his argument, Kant provided a rational basis for morality. It is clear, however, that you were not actually demanding a "rational basis for morality." That is, you were not asking for a way to determine what might be morally right and what might be morally wrong. What you were really demanding, apparently, was an an argument for why it would be in your interest to do the morally right thing and not do the morally wrong thing once you have determined what is right and what is wrong.

There, I'm afraid, the philosopher cannot help you, because that's not his job. In a well-ordered modern society, the job of enforcing the fundamental rules of ethical behavior belongs, not to the philsophers, but to law enforcement and the criminal justice system. No well-ordered modern society would leave such a thing up to God, because God is never actually observed to reward the virtuous and punish the wicked.

As we well know, the virtuous are often the victims of the crimes of the wicked. God -- if he exists --does not intervene to protect the virtuous from crime, nor does he zap criminals with lightning bolts the instant they commit their crimes. Consequently, if you insist on some self-interested reason for preying on your fellow men, it is necessary for your fellow men to give you one. And we do, as best we can.

Philip R Kreyche said...

Jeff,

How do you "create your own personal morality"?

And why don't you take into consideration that morality can be either successful or unsuccessful, and therefore those that can compromise with others on ethics (making judging morality a rational action) are more likely to be successful and happy within that society? So why is unapologetic Nietzchean atheist the only alternative to theocentric morality?

Man is not a species of lone wolves. Teamwork and cooperation is of paramount importance, so the justification for morality comes with the context of a society. Of course it's not for me to explain to you the rational basis of morality within a nontheistic universe, it's been set out many times, just thought I should remind you that you're overlooking some points.

ismellarat said...

Gary Charbonneau, I'm sure you know the religious don't generally believe that God will zap criminals in this life.

They believe that no crime in this life will go unpunished in the next.

So if everything hinged on only this one point of comparison - that there is an almighty enforcer of justice who will punish the overwhelming majority of crimes that go unpunished in this life, or there isn't - I'd think that religion would win, hands down.

Unfortunately, religion seems to come with many more repulsive features that we can do without.

Northlander said...

Gary Charbonneau, I'm sure you know the religious don't generally believe that God will zap criminals in this life.

They believe that no crime in this life will go unpunished in the next.


Correction: SOME of the religious believe that no crime in this life will go unpunished in the next. That is my understanding of the reason behind the Catholic doctrine of purgatory -- it would seem to be a logical requirement if God is to be considered just. However, those sects that think that all one's sins are forgiven if only you believe and repent are clearly taking the position that, as long as you believe and repent, NONE of your crimes will be punished in the afterlife.

Does THAT kind of religion win hands down?

ismellarat said...

Even if repentance could be that trivial, some level of repentance would be better than none.

But even in Protestantism, repentance is supposed to have a much deeper meaning than that. You only truly repent if you get to the point of wishing you'd never done what you did, and want to do whatever it takes to make it right.

I brought up what I think is an undeniable advantage of Christianity, but I also can't get over the parts I wish were not true.

I can't deal with Jesus burning someone alive, and having to be willing to do the same, for example.

It's not hard to imagine: This was the OT punishment for sorcery, if Jesus had been there he would have carried it out, if I had been there I should have been willing to do the same.

Or I can use stoning as an example.

It's too bad that we seem to be given such ridiculous options in this life.

Northlander said...

But even in Protestantism, repentance is supposed to have a much deeper meaning than that. You only truly repent if you get to the point of wishing you'd never done what you did, and want to do whatever it takes to make it right.

For the purposes of the argument, how much does it actually matter if the claim is that God will punish you for none of your sins only if you "truly repent" and not it you just "repent"? The point is that what God actually punishes seems to be, under this theory, not moral misbehavior, but unbelief and lack of "true" repentance.

As far as I have been able to tell, the divine get-out-of-jail-free card of Protestant theology is valid up until the moment of death, and only until then. Then it immediately expires. If you repent after you're dead, God'll getcha anyway.

ismellarat said...

I can try and answer all sorts of points you have to make, but please don't lose sight of my main contention:

Someone who believes he'll not get away with something will be far less likely to do it.

I think religions are good to the extent that they encourage people to do good, to refrain from evil, and that nothing will escape notice.

No one can rationally say "I know I will be punished for this to the extent that I'll wish I'd never done it, but I'll do it anyway".

For the purposes of the argument, how much does it actually matter if the claim is that God will punish you for none of your sins only if you "truly repent" and not it you just "repent"? The point is that what God actually punishes seems to be, under this theory, not moral misbehavior, but unbelief and lack of "true" repentance.

You're right, I was oversimplifying, to try and broaden my point to include what I see as the positive aspect of any religion that teaches you will pay in the next life for any unpunished evil you do in this one.

I wish things were more clear in Protestant Christianity. There are several different ways they see the relationship between sin and unbelief, but there's generally no easy loophole that will let you sin. Their god hates sin, don't forget.

They might say sin and lack of true repentance are evidence of unbelief, so your sins will be punished through your punishment for unbelief.

Or something like that.

Others speculate there are different levels of punishment, directly according to your actions. JP Holding seems to be a public enemy around here, but I like some of his views on the matter - he talks about a "multiplier effect" - just not the idea that it will last eternally.

I probably agree with you about punishment for the kind of unbelief that has nothing to do with how well you treated your fellow human beings. What I'm asked to believe should at the very least not have any sadistic appearances to it, and I'm sad to say it does.

It seems the greatest commandment is impossible to follow, unless I lie to myself (which seems to works so well for everyone else.)

I don't know how to both love God and love my neighbor. Terrorists torture and kill because they love their god and hate their neighbors, and religious relief workers admirably love their neighbors, but apparently have to blind themselves to what their god will be doing to so many of these same neighbors in the next life.

ismellarat said...

There's one more thing I should add.

Many examples can be brought up of people who were religious, but that did bad.

All I'm arguing is that any belief they have, however vague, contradictory, uninformed, or primitive it may be, that tells them they may not be getting away with something, is at least better than nothing, with respect to discouraging bad behavior.

I've known several people who I've been able to talk out of doing bad things, just because I could tell them that their own religion teaches it's wrong.

I also have no problem telling the same people that I have reservations about it.

I think for these reasons a "street preacher" would have much more success in dealing with a gang member than an atheist.

Unknown said...

OK folks, we are a long way from Dr. Avalos' original theme. It's been nice chatting with y'all. I'm signing out.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jeff. Finally we are getting somewhere.

Before I go any further, I think I need to state a few things. Although I love to play devil's advocate, I am not actually an objective rationalist, an atheist or a member of any particular school of philosophy.

(What I am, actually, is a large stuffed tiger with a big rubber head. But I digress.)

Now, on to your points:

"1) I want to demonstrate the futility of the use of reason in ethical and theological considerations. I believe that for whatever rational system of morality you present to me, I can refute it."

I'll bet I can refute any system of morality (rational or otherwise) that you can present. Morality is subjective.

Oh, and what exactly do you intend to refute these systems with? You're an un-reasonable existentialist, remember.

"2) I believe that the essence of both man and God is more than reason, which makes reason inadequate when seeking a full understanding of either God or man."

How is it possible to have a full understanding of god? Oh wait, you and that voice in your head that calls itself the holy spirit have long conversations don't you?

Anyway, of course reason is going to be inadequate in trying to understand something that is unreasonable. But its a wonderful tool when demonstrating just how unreasonable it is in the first place.

"3) I believe that rational structures that try to capture God, man and morality are inhuman, besides being inadequate."

Again, all you are doing is embracing the irrationality of your beliefs. This does not make them true, it only reveals that you are not willing to consider that they might be false.

"4) “Rational” moral judgments based on reason about the actions of God are invalid"

So what are you left with? Irrational moral judgements about god, right?

"5) Scientific approaches to the existence of God are invalid."

Would you feel the same if science were to show that god actually existed? You only feel that it is invalid because it does not support your beliefs.

"6) The simplest way I can put it is that a rational approach to God and man is barking up the wrong tree. Other tools must be brought to bear – our subjective experiences, our individuality, our personality, our humanity."

And how are we to evaluate your subjective experiences, your sense of individuality, your personality, your humanity? You are trying to define this forum in such a way as to insulate you from having to defend your beliefs.

You see Jeff, debunking christianity isn't about providing a rational contruct for understanding god. Its about showing that there is no good reason to believe in the christian god in the first place.


Ismellarat, would you consider the belief that, you shouldn't do bad things because if you do Santa with leave coal in your stockings, to be valid? It offers a consequence to bad behavior.

Can't virtue be its own reward?

I personally have never been impressed by people who only act virtuous because they are afraid of being punished.

Moral relativism stings because it leaves us with no way deal with the immorality of others. (We can only control ourselves) But that's the flip side to being a free thinking individual. If you want the freedom to decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong then you have to allow that same freedom to everybody else.

Northlander said...

I wish things were more clear in Protestant Christianity. There are several different ways they see the relationship between sin and unbelief, but there's generally no easy loophole that will let you sin. Their god hates sin, don't forget.

I wasn't saying that they were claiming an easy loophole that would let them sin. I was saying that the believed there was a loophole that allowed them to escape the consequences of their sin.

Thought experiment: Let us consider two very different individuals, Mother Theresa and Josef Stalin. Let us stipulate that Mother Theresa led an exemplary and praiseworthy life. Let us further stipulate that Stalin, undoubtedly an atheist for most of his life, was one of the most evil men ever to walk the planet, measured in terms of the body count for which he was responsible.

Now here comes the experiment. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that on her deathbed, Mother Theresa succumbed to her doubts and came to believe that God does not exist. Let us also supposed that, on his deathbed, Stalin underwent a conversion experience, sincerely repented of all his past misdeeds, and died a believer.

According to the Christian orthodoxies of which I am aware, the Mother Theresa of this thought experiment, dying an unbeliever, would go to hell, while Josef Stalin, dying a repentant believer, would have at least a good shot at heaven, despite the enormous evil he had done. This is why I argue that, within "justification by faith alone" Christian theologies, God rewards and punishes, not your actions, but your beliefs.

Do I misstate anything here?

T said...

Charlie,

I have appreciated our discussions, so in no way am I agreeing with the idea that you should be banned. You are clearly intelligent and able to offer good, albeit, sometimes ["most-times"] harsh criticism. And even though I frequently disagree with your conclusions, I'm entertained by your abrasiveness.

However, when you wrote,

Treat me respectfully and you will get the same in return.

Well, its as Wesley said in the The Princess Bride,

We are men of action, lies do not become us.

SophieF said...

I have one comment to make, for Christians, non-Christians and ex-Christians. It is a quote from the 17th century philosopher and mathematician, Blaise Pascal:

"The heart has reasons that reason knows nothing of."

You can prove anything you want by picking up the particular coloured lenses for that particular belief you have.

You need a paradigm shift: to find answers to spiritual questions, you need to use spiritual ways, not intellectual ones! You guys need to STOP, GO QUIET, BE OPEN, STAY HUMBLED, and seek because:

"You will seek Me and find Me, if you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you..." Jeremiah 29;13

What you believe in WILL NOT change the ULTIMATE TRUTH. "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is not God" are two mutually exclusive statements, so one of them has to be wrong. Similarly, "there is heaven/hell" and "there is no heaven/hell" are also mutually exclusive. So one of them has to be wrong too.

The big question is: which one?

Consider the three year old in a superman suit about to jump out of the 10th floor window because he believes he can fly. His belief will not change his outcomes. So, let us not argue with the intellect, for you need a paradigm shift: use your spirit to seek spiritual answers.

How? You have to empty that heart of yours of all beliefs. Then go totally quiet, humbled and open (even to things you are antagonistic about)and pray this prayer, genuinely, from the bottom of your heart, in the privacy of your own bedroom, preferably kneeling (if you can't do that, you're not humbling enough!) "Jesus, I can't find answers by using my intellect alone, so if you really are God and if you really entered into history to redeem mankind by dying on the cross and if you really were raised from the dead and ascended to heaven so that I may have eternal life, will you please reveal Youself to me spiritually."

Your heart's cry will be heard in heaven. And you won't know what's hit you, except you will be a true believer!

You need a paradigm shift. It will change your life, and your web blog...