Faith is Not an Acceptable Answer
We’ve argued against the concept of faith many times before, but let me try again. I have argued that the Christian faith originated as a purely human religion completely accountable by humans acting in history without needing any divine agency at all. But setting that important discussion aside, faith is a cop out, especially when it comes to the number of things Christians must take on faith in order to believe. Let’s recount some of them.
1) No reasonable answer can be given for why a triune God, who was perfect in love neither needing nor wanting anything, created in the first place. Grace and Love are non-answers, especially when we see the actual world that resulted. For Christians to say God wanted human creatures who freely love him is nonsense, for why did he want this at all? If love must be expressed then God needed to express his love and that implies a lack.
2) It’s hard enough to conceive of one person who is an eternally uncaused God, much less a Godhead composed of three eternally uncaused persons. There are some Christians who maintain the Father eternally created the Logos and the Spirit, while others claim that three persons in one Godhead is simply an eternally brute inexplicable fact. Why is that brute fact more reasonable to accept than accepting the brute fact of the laws of the universe, which is all that’s needed to produce the universe? There are social Trinitarians and anti-social Trinitarians. Both sides accuse the other side of abandoning the Chalcedon creed, either in the direction of tri-theism, or in the direction of unitarianism.
3) This triune Godhead is also conceived of as a timeless being who was somehow able to create the first moment of time. How a timeless being could actually do this is extremely problematic. For if his decision to create a first moment of time is an eternal one, then there could be no temporal gap between his decision to create the first moment of time and the actual creation of the first moment of time. If there was no temporal gap between God's eternal decision to create a first moment of time and the creation of that first moment, then his decision to create would alone be sufficient for a first moment of time to be created. God could not eternally decide to create at any future point since there is no future point for him to create. So if a timelessly eternal God decided to create at all then the universe is eternal and never had a first moment in time.
4) This timelessly eternal triune God who parodoxically created time must now forever be subject to events in time. He cannot become timeless again, for to do so would destroy all that happened in time as if these events never happened at all. So although God somehow existed outside of time before creating the first moment of time he must now forever experience a sequence of events. Whereas before creation he was a timelessly existing being he is now going to forever experience a sequence of events that is never ending.
From here it only gets worse.
5) We are told that the Logos, the 2nd person of the trinity, became a man. No conception of this God-man in the flesh has yet been able to stand scrutiny. How, for instance, can such a being be 100% God and 100% man with nothing left over? All attempts to solve this problem have failed.
6) But we’re not done, for we’re told this God-man atoned for the sins of man. No sense can be made of how the death of Jesus actually forgives sins. There is no relationship between punishment and forgiveness at all. We forgive people who have not been punished and sometimes we won’t forgive people even after they've been punished. To say that in order to forgive someone they must first be punished does not describe forgiveness at all, anyway. It describes revenge. Revenge can never be a moral reason for acting and revenge has nothing to do with offering forgiveness. We don't even need for people to ask forgiveness in order to forgive them. Sometimes it's better for our mental health to forgive someone regardless of whether or not they're even sorry for what they've done.
7) This God-man was a unique never-before-existing being who is described in the creeds as one unified person. Here an additional problem surfaces. Where is the human side of this God-man now (i.e. the human nature of Jesus)? Since this human side of the God-man was sinless he couldn’t be destroyed, nor could this human side of the God-man be separated from the divine side, for such a being was now one person according to the creeds. So theologians have concluded that the trinity includes an embodied Logos. Now we have a trinity with an embodied 2nd person in it. Picture this if you will!
8) Stepping forward a bit, sinners sent to hell retain their free will, since it’s argued they continue to rebel in hell, while the saints who enter heaven have their free will taken away to guarantee there will be no future rebellion in heaven. If free will is such a great gift why reward people by taking it away from them and punish people by having them retain it? That makes little sense to me.
I’ve only touched on a few of the beliefs needed to make sense of Christianity. There are many others, and some Christians have different scenarios. But who in their right mind would embrace Christianity if he or she heard about them all when first being challenged to believe? Very few people. That’s what I think.
But we’re not done yet. For there is the additional problem of the lack of evidence for these beliefs. Archaeology disconfirms the flood and Exodus stories. What we have are the claims of people who wrote the books that later were accepted into the Bible. Why should I believe what they wrote? Why should I believe that the sun stood still, or that a star pointed down to a specific place, or that a virgin gave birth, or that a man walked on the water just because of what a person in the superstitious past wrote? Even in the Bible itself we see how the people of that same era believed in the actions of gods and goddesses like Apollo, Zeus, Baal, Artemis, and others, which hardly anyone accepts today. So why do Christians accept one set of claims in the past but reject the others? The same evidence supports them all: Testimonies by superstitious people in the past.
Christians must defend too many beliefs, any one of which, if incorrect, would be fatal to their whole worldview. These beliefs are based upon the conclusions of historical evidence which is extremely problematic given the nature of that evidence and the nature of the superstitious pre-scientific people in the ancient past.
Christians must defend things like the existence of the social Trinitarian God (versus an anti-social Trinitarian God) of the Bible (which had a long process of formation and of borrowing material from others) who never began to exist and will never cease to exist (even though everything we experience has a beginning and an end), who never learned any new truths, who does not think (for thinking demands weighing temporal alternatives), who is not free with respect to deciding his own nature, who revealed himself through a poor medium (history) in a poor era (ancient times), who condemns all of humanity for the sins of the first human pair, who commanded genocide, who allows intense suffering in this world (yet does not follow the same moral code he commands believers to follow), whose Son (the 2nd person of the trinity) became incarnate in Jesus (even though no one has ever made sense of a person who is 100% man and 100% divine) to be punished for our sins (even though there is no correlation between punishment and forgiveness) who subsequently bodily arose from the dead (even though the believer in miracles has an almost impossible double-burden of proof here) and now lives embodied forever in a “spiritual” human body who will return to earth in the parousia (even though the NT is clear that the end of all kingdoms and the establishment of God's kingdom was to be in their generation), who sent the 3rd person of the trinity to lead his followers into "all truth" (yet fails in every generation to do this), who will also judge us based upon what conclusions we reach about the existence of this God and what he has done (paralleling the ancient barbaric thought police), and who will reward believers by taking away their freedom and punish the dammed by letting them retain their freedom?
Since the larger the claim is the less probable it is, the Christian faith is simply too improbable to be believed by reasonable people. Period.
1) No reasonable answer can be given for why a triune God, who was perfect in love neither needing nor wanting anything, created in the first place. Grace and Love are non-answers, especially when we see the actual world that resulted. For Christians to say God wanted human creatures who freely love him is nonsense, for why did he want this at all? If love must be expressed then God needed to express his love and that implies a lack.
2) It’s hard enough to conceive of one person who is an eternally uncaused God, much less a Godhead composed of three eternally uncaused persons. There are some Christians who maintain the Father eternally created the Logos and the Spirit, while others claim that three persons in one Godhead is simply an eternally brute inexplicable fact. Why is that brute fact more reasonable to accept than accepting the brute fact of the laws of the universe, which is all that’s needed to produce the universe? There are social Trinitarians and anti-social Trinitarians. Both sides accuse the other side of abandoning the Chalcedon creed, either in the direction of tri-theism, or in the direction of unitarianism.
3) This triune Godhead is also conceived of as a timeless being who was somehow able to create the first moment of time. How a timeless being could actually do this is extremely problematic. For if his decision to create a first moment of time is an eternal one, then there could be no temporal gap between his decision to create the first moment of time and the actual creation of the first moment of time. If there was no temporal gap between God's eternal decision to create a first moment of time and the creation of that first moment, then his decision to create would alone be sufficient for a first moment of time to be created. God could not eternally decide to create at any future point since there is no future point for him to create. So if a timelessly eternal God decided to create at all then the universe is eternal and never had a first moment in time.
4) This timelessly eternal triune God who parodoxically created time must now forever be subject to events in time. He cannot become timeless again, for to do so would destroy all that happened in time as if these events never happened at all. So although God somehow existed outside of time before creating the first moment of time he must now forever experience a sequence of events. Whereas before creation he was a timelessly existing being he is now going to forever experience a sequence of events that is never ending.
From here it only gets worse.
5) We are told that the Logos, the 2nd person of the trinity, became a man. No conception of this God-man in the flesh has yet been able to stand scrutiny. How, for instance, can such a being be 100% God and 100% man with nothing left over? All attempts to solve this problem have failed.
6) But we’re not done, for we’re told this God-man atoned for the sins of man. No sense can be made of how the death of Jesus actually forgives sins. There is no relationship between punishment and forgiveness at all. We forgive people who have not been punished and sometimes we won’t forgive people even after they've been punished. To say that in order to forgive someone they must first be punished does not describe forgiveness at all, anyway. It describes revenge. Revenge can never be a moral reason for acting and revenge has nothing to do with offering forgiveness. We don't even need for people to ask forgiveness in order to forgive them. Sometimes it's better for our mental health to forgive someone regardless of whether or not they're even sorry for what they've done.
7) This God-man was a unique never-before-existing being who is described in the creeds as one unified person. Here an additional problem surfaces. Where is the human side of this God-man now (i.e. the human nature of Jesus)? Since this human side of the God-man was sinless he couldn’t be destroyed, nor could this human side of the God-man be separated from the divine side, for such a being was now one person according to the creeds. So theologians have concluded that the trinity includes an embodied Logos. Now we have a trinity with an embodied 2nd person in it. Picture this if you will!
8) Stepping forward a bit, sinners sent to hell retain their free will, since it’s argued they continue to rebel in hell, while the saints who enter heaven have their free will taken away to guarantee there will be no future rebellion in heaven. If free will is such a great gift why reward people by taking it away from them and punish people by having them retain it? That makes little sense to me.
I’ve only touched on a few of the beliefs needed to make sense of Christianity. There are many others, and some Christians have different scenarios. But who in their right mind would embrace Christianity if he or she heard about them all when first being challenged to believe? Very few people. That’s what I think.
But we’re not done yet. For there is the additional problem of the lack of evidence for these beliefs. Archaeology disconfirms the flood and Exodus stories. What we have are the claims of people who wrote the books that later were accepted into the Bible. Why should I believe what they wrote? Why should I believe that the sun stood still, or that a star pointed down to a specific place, or that a virgin gave birth, or that a man walked on the water just because of what a person in the superstitious past wrote? Even in the Bible itself we see how the people of that same era believed in the actions of gods and goddesses like Apollo, Zeus, Baal, Artemis, and others, which hardly anyone accepts today. So why do Christians accept one set of claims in the past but reject the others? The same evidence supports them all: Testimonies by superstitious people in the past.
Christians must defend too many beliefs, any one of which, if incorrect, would be fatal to their whole worldview. These beliefs are based upon the conclusions of historical evidence which is extremely problematic given the nature of that evidence and the nature of the superstitious pre-scientific people in the ancient past.
Christians must defend things like the existence of the social Trinitarian God (versus an anti-social Trinitarian God) of the Bible (which had a long process of formation and of borrowing material from others) who never began to exist and will never cease to exist (even though everything we experience has a beginning and an end), who never learned any new truths, who does not think (for thinking demands weighing temporal alternatives), who is not free with respect to deciding his own nature, who revealed himself through a poor medium (history) in a poor era (ancient times), who condemns all of humanity for the sins of the first human pair, who commanded genocide, who allows intense suffering in this world (yet does not follow the same moral code he commands believers to follow), whose Son (the 2nd person of the trinity) became incarnate in Jesus (even though no one has ever made sense of a person who is 100% man and 100% divine) to be punished for our sins (even though there is no correlation between punishment and forgiveness) who subsequently bodily arose from the dead (even though the believer in miracles has an almost impossible double-burden of proof here) and now lives embodied forever in a “spiritual” human body who will return to earth in the parousia (even though the NT is clear that the end of all kingdoms and the establishment of God's kingdom was to be in their generation), who sent the 3rd person of the trinity to lead his followers into "all truth" (yet fails in every generation to do this), who will also judge us based upon what conclusions we reach about the existence of this God and what he has done (paralleling the ancient barbaric thought police), and who will reward believers by taking away their freedom and punish the dammed by letting them retain their freedom?
Since the larger the claim is the less probable it is, the Christian faith is simply too improbable to be believed by reasonable people. Period.
81 comments:
I was raised Catholic, and I still cannot fathom why God would need to sacrifice God to God in order to change a rule God made. It's utterly nonsensacle (sp?). We're talking about an omnipotent being here. An omnipotent being can't practice a little mercy without torturing and killing an element of itself? Ummmm . . . yeah.
The idea that God is sacrificing and that he needs to is not the meaning of the atonement.
There are some pretty complex and profound things about atonement in theology. You should reading some. I suggst The Crucified God by Jurgen Moltmann. one of the best books you could ever read.
atonement is a statement of solidarity. Not sympothetic magic. It's a symbol to show us the willingness of God to identify with our plight.
see My Soteriology pages
The issue here depends upon God John. Faith is an approach to God. If God is real faith is real. you can't judge the reality of God apart from God by looking at some other part of the scheme.
Isolating faith and and trying to examine it logically out of the context of an understanding of divine human encounter makes not sense at all.
Why should faith be judged by the truthfulness of its object? The point of faith is that its' exercise is required precisely when the truthfulness of its object is unknown.
Jesus marveled at the faith of those who believed in his power even when they were not in a position to know the truthfulness of his claims. What about the poor soul who had faith in another first century messianic figure? Is he out of luck because he encountered the wrong guy? Jesus commended child like faith. Consider the child who placed his faith in Vishnu. Does this child's faith secure his damnation? We know a child will place his faith in just about anything that is presented to him as true (Santa, Tooth Fairy, closet monsters, etc.). But we are told that the only virtuous childlike faith is that which is placed in the actual truth. So, the blessed child is merely the lucky child who happened to place his childlike faith in something that was actually true.
A faith that truly saves requires the uncomfortable proposition of having to leap beyond the knowable and land squarely on the truth. To know the truth eliminates the need for faith. To have faith means you don't know the truth. Christian theology requires you to have faith in the correct things, the things that are true. Faith alone is not good enough. It must be a faith in the truth. But the truth is precisely what you don't know when you exercise faith.
John: Your feelings regarding faith and belief have nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion. Whether or not having faith makes someone "unreasonable", the conclusion (i.e. the correctness of believing) remains unaffected. You're committing a classic ad hominem.
Can I enquire if you would appreciate my claim that atheism is not correct because I don't consider unbelief to be an acceptable answer?
Hometown, the debate is not between atheism and Christianity. The debate is between Christianity vs Itself and then Christianity vs all other religions. Atheism is simply a skepticism of the claims of all Christianities and religions, something you share with me about all of them but the one you accept. For me atheism is the position of last resort. It's not something I was born into. It's something I had to discard like I did the belief in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.
J.I. Hinman, if by faith you believe God created me then by seeking to reason this out and by looking for evidence to believe I am merely doing what this so-called God of yours created me to do. He created us to be reasonable, so I am. He created me to ask for evidence, so I do. In fact, if we did what you ask in any other area of knowledge like psychology, science, geology, anthropology, medicine, surgery, economics, or political philosophy our society would not be run as effectively and we might still be living the the "dark" ages.
Want a few examples? When we're told we need surgery we seek to know whether or not this is actually the case by asking for evidence and arguments. And we go to doctors rather than have faith God will heal us too. When surgery is needed we look for reasons why we should trust the surgeon. We don't just have faith. On and on I could go. We do not merely accept what the Bible says in any discipline of learning just because the Bible says it. That would be foolish and make Mesopotamia the origin of all languages per the Tower of Babel story, and would render silly any attempt to claim by faith that there cannot be any new species on earth that were not somehow in Noah's Ark.
On an on I could go. We seek evidence. We seek reasons. If you cannot answer my questions sufficiently or provide the needed evidence I will not believe just because you tell me to trust in God. That makes about as much sense as telling me to pray rather than take my medicine.
My beef is not with religion, but with believing absurdities.
Such as...
• Jesus resurrected from the dead
• "Saints" came out of their graves en masse
• Bigfoot
• 3 million Hebrews exited Egypt when the entire population of Egypt was 3 to 4 million
• Cell phones cause gas pumps to explode
• Cold air causes the flu
etc
And Joe, the view of the atonement as a statement of solidarity is nothing an evangelical can accept and stay an evangelical. My target is the evangelical. Still, I find your view of atonement to reveal a powerless, pitiful, and pathetic God who cannot help human beings at all. So who needs him? And given the horrible nature of his creation he deserved to be crucified. Now let's ignore him. I do not have to forgive him for being so inept. There is no reason why I should love a God like that. I don't. I won't.
Sorry John, I'm not seeing how your comment relates to mine. Having faith in something doesn't make that something wrong, nor does being 'reasonable' make something else right. To suggest as such is to make an ad hominem argument, that is, that something should be denied because of a disqualifying feature of the person or people who affirm it.
Hometown, let me personalize this. Having faith in Zeus or Thor or Allah or Artemis or Animism or Animatism doesn't make these beliefs wrong, nor does demanding that our beliefs should be reasonable ones make them right.
So? I mean, after all, the absurd belief in a dead God like Baal might be the true belief. The only way to settle these disputes is with reason and with evidence. There is no other way. We cannot bring ourselves to believe against the arguments or against the evidence no matter what we do. We can do no other. God supposedly made us this way. So he cannot fault us if that's what we do.
Here's some absurdities that atheists take on faith:
1. The universe is uncaused (doesn't sound scientific, does it?)
2. All of the absurdities involved in the multiverse (so, are you a type 1, 2, 3, or 4 multiverser?)
3. Probabilities involved in Earth formation.
4. String theory
5. My personal favorite, abiogenesis.
6. Legendary Jesus (I know this isn't you, John, but you've been admonished by your readers on this blog for that before)
7. Positivism/Evidentialism, the original self-defeating epistemology.
8. The ethical superiority of Atheists
9. The eminent collapse of religion.
Let's put some probabilities on those and multiply them together ;-)
I just happened to stumble upon your blog this afternoon. Being a good philosophy graduate student, I felt duty bound to respond. Here are some things you say that seem unreasonable to me:
1. No good reason for God to create anything... What could possibly count as evidence for that claim? The only suitable starting point is going to be a theological one, one which you summarily reject without argument. So, saying that there's no reason for God to create, and I'm not going to allow for the circumstances to occur for reason giving here, isn't particularity good reasoning.
2. I'm not sure what your trinity objection is supposed to be. That the triune God is a mysterious concept? Of course it is, anyone who ever told you otherwise was mistaken. Is your view that it's only reasonable to believe in things that are utterly non-mysterious? If so, then I hope you can explain relativity theory and quantum mechanics adequately.
3. It's pretty clear here that you're confusing "time" with "duration". Time might just mean the period in the universe where light/energy were in existence. There can be no time without duration, but there can be duration without time.
4. I'm not sure how #4, a thesis many Christians do not hold is supposed to debunk Christianity. It also builds on the error in #3.
5. What would be a satisfactory answer for you about the incarnation? Plenty of people think the concept of the 'Imago Dei' solve this problem just fine. If you're asking for a reductionist account, one that makes no reference to God, then it's just a silly question.
6. You make a lot of claims in #6, none of them seem as obvious as you'd like them to be. Even in a secular government we believe in retribution/atonement/punishment for crimes. Is it implausible for someone else to pay for your fine for littering? No, or at least not obviously implausible. Here too, it seems as though you're attacking the theology of atonement without understanding its framework. You might think this is a fine tactic, but it's like condemning pre-Galilean astronomers on the basis of observations from the Hubble.
7. In #7 you say "Now we have a trinity with an embodied 2nd person in it. Picture this if you will!" But its clear you find the metaphysics of the trinity impossible, you've made this move without good argument, so why would anyone be surprised you find the still embodied Jesus impossible?
8. This is actually the most reasonable you sound in this whole post. Free will is clearly a problematic idea for all sorts of worldviews, both religious and non-religious.
9. Finally, you say "Christians must defend too many beliefs, any one of which, if incorrect, would be fatal to their whole worldview." This is obviously false. Christians once took it as an article of faith that the universe centered around the Earth. Very few, if any, Christians believe this today, yet there are still "Bible-believing Christians". Plenty of Christians doubt the literalness of the virgin birth, but still accept the deity of Christ. To lump all Christians, even all Evangelicals together, is a fallacy of composition.
In perusing your blog, it seems that you'd like to present yourself as someone who values rational argument above all, but just in this one post you've failed to honor this commitment. Worse, it seems as though you think that there are no smart, thoughtful, rational Christians in the world. The only way to maintain this opinion is through willfull ignorance of contemporary fields like philosophy. I'd encourage you to research these claims more fully, perhaps read some of the work of philosophers like Plantinga, or Van Inwagen. I think you'll find that you're 'rational' views are more your own biases than the product of careful investigation.
Cheers!
John, I'm losing faith in you. For a while, you seemed to at least be consistent within the little box you've created with your core beliefs. As JD Walters pointed out recently at CADRE Comments, your arguments are nothing more than bulverism.
To anyone not confined by your box, you're talking complete nonsense. And, I'm not even sure you are making sense within your box.
Brad, I don’t know whether the universe is uncaused or whether there is a multiverse, or some of the other things you’ve expressed, okay? That’s a reasonable position isn’t it? Doubt. That’s what best describes me, okay? How is that based upon faith at all? I don’t take a stand on these and other issues (on some I do).
I want you to understand the differences between us. Our differences are based on:
1) How we know. You were born into a Christian culture and this taught you how to view the world as brainwashed by that culture. You were taught to believe an ancient set of writings in the historical past to be words from God. That is your epistemological starting point. All other data is made to fit into its parameters because of how you were taught to see that data. You overlook data that disconfirms what you believe just as much as you discount the misses in unanswered prayer and only count the hits. I do not start where you do with those ancient writings anymore than I start with Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. I look at the world through the same scientific eyes that gave us modernity in the first place. I assume a natural cause for events and seek to explain everything from a natural viewpoint for that’s the viewpoint that gave us science itself and medicine, astronomy, geology, psychology, paleontology and many other disciplines which have been very helpful to us as human beings.
2) How certain we claim to know. So many Christians claim to be or act as if they are certain about their faith, which is an oxymoron—not possible when it comes to faith for faith by definition is uncertain. My knowledge is usually tentative, subject to change with additional evidence.
3) What we claim. You affirm something is true and that the events in the Bible all took place precisely as it records. The person who affirms this has a high burden of proof, not unlike the person who claims to know exactly what happened at Custer’s Last Stand or what happened to Jon Bene Ramsay who was brutally murdered. I merely doubt what you affirm much like I might doubt someone’s account of who killed Jon Bene Ramsay. There are several suspects and several motivations that all seem possible. All I do is look at your evidence and say you have not made your case. The odds are in my favor too.
4) How much we claim. I don’t claim to know too much, but what I do claim to know I have strong evidence for it. You have so many beliefs that I just mentioned above that if any one of them are incorrect your whole faith fails. The less one claims the more probable his claims are true. The larger the claim is the less likely it’s true.
In reply to John's comments @ Brad's (sorry clearly I should be doing more productive things with my time!)....
1. How exactly is it the John has escaped the brainwashing and Brad has not? If the claim that "[Christianity] is your epistemological starting point. All other data is made to fit into its parameters because of how you were taught to see that data." is true, then John's brainwashing views also fall into that parameter, and so, according to the argument offered cannot be trusted. Apparently, we've entered the land of the infinite regress.
On point #2, it seems to me that there is some conflation of the concepts of certainty and confidence here. It seems more apt to say Christians are confident in there claims, not that they act more certain. I recognize that there is some resemblance between these 2 concepts, but there are important differences. I am confident that my wife loves me and will forgive me for spending $100 dollars on a new dvd player. I am certain that there is a laptop before me right now.
I'm not terribly familiar with this blog or its author, but it seems that his claim that he "doesn't claim too much" is off. It appears that John is an atheist. I take this to mean that he thinks there is no God, anywhere in the universe. Given that he has evidence for about .0000001% (ok, i made that # up), of the universe, the right claim would be a sort of withholding of judgment, not atheism.
Christopher, thanks for visiting and commenting. I find however that you are being uncharitable with me. You have not read my book where I deal with these kinds of things in more depth.
You wrote other things, like:
"...one which you summarily reject without argument."
How can I do so in a short readable post?
"Is your view that it's only reasonable to believe in things that are utterly non-mysterious?"
Nope. Why the black or white fallacy known as the Either/Or fallacy? Such thing need to be better understod than they are, that's for sure. But then you might try to tell me why you don't accept the mysterious concept of the eastern One or Aether too?
"It's pretty clear here that you're confusing "time" with "duration"."
If this refers to Bill Craig's distinction between A and B theories of time then you surely should know that most all scientists reject Craig's notions about time.
"I'm not sure how #4, a thesis many Christians do not hold is supposed to debunk Christianity."
Of course you can always start a blog arguing that yours is the true Christianity and fight it out among yourselves. Come back to me and I'll debunk the victor.
"Plenty of people think the concept of the 'Imago Dei' solve this problem just fine."
Only Christians who want to believe will accept such an answer. I said non of them work and I'm will to back it up.
"Finally, you say "Christians must defend too many beliefs, any one of which, if incorrect, would be fatal to their whole worldview." This is obviously false."
Tell me what you believe then. If one of your belifs doesn't make your faith fail then you're merely reinventing what you believe in every generation until it gets so watered down that a Christian is described by some believers as a person who believes in God or religion of faith.
"Worse, it seems as though you think that there are no smart, thoughtful, rational Christians in the world."
This claim of yours is patently absurd. I once believed. I did not all of a sudden become rational when I decided not to believe.
"I'd encourage you to research these claims more fully, perhaps read some of the work of philosophers like Plantinga, or Van Inwagen."
*Ahem* you don't know who I am, nor have you read my book, have you?
John,
First, thanks for the reply. It's true that I've not read your book, and it is reasonable that you'd not try and condense your views into a single blog posting on them. But if so, then why the long list of claims here? Why not take them one at a time giving your best, succinct argument for each? Perhaps, you just were hoping to rehearse the main claims again here so as to encourage dialog?
I don't think I was committing the false dichotomy fallacy. Rather, I was commenting on the general tenor of your post that seem to be equating faith with simply believing the mysterious.
I'm actually not familiar with Craig's work on time. But the duration/time distinction seems like a basic metaphysical distinction. You say that your view of time is the one most scientists accept, but why would that matter in this context? Most scientists would not comment on what their view of time means for religious belief. Good physicists might have opinions about what there was before the big bang, but they'll tell you that, as far as physics is concerned, its a non-starter question.
You make this odd claim: "If one of your belifs doesn't make your faith fail then you're merely reinventing what you believe in every generation until it gets so watered down that a Christian is described by some believers as a person who believes in God or religion of faith. " Yet you maintain "My knowledge is usually tentative, subject to change with additional evidence" in response to Brad's post. If you're allowed to update you're beliefs on additional evidence, then why can't I? I take it you don't see yourself as 'watering down' your view of the world. Neither do I.
It's true that I had not heard of you prior to this afternoon. It looks as though you're book has recieved many favorable comments. Hopefully I'll have a chance to look it over sometime! I appreciate you're response.
Chris
Christopher, again thanks for commenting, and if you get my book I'd like to know if you think with Dr. James Sennett that it doesn't contain any straw man arguments, which is the best thing that can be said of the opposing side on these matters.
To continue, you wrote:
“How exactly is it the John has escaped the brainwashing and Brad has not?....Apparently, we've entered the land of the infinite regress.”
Another Either/Or fallacy? And yet you claim to be a graduate student? There must be something else at work here, perhaps faith, since no one would frame the debate in such slanted terms unless he was not trying to be objective with the real arguments and instead put forth straw man arguments. I’m actually surprised you bothered making this argument. Suffice it to say that if cultural relativism is the case then that’s the case regardless of whether or not that by arguing for it I am locked inside it. I actually think cultural relativism is the case and I dealt with this here.
“On point #2, it seems to me that there is some conflation of the concepts of certainty and confidence here.”
I don’t accept your language game here, for according to you confidence is less than certainty and there are different levels of each. But even if I did I can say Christians appear to act as confident that God is their buddy as you do that your wife loves you, and that's all I need to say. yes I think my wife loves me too, but first I must know (or be as certain as possible) that she exists, and I do, unlike theists who cannot say that about God.
“I take this to mean that he (John)thinks there is no God, anywhere in the universe. Given that he has evidence for about .0000001% (ok, i made that # up), of the universe, the right claim would be a sort of withholding of judgment, not atheism.”
I think Christianity has not made its claims by a long shot. I don’t think any religion has done so either. So what am I left with? Atheism. What does atheism entail? Many problems as you might be quick to point out. So I describe myself as an agnostic atheist. Are you willing to say you’re an agnostic theist?
Cheers.
Sorry John, I still don't see how it follows. We agree that having faith in something (God, Zeus, aliens, evolution), as unreasonable as it may be to anyone, doesn't make that something wrong. So faith being a "cop out" has no bearing on the correctness of the conclusion. Herein lies your ad hominem. It can't be said a Christian who thinks God wanted human creatures to love him is wrong because the belief is based on faith.
Hello again John!
Again you accused me of the either/or fallacy. So I thought I'd respond. Technically, a false dichotomy occurs when I present you with a question that looks like it can have only 2 answers. Generally 'how-questions' like "How exactly is it the John has escaped the brainwashing and Brad has not?" do not fall into this class. I was genuinely asking for an explanation. You had accused Brad of failing to rise above, or otherwise escape, his cultural entrenchment, but supposing that you had escaped this. It seemed to me (and here I may have misunderstood your point), that you were suggesting Brad's argument was somehow weaker than yours due to his aforementioned failure.
I'll presume you weren't committing an ad hominem by questioning my abilities as a graduate student.
I think it's clear that we do make a distinction between certainty and confidence, and not merely as a language game. In Bayesian versions of decision theory, we talk about subjective confidence, not subjective certainty, but this is relatively unimportant here.
I would characterize myself as an agnostic theist. I recognize the possibility that my beliefs might be wrong. But that is not to say that I think I have to good reasons, or good evidence, to hold them. Given how flawed human reasoning is, I take it as nearly certain that my beliefs about God are off in one way or another, but again, this does not mean that I take myself as having no good reason to believe that god exists.
Brad Haggard said...
1. The universe is uncaused (doesn't sound scientific, does it?)
Dr Hugh Ross provides an eye-popping assessment of the probability of a life-supporting universe; in brief, it's statistically impossible. The inherent problem with creationism is that it begins with the conclusion.
2. All of the absurdities involved in the multiverse (so, are you a type 1, 2, 3, or 4 multiverser?)
The human mind seems incapable of accepting the unknown for what it is: Unknown. To fill the gap caused by lack of information, we inherently create stories -- plausible or otherwise -- including numerous creation myths.
3. Probabilities involved in Earth formation.
See #1
4. String theory
I have no faith in quantum mechanics and consign it where it belongs: A theory (or notion) that can't be tested. That God expended three solar days creating stuff prior to the creation of the solar system makes make the string theory sound rational.
5. My personal favorite, abiogenesis.
I wasn't there when life emerged. Nor were you. We don't know how it happened. Creating a god-concept to fill the gaps of the unknown is not only absurd, it derails scientific inquiry.
6. Legendary Jesus (I know this isn't you, John, but you've been admonished by your readers on this blog for that before)
Was he "Lord, lunatic or liar" is like asking, "Are you in an airplane, tug boat or helicopter" when you are sitting at home. The correct question should be: "Was Jesus Lord, lunatic, liar, legend or known of the above."
Considering evangelical and fundamentalist groups differ on their perceptions of Jesus, we conclude that not all can accurate that some must hold to "legendary" (or inaccurate) views of Jesus.
Compare the Jesus Only/Foursquare theories to those of Southern Baptists, for example. Which group identifies the correct Jesus? Which the legend?
7. Positivism/Evidentialism, the original self-defeating epistemology.
How is defaulting to religion more rational than any other philosophy?
8. The ethical superiority of Atheists
Congratulations. You touched on a legitimate absurdity.
I see no ethic superiority in the likes of Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro, etc.
9. The eminent collapse of religion.
It is my observation that the human brain appears to be hard-wired to fill gaps in understanding. To that end, irrational nonsense -- religious or otherwise -- is eminent.
Even if the supernatural element of religion were eliminated, there would be plenty bogus naturalists notions to fill the gaps.
Let's put some probabilities on those and multiply them together ;-)
Please do.
Then apply the probability equation when answering: Do you REALLY believe many saints came out of the grave in Jerusalem after the resurrection.
Faith is something which can be tested. Unfortunately, Christianity cannot.
Christopher said...
I would characterize myself as an agnostic theist. I recognize the possibility that my beliefs might be wrong. But that is not to say that I think I have to good reasons, or good evidence, to hold them. Given how flawed human reasoning is, I take it as nearly certain that my beliefs about God are off in one way or another, but again, this does not mean that I take myself as having no good reason to believe that god exists.
Christopher,
I would love to hear what those good reasons are, if you don't mind sharing them.
Christopher said...
"Finally, you say "Christians must defend too many beliefs, any one of which, if incorrect, would be fatal to their whole worldview." This is obviously false. Christians once took it as an article of faith that the universe centered around the Earth. Very few, if any, Christians believe this today, yet there are still "Bible-believing Christians". Plenty of Christians doubt the literalness of the virgin birth, but still accept the deity of Christ. To lump all Christians, even all Evangelicals together, is a fallacy of composition."
This is like saying a person can be a bible believing christian but not believe in the bible.
Yes there are different ways of interpreting scripture, but it is impossible to look at the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke and try to explain them as not being literal. This is to completely part company with anything rational.
Why not also explain away the "deity of christ" as not literal, not only is it absurd for someone to be fully god and fully man at the same time, it is difficult to even find this doctrine in the pages of the new testament as many trinitarian scholars will concede.
At least the virgin birth story is explicit, as is other doctrines that christians now reject such as the young earth, 6 day creation. It takes hermeuntical gymnastics to try to explain away these plain scriptural teachings as not literal, and then turn around and take a doctrine that is not explicitly stated in scripture (the trinity) and say this is a literal fact that must be believed upon to be saved!
Silly christians, godmen are for comic books.
John, faith is not an answer you say, yet what else can one use if one is to accept your arguments? Certainly rational scepticism dismisses them straight off ...
Lets try a few
1) No reasonable answer can be given for why a triune God, who was perfect in love neither needing nor wanting anything, created in the first place. … and this is a serious issue? I could reply with … why do you think Christians must be able to answer all your questions to believe God exists?
2) It’s hard enough to conceive of one person who is an eternally uncaused God, much less a Godhead composed of three eternally uncaused persons. So its hard for you … tough … the limitations of your thought processes are not an argument against the existence of God.
Hindu and Christian scholars have, over hundreds of years, managed to conceive of a Trinitarian God.
3) This triune Godhead is also conceived of as a timeless being who was somehow able to create the first moment of time. How a timeless being could actually do this is extremely problematic. Again you work so hard to maintain your ‘non-faith’. Perhaps you can’t embrace the duality of a time bound physical world and a timeless metaphysical one – OK we get it you don’t do 3x or 2x
4) This timelessly eternal triune God who parodoxically created time must now forever be subject to events in time. there is no paradox with the duality of a time bound physical world and a timeless metaphysical one.
From here it only gets worse. I agree, it does – your arguments do get worse -
5) We are told that the Logos, the 2nd person of the trinity, became a man. No conception of this God-man in the flesh has yet been able to stand scrutiny Come now! And this from a theology scholar! what is so difficult about the concept of 100% human in the flesh and 100% God in the spirit – oops I forgot by definition you deny the existence of the spirit
6) But we’re not done, for we’re told this God-man atoned for the sins of man. No sense can be made of how the death of Jesus actually forgives sins. Do you understand the difference between atonement and forgiveness? But in fairness, you have a point this is a difficult concept. You seem to be at sea though when you say To say that in order to forgive someone they must first be punished does not describe forgiveness at all, anyway. It describes revenge. … what are you on about? CHrists did not need forgiveness – no revenge or punishment in his death.
7) This God-man was a unique never-before-existing being who is described in the creeds as one unified person … not worth serious comment, you are dithering
your earlier point - From here it only gets worse. yes your arguments have got worse – to the point where my BS filter has kicked in – I can’t waste my time on more of this – present worthwhile argument if you want to be taken seriously.
If you base your rejection of God on arguments such as these then I understand why it is such a leap of faith to get to your atheism.
sala kahle - peace
Here's some absurdities that atheists take on faith:
1. The universe is uncaused (doesn't sound scientific, does it?)
Speaking for myself, I don't take it on faith that the universe was uncaused. I do believe that the cause of the universe wasn't magic. You can call that belief "faith," but I consider it to be instead a methodological preference for naturalistic explanations. "It was magic!" doesn't really cut it as an explanation. Indeed, it seems to me that the person who says "it was magic!" is tacitly admitting, whether he realizes or not, that he really doesn't have an explanation.
I let go of my pencil,and it falls to the floor. Why did it fall to the floor? Did God cause it to fall to the floor by magic? I think not. Neither, probably, do you -- but why not?
Gary, both creation and nature arguments of the origins of the universe suffer the same problem - neither can be extended to a time before it existed (even the big bang energy matter type argument should ask where the initial energy/matter came from.
... does your natural phenomenon really answer this one? ... or did the initial energy/matter just happen along.
So we can either dismiss this line of argument as inconclusive in the extreme ... or ... wait ... if there exists a duality of the physical universe and a metaphysical one there may be a solution to the problem of of the origin of the origin ... what else tracks back to before the beginning?
sala kahle - peace
So we can either dismiss this line of argument as inconclusive in the extreme ... or ... wait ... if there exists a duality of the physical universe and a metaphysical one there may be a solution to the problem of of the origin of the origin ... what else tracks back to before the beginning?
Because of the meaning of the word "metaphysical", I don't think you want to suggest a duality between a physical universe and a metaphysical one, but rather -- if you will accept a friendly amendment -- a duality between a natural universe and a supernatural universe.
I would respond to that with two points:
First, contemporary physics is beginning to move from the notion of the universe to the notion of our universe. That is to say, the hypothesis is forming of a "multiverse" of which our universe forms only a part. Brad, of course, rejects the notion of a multiverse as an absurdity in which only an atheist could have "faith." Whether scientists who are seriously considering the multiverse hypothesis are in fact all atheists I do not know, though I suppose it is possible. But if our universe formed as a result of some development in a multiverse, then it seems to me that there would indeed be a (kind of) "before" before our universe. I would add that the hypothesis of parallel universes appears in fact to be at least somewhat amenable to testing, and scientists are indeed preparing to test it experimentally.
The second point I would make is that, if you are positing a duality between the natural and the supernatural, as I believe you are, and if we equate the "supernatural" with the "magical", as I do, I will simply reiterate my previously expressed methodological preference for naturalistic explanations over the claim, "It's magic!", for the reason that such a claim does not, it seems to me, actually explain anything whatsoever.
John, if you are such a reasonable person when it comes to doubt, then how have you "solved the puzzle"?
Notwithstanding the fact that you assume a lot about me in your first point (for which I was chastised a while ago on this blog) you claim that we should accept modernism because it is "helpful"? Surely that can't be the standard of truth. Maybe I'm just too brainwashed, though. Of course, we both grew up in the same faith tradition, Restoration Movement, so I think that if you doubt my rational faculties, then I can doubt yours. Doubting is reasonable, isn't it?
I've said elsewhere in the comments on this blog (just in case you've read it, I apologize to repeat) that if I don't accept the historicity of certain passages doesn't mean I "reject" them or what they teach. That is a fundamentalist straw man.
And you all of a sudden sound humble by saying that you don't know things, but if you don't take the Big Bang and abiogenesis on faith, then I can't imagine how you imagine we are here at all.
If either of those two fail, then you're worldview falls apart. One of them has absolutely no evidence for it at all.
Endiana,
Counter questions are what made this thread fun :)
But I'll let you dictate this time.
1. That passage is Jewish apocalyptic imagery mixed in with historiography.
2. I'm not sure what the question is...
3. 3 million is probably an inflated number, or rounded. Or do you think there were around 120 Hebrews at the time, if we look at your population model?
Gary, happy to accept natural vs supernatural. However if you predefine supernatural to be impossible I see little point. Call it what you like , you have said nothing to remove the concept from the table - "I don't believe in magic" fails as a rational argument.
I also have no problem with multi-verse. But is does not eliminate the problem of what was there before it started - all it does is move the question further back in time.
Sala kahle -peace
Endiana thoughtful answers require thoughtful questions, but I will do my best.
No I don’t think any of the passages you quote to be the literal truth. Why should I expect them to be? After all, the bible is not a historical text book.
However you wanted a little more thoughtful than that.
1) I guess your key issues here is “bodies” – right? In which case there can be two explanations. People saw what they thought were bodies – may not have been, could have been metaphysical. OR people came upon many open graves devoid of corpses. If the latter they yes it seems to be born out by what people actually observed. If the former it is an acceptable statement of what people saw.
Perhaps you would like to present a credible case that the statement is not based on witness accounts.
2) & 3) So what – not a historic text, why should the numbers be right in a story handed down over the generations?
Accounts in the press / TV / radio of the number of people at Obama's inauguration vary significantly, some testing the physical constraints of transport and space (and that was not even 100 days ago) - does that mean the event did not take place?
Sala kahle -peace
Gary, happy to accept natural vs supernatural. However if you predefine supernatural to be impossible I see little point. Call it what you like , you have said nothing to remove the concept from the table - "I don't believe in magic" fails as a rational argument.
Well, it's true that I don't believe in magic, (as opposed to say, "the art of illusion" practiced by professional "illusionists"). However, were I simply to say, "I don't believe in magic," that would not be the point at which rational argument would have failed. It would have failed one step prior to that, at the point when you said, "It's magic!" As I said before, it seems to me that "It's magic!" is not an explanation, but an implied admission that no real explanation can be supplied. It's certainly not a rational argument. It may even be a peremptory demand that rational argument cease, should it be implied that an attempt to find a naturalistic explanation in place of "It's magic!" might somehow inherently be blasphemous.
I also have no problem with multi-verse. But is does not eliminate the problem of what was there before it started - all it does is move the question further back in time.
Not if the multiverse is eternal. The question of what caused our universe to come to be as a serious scientific question only arises, after all, because of the consensus within the scentific community that it did come to be. I would add here that this consensus does not exist because it was stated at the beginning of the Book of Genesis that what we would now call "our universe" came to be. The consensus exists for a different reason altogether, and that is because scientific observations of the universe lead to the conclusion that it came to be, some 13.7 billion years ago.
Since at this point the multiverse is still far more a matter of speculation than of knowledge, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the multiverse in some sense "always was." If it always was, then the question of how it came to be would not arise.
Gary, I love your reasoning "the possibility cannot be ruled out that the multiverse in some sense "always was." " ... and the same applies to God?
Sala kahle - peace
Christopher wrote: 1. No good reason for God to create anything... What could possibly count as evidence for that claim? The only suitable starting point is going to be a theological one, one which you summarily reject without argument. So, saying that there's no reason for God to create, and I'm not going to allow for the circumstances to occur for reason giving here, isn't particularity good reasoning.
God, by his very definition, is unchaining and perfectly self-sufficent. He would be no less great nor have lost anything had he decided not to create human beings.
Yet he decided to create humanity. Why?
If you suggest God did so out of his unconditional love, I'd ask for what reason have you decided to link the concept of creation and unconditional love?
Unconditional love does not require creation. Unconditional love It requires nothing, or it wouldn't be unconditional.
If you suggest that omniscient God created us because he knew we want to exist or that God knew he'd love us unconditionally if we did exist, I'm sure he'd also know of a near infinite number of beings that would also want to exist and that God would love as well, as he supposedly loves unconditionally.
So why stop with us?
A lack of resources would not be a problem for God, nor would there not be enough of God to go around as he is supposedly infinite.
APLOGIES FOR ZAPPING POSTS.
I keep forgetting to change my identiy.
----------------------------------
Brad,
For clarification.
1. That passage is Jewish apocalyptic imagery mixed in with historiography.
I still don't know if you believed it actually happened. We'll let it rest.
2. I'm not sure what the question is...
An estimated 3-million Hebrews participated in the Exodus. The Red Sea parted (Have you ever reviewed the topography of the Red Sea? The Red Sea Rift would be virtually impossible to walk across. Google it.) allowing 3-million Hebrews to walk away from Egyptian captivity with Pharaoh's military in hot pursuit.
Oddly, we learn from anthropologists, Egyptologists and archaeologists that the ENTIRE population of Egypt was about 3 million at the time of the Exodus.
Stretching numbers, we can allow for 4-million inhabitants of all Egypt and 1.2-million Hebrews. Imagine 30 percent of Egypt's population up and leaving, unnoticed by historians.
3. 3 million is probably an inflated number, or rounded. Or do you think there were around 120 Hebrews at the time, if we look at your population model?
Here's what the Bible says:
"all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten." (Gen 36:27b)
In the book of Acts, Stephen sets the number at 75, accounting for the families of Ephraim and Manassah, say apologists (actually, it a contradiction).
Anyhow, the Hebrews showed up in Egypt to escape the world-wide recession set off by Jimmy Carter's Community Investment Act while Joseph was Prime Minister. The Bible records the number that left 400 years later at an estimated 1.2 to 3 million.
That astounding rapid growth in population is unknown throughout human history, including the 20th century.
If you'll do a simple google search, you will discover the world population was growing at about 50 percent per 1,000 during the time of the Egyptian exile.
The numbers simple defy history, math, common sense, anthropology, and archaeology.
And I have yet to get a Christian apologist (including William Lane Craig) to even consider the question; let alone provide a reasonable explanation.
My conclusion: The Bible is dead wrong about the Hebrew exile in Egypt.
(And, yes, there are conservative atheists.)
akakiwibear,
I think we agree
I wrote: If you suggest that omniscient God created us because he knew we want to exist or that God knew he'd love us unconditionally if we did exist, I'm sure he'd also know there are a near infinite number of beings that would also want to exist and that God would love them all, as he supposedly loves unconditionally.
To clarify, I'm referring to human beings vs. a near infinite possible number of other sentient beings that could just as likely want to exist.
As such it appears that link between creation and unconditional love is unwarranted.
Kenn, I think we agree I hope not. We may agree on the inerrancy issues, but you appear to see the inconsistencies as justifying your 'conservative atheism'- I see them as not challenging my liberal theology.
Do you think they should challenge my theist position?
sala kahle - peace
Christopher,
I love hearing your thoughts on this topic, but I think you misunderstand what atheism is.
You suggested that an atheist is someone who believes that "there is no God, anywhere in the universe".
I think you're confused. Atheism is not a knowledge claim - atheism is a belief claim.
Atheism is my statement that I have a lack of belief in gods. I believe that there are no gods - this is a result of not believing any god claims.
However, I don't suggest that I know that there are no gods. That would make me a gnostic. I am an agnostic atheist.
Gnosticism/agnosticism has to do with knowledge states.
Theism/atheism has to do with belief states.
I don't trust the "you only know 0.00000001 % (or so) of everything, therefore there could still be a god in what you don't know" argument, because it also applies to theists.
If we agree that each of us can only know a very small fraction of everything that there is to know, then there could also be information in that fraction of what we don't know which disconfirms the existence of a god, just as there could be information which confirms the existence of a god.
I think that lack of knowledge argument cuts both ways. And if we really want to press the lack of knowledge issue, let's consider how much knowledge was available to the people who compiled the Bible and other ancient scriptures, shall we?
akakiwibear,
Well, if you care to engage in friendly debate, I'm also available.
1. Seeing dead people walking is the stuff of urban legends and Bruce Willis Movies.
2&3. You offer nothing I can get a handle on. If you don't believe in Pinocchio, why be a liberal Pinocchioist? What not be an ainocchioist? Why bother postulating about all the possible causes of nasal enhancement?
Or, "liberal theologian" seems to be incongruous or oxymoronic, I smiled.
I've often wondered why liberal theologians never start anything: They invade.
Harvard and Yale were founded by orthodox Christians and taken over by liberals. Methodism was a fundamentalist movement long after the departure of the Wesley brothers; then sacked by liberals. Same with Lutheranism and many Presbyterian groups. Add American Baptist to the list.
I can't think of one institution of merit founded by liberal theologians.
Just wondering.
BTW - "Conservative" defines my political views (libertarian, actually). I don't know if there is a liberal or conservative atheism.
Your turn. And be nice. I tend to ignore ad hominem arguments. ☺
Gary, I love your reasoning "the possibility cannot be ruled out that the multiverse in some sense "always was." " ... and the same applies to God?
If the multiverse "always was", then there would clearly be no need for the God hypothesis to account for its creation and existence.
The interesting question about the God hypothesis, I think, is not whether, under this hypothesis, God "always was", but how it would possible for God to exist, not only outside "our" universe, but outside the set of all universes making up the multiverse. That is, if that is what is being proposed. This quasi-rhetorical question is of course void if what is being proposed is that God is a being living in some other universe within the multiverse who set off the Big Bang of our universe, like a kid setting off a firecracker on the Fourth of July.
A question that has aroused my curiosity of late is this: When we say that something "is possible," what does that mean? What are the limits of "the possible"? Once one resorts to the claim, "It's magic!", is one saying that there are no limits to the possible, because in a magical "universe" anything whatsoever (short of a logical contradiction) is or might be possible?
I let go of my pencil, and it falls to the floor. Did it do so because of gravity, or is it "possible" that a transcendant God caused it to fall to the floor through a feat of divine magic? Would it be just as "possible" for my dropped pencil to fall upward, as a result of an equal but opposite feat of magic, and land on the ceiling?
Kenn, ditto to aka on the texts you presented. The raising of the saints is theological, but it seems the resurrection accounts are still historical. That's the key for me.
and the Exodus account probably has an inflated number, but that doesn't mean it's totally bunk. We can at least reasonably trust the Patriarch accounts in Genesis.
@ Deist Dan...(quite a lot of activity overnight here!)
It seems as though you're accusing me of picking and choosing which biblical passages I take as historical and which are figurative, without any good reason (other than to justify my own views), thereby committing hermeneutical gymnastics. I don't think that's the case. Here are a few reasons.
1. Clearly the new testament authors wanted to see Mary as the fulfillment of the virgin mentioned in Isaiah. But many hebrew scholars think there is no 'virgin' in Isaiah, and that this is just a poor translation. If so, then there was no need for the NT writers to keep this, unless they really believed it.
2. But this is the real sticking point I think. Clearly, the NT writers say that Mary was a virgin. How are we to understand this claim? Obviously, if I take Jesus to be God, then the miracle involved is no problem. If you want me to explain this without recourse to miracles then it's an impossible task. Personally, I don't think anything central to the gospels is lost if Mary wasn't a virgin...but I see no way to defend the claim if you think supernatural=impossible.
2. You (and a lot of others) make the claim that it's absurd to think that Jesus was both 100% God and 100% man, but never defend this claim. (I'll assume you think a 50/50 mix is more reasonable?). It can only be made out to be absurd if you can make out the claim that God and man are mutually exclusive categories. I can have a red ball that is 100% red and 100% ball, so it's at least conceivable, and not obviously absurd that something can't be both god and man. I suspect you think that it's part of the definition of God that excludes this, but how can you make this claim out without recourse to theology?
You asked for some of my own reasons for belief, so here you go.
1. Peronal religious experience. I don't expect others to be convinced by my own experiences, but I don' think its rational to deny them either. No doubt, you think it's merely psychological phenomena, not evidence, but even if it were just psychological phenomena, why would it be rational for me to deny the experiences? It would be similiar to denying the experiences I have of other people (though not exactly analogous).
2. I think our best historical evidence suggests that there was this guy Jesus and that he took himself to be god. Clearly people near him and the community closest to him thought something like this. They even started worshiping him. Being temporally closer, I think they were in a much better position to judge these claims than we are today, so I give them so weight.
3. Personally, I find the cosmological argument for God's existence pretty compelling. I just can't fathom an infinite causal chain, nor a universe just popping into existence. I recognize that plenty of other people aren't convinced by these considerations. I just think they're wrong.
so there ya go!
Chris
Christopher,
Thank you for sharing those three reasons for your own belief. When I believed, the reasons I presented for doing so paralleled yours. Allow me to comment on those reasons, and please understand that none of what I say is meant as criticism. These are some of the observations which contributed to my rejecting supernaturalism, in particular, theism, and religion. I state them merely as thoughts to consider.
You said,
1. Peronal religious experience. I don't expect others to be convinced by my own experiences, but I don' think its rational to deny them either. No doubt, you think it's merely psychological phenomena, not evidence, but even if it were just psychological phenomena, why would it be rational for me to deny the experiences? It would be similiar to denying the experiences I have of other people (though not exactly analogous).
All people experience the psychological phenomena which among believers is called the religious experience, but, relatively speaking, only a small fraction of the human population attribute those feelings, sensations and emotions to being filled with the Christian Holy Spirit. Those who explain their experience in Christian spiritual terms do so only because they have been taught to do so. Those who embrace different explanations do so for the same reason: that is what they have been taught. Among those using different explanations, there is a significant portion of mankind who experience those same psychological phenomena, but they see in it something about themselves, not something otherworldly.
It was significant to me that no matter where one lived, no matter what the dominant local religion happened to be, one's approach to religious ideas and thinking ended up, almost without exception, exactly the same as that of their childhood authority figures, their parents. Also significant to me was the rarity of persons changing religions. To be sure, some Christians bounce among many Christianties, but very few indeed ever abandon the religion passed down by their parents.
More significant to me than the infrequent adopting of a new religion by laypersons was that among religious scholars, those who deeply researched such things, there were no mass defections to religions determined to have superior truth claims. Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist scholars, each as earnest, sincere and thorough in their academic work as Christians, do not accept the truth claims of Christianity and do not abandon the religion they were born into to embrace Christianity. Personally, I saw no reason for me to remain Christian when persons far better informed about the theological minutia than I, remained unconvinced by the very best arguments of Christian scholars and theologians.
Again Christopher, this is not an argument for why anyone else should reject Christian beliefs. They were some things that I mused over as my religious faith dissolved.
You stated,
2. I think our best historical evidence suggests that there was this guy Jesus and that he took himself to be god. Clearly people near him and the community closest to him thought something like this. They even started worshiping him. Being temporally closer, I think they were in a much better position to judge these claims than we are today, so I give them so weight.
What I've discovered about the best historical evidence concerning Jesus is that -- being as charitable as is reasonable -- it is quite poor. Particularly interesting to me is that while it is maintained that Jesus' contemporaries thought him to be the Christian God incarnate, no one seemed sufficiently impressed by that notion that they wanted to write about it until well after he was dead.
As I gave that some thought, I realized that no one knows what the people Jesus might have known actually thought about him since his legacy was not written until long after he was said to have lived. Jesus didn't write about himself and those who lived around him did not write about him. No one knows what Jesus thought, or said, or did. No one really knows. Everything that is conjectured about Jesus is hearsay, second hand, at best, though more likely even more distant from a first hand account.
As I saw it then and as I see it now, none of Jesus' disciples, companions, friends, family and acquaintances were especially impressed by any claims he may have made or miracles he may have performed since no one was moved to record anything firsthand as it transpired. No eyewitnesses to Jesus' life provide testimony that he even lived at all. I came to understand that the first written account of the life of Jesus was itself a decades-old oral hand-me-down product of the rumor mill.
What I've learned about the persons who lived around the time of Jesus is not that "they were in a much better position to judge these claims than we are today," but, instead, that they were much less capable of judging such claims. In a recent blog post(http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/disbelieving-believers.html), Matt McCormack mirrors many of my thoughts on the matter. He states, "Consider important epistemic differences between us and them, and their impact on the question of their reliability." He then outlines three differences between Jesus' contemporaries and us that affect their reliability: their readiness to accept supernatural beliefs, their poor understanding of the world, and their lack of critical scrutiny, doubt or skepticism. His wonderful essay puts this all into nicely polished form, and the following excerpt provides a good abstract for the essay.
The common error when modern Christians think about the early Christians, I think, is to assume to a large extent that they were like us concerning relevant epistemic criteria. If you are going to believe because they believe, then you have to adopt this stance. You can’t take their word for it, and simultaneously acknowledge that they were irrational, unjustified, or uninformed about the matter. If I think of them as being more or less like me with regard to skepticism, rationality, and information, then it would make sense for me to believe what they believe. But this projecting ignores the facts: the early Christians were from a radically different, ancient culture that did not have any of the scientific, educational, or historical advantages that we take for granted. Their background, their propensity toward supernaturalism, and their ignorance would have made them radically different, and radically worse, epistemic agents than us. And those differences make them utterly unreliable as sources of information about Jesus.
Your last point was,
3. Personally, I find the cosmological argument for God's existence pretty compelling. I just can't fathom an infinite causal chain, nor a universe just popping into existence. I recognize that plenty of other people aren't convinced by these considerations. I just think they're wrong.
My approach to these sorts of issues goes like this: before I can know what nature can not do, I need to know all that nature can do. Whenever religion and science have had differing answers to the same question about the natural world, religion has never won. In centuries of clashing concerning the natural world, the natural explanation, the scientific explanation has always been the correct one. In every head to head conflict from heliocentrism to germ theory of disease to demon possession as a cause of mental illness to evolution, those passing on their deity's topical insight have been wrong each and every time. Their faith was wrong every time. Their deity was wrong every time.
When I look at this in a modern context, Intelligent Design underscores the point rather well. Many of the big names in the ID movement, Behe and Dempski come to mind, contend that they KNOW that the natural evolutionary mechanisms cannot produce the observed biodiversity of the natural world. They hold this view for purely religious reasons, and they attempt to twist public understanding of science to achieve their religious objectives. Yet, over and over what results from their religious intentions and inspirations has been shown to be in error. Clearly they do not know all that evolution can produce, and where they are ignorant -- to me their ignorance is a vast region, if Behe's Dover testimony is any clue -- they plug in their intelligent designer(the Christian God). They, too, should adopt: before I can know what nature can not do, I need to know all that nature can do. Once again, religion conflicts with science, and, once again, religion loses.
I'm not suggesting that others should find my observations as compelling as I did, though I would hope they might fuel some thought, but, for me, the consequence of my looking long and hard at the religion of my birth was that it, and the faith it promoted, simply died.
Kenn, you offer very little of substance, but if I extract If you don't believe in Pinocchio, why be a liberal Pinocchioist? What not be an ainocchioist?
I see that you miss the distinction between those who have a literalist belief in the bible and those who do not. IF I believed in the historic and scientific accuracy of the bible I would be a literalist … but I don’t and so I am not – nor am I what you may describe as a liberal literalist, I am as you suggest I should be, an analiteralist ;)
When it comes to theology, as in politics, there are conservatives, liberals and a few too many others. You seem happy to accept epithets in politics, but not religion … how strange.
I prefer debate with more substance.
Hamba kahle - peace
John,
I've already answered You all these questions before. What did find to be so senseless/illogical in my answer?
Lvka,
Are you joking? Some examples of your "answers":
"No."
"Yes."
"Feel free to."
"Did God create suffering or did we?"
You also seem to answer why Jesus could be 100% man and 100% God with the claim that you are 100% man and 100% angel, and I'm having trouble understanding why you think that that's an acceptable answer without presenting evidence for it.
Why do you think your post that you've linked to was meaningful in any way? This is not meant to be insulting, but an honest question. I'm honestly confused, because I've seen many of your posts, and the ones (that I've read) have amounted to flat-out claims (like the afore-quoted "Yes" and "No") or references to events in the history of Christian theology that you don't seem to go anywhere with.
I'm interested to know how you think, I suppose you could say.
Russ,
Thanks for your response, I thought I'd reply.
Much of what you say in #1 seems right to me. I think the vast majority of people who have religious experiences interpret them as confirmation of their particular faith. To my mind this makes a doctrine of universalism more reasonable.
Personally, I think human beings are not very prone to changing opinions on much of anything they think is important. Consider all the philosophers who spent their entire careers defending a view, that no one accepts. I don't think this should count as evidence for or against any view, I think it's more evidence for the lack of rationality in human beings.
On the #2, historical stuff. I think claims on both side of this issue are problematic. Some historians, mostly believers, argue for earlier dates, skeptics argue for later dates. Being a believer I think the earlier dates are plausible.
The stuff on the relevant epistemic differences between us and our historical counterparts is interesting. Your quoted source said "Their background, their propensity toward supernaturalism, and their ignorance would have made them radically different, and radically worse, epistemic agents than us. And those differences make them utterly unreliable as sources of information about Jesus."
I don't think that his conclusion follows. It only follows if we think that our naturalism and scientific mindset put us in a better position to asses the historical Jesus. As much of this mindset supposes that supernaturalism is impossible, and then proceeds to argue that obviously the NT era folks were mistaken, it begs the question.
Let me try to be clearer about what I think here:
1. Many contemporary historians assume that supernaturalism is a mistake.
2. From 1, in reading older texts, historians attribute supernatural claims as supersticion.
3. From 1&2, the conclusion is offered that the historical sources that make supernatural claims are mistaken.
But this is clearly circular.
By and large I agree with you on #3. With 1 caveat. A scientific investigation of nature will never reveal supernatural claims. I think your reading of ID which makes the claim that science proves god is spot on. But knowing all that nature can do would probably not reveal or fail to reveal god's existence.
Christopher said...
Regarding your first two points...
It is clear that matthew and luke, believed the messiah was to be born of a virgin from their use of Isa 7:14 from the septuigant. The hebrew as you noted, says simply young woman, but apparently they didn't know that so their was no reason for them to make up the story and contradict each other in the process.
However, their belief in the virgin birth did not mean they believed jesus to be god. They both distinguish jesus from god throughout their books. I seriously hope you don't try to contest that fact.
Your second is that jesus can be both god and man at the same time. No he cannot because your analogy fails. A red ball has two words which are not mutually exclusive by their definitions. God and Man on the other hand are mutually exclusive. God is God because he is not a man, he has infinite attributes (according to christians but not according to the bible) he has the omni attributes. Yet man has the opposite, man has limitations, man is not immortal, not all knowing, not everywhere at one, not all powerful.
So to say that Jesus is fully god and fully man at the same time is to speak gibberish. It is saying
Jesus knew everything and didn't know everything at the same time
Jesus was in one place, and in all places at the same time
Jesus was all powerful and limited in power at the same time
This is not only philosophical nonsense, it also is not biblical.
The bible says explicitly that jesus grew weary, he was tempted, he had limited power, he had limited knowledge, etc
This is why it is impossible and nonsensical.
Regarding your reasons for your beliefs, I wonder if you have ever considered how those reasons would like to a nonbeliever...
Your first argument is from experience, which as you should know is not proof of anything.
Your second is that Jesus claimed to be god, which is simply not true from a biblical standpoint. I was a fundy christian and believed Jesus was god for awhile, i later became a heretical christian (biblical unitarian) and discovered the bible actually says the opposite, and that the arguments to make jesus into god simply do not logically lead to that conclusion. It is an argument that violates the hermeneutic principles of reading the implicit (jesus is god) at the expense of the explicit (jesus is distinct from and inferior to god), it violates the few (jesus is perhaps implied to be god, or a god) versus the many principle (where jesus is constantly distinguished from god). It takes the obscure and places the in importance over the many. Needless to say i can dismantle any argument you make for jesus being god. At best you could try to say jesus is a begotten god alongside the only true god (based solely on johns prologue), and that contradicts many other passages.
Your fine tuned universe argument does not logically lead to the god of the bible, or even a theistic god.
Deist Dan - you say Your second is that jesus can be both god and man at the same time. No he cannot because your analogy fails. A red ball has two words which are not mutually exclusive by their definitions. God and Man on the other hand are mutually exclusive. God is God because he is not a man, you follow this with your usual Ad Hominem which makes me disinclined to comment ... but there is such obvious flaws in your position that I could not resist.
As an atheist you probably don't hold with the Pauline concept of body, soul and spirit. But if you you wish to attack Christopher then you cannot dismiss one Christian belief in order to label another gibberish.
While not wanting to go into the detail or error of the the doctrine of the Trichotomy or quasi-Platonic dualism, why could Jesus not have been 100% man in the flesh and 100% God in the spirit?
Certainly seems biblical to me, for example 1 Thess 5:23
Sala kahla - peace
As an atheist you probably don't hold with the Pauline concept of body, soul and spirit.
Akakiwibear,
First, beyond Biblical assertions, do we really see sufficient evidence to suggest such a separation exist? Paul's concepts were formed after the fact. As with the formation of the trinity, this appears to be an attempt to make sense out of previously contradictory events or based on abstract verses, such as Hebrews 4:12.
Second, if for the sake of argument, we assume such separation does exist, then you're left with some division of thirds. Was Jesus was 33% man and 66% God? Or 66% man and 33% God? 100% God and 100% man still seems to be a contradiction.
Given that the Pauline concept of body, soul and spirit indicates the spirit is God's presence in Man. All of use are supposedly 33% God. And if Man is made in God's image, would each aspect of our immaterial being not lie in the same place? Genesis seems to clearly present to this view. As such, it seems that, regardless of how you decide to segment our immaterial aspect, we should find it consistently "housed" in both man and God.
So, the Pauline concept itself indicates both man and Jesus would share 33% of God. What is left?
If Jesus did not sin, how could his soul have been of Man? This would be impossible as, men who share the same spirit cannot help but fall short. So it would appear that Jesus had the soul of God.
But is this really how we see Jesus depicted in the Bible? Does Jesus reason, act and make decisions as if he was God in a man's body? By the very definition assigned to God by Christianity, he clearly does not.
akakiwi,
Where in this verse does it say jesus is god, or jesus was equal with god, or jesus is fully god and fully man, or anything else relevant to your claim that jesus is something other than the jewish messiah?
1Th 5:23 Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus is distinguished from the "god of peace" in this verse, thus refuting your position.
you said...
"While not wanting to go into the detail or error of the the doctrine of the Trichotomy or quasi-Platonic dualism, why could Jesus not have been 100% man in the flesh and 100% God in the spirit?"
What exactly do you mean by jesus was 100% man in the flesh? The problem is your christian terminology empties words of their normal meanings, thus leading to nonsense gibberish aka christian dogma.
When you say 100% god in the spirit, are you saying 100% trinity in the spirit since you believe god = trinity (the word god in the bible never means 3 persons sharing a divine substance). Or are you using the word god to refer simply to the impersonal divine substance apart from the persons that share it?
These convoluted explanations are unnecessary when someone takes the biblical jesus at his word, where he says he is not god, says he is subject to god, says he is inferior to god, and says he is dependent on god, etc.
Either Jesus had 2 minds which trinitarians normally reject (the one human from the flesh, the other divine from heaven) or he had one mind which simultaneously experienced ignorance and omniscience at the same time. Either way you have a problem.
All of this is avoidable as i said because, the bible doesn't say jesus is a member of a trinity, and there is no reason to believe in the bible at all. You silly christians just paint yourselves into the corner, and then deny your in a corner.
akakiwibear
Of course there are liberals and conservatives in theology. Please go back and correctly read my question.
My question was regarding atheism. There are conservatives and liberals who are atheists, but are there conservative and liberal elements that are components of atheism, per se'?
Again, liberal theology? Why bother. If one doesn't believe the Bible is inerrant, why bother being a Christian theist?
Also, why do liberal theologians invade conservative institutions?
They seldom, if ever, institute ministries of their own, but attach themselves to existing orthodox institutions and, in time, "enlighten" them.
I realize these are difficult questions and don't intend to press for serious answers if none are forthcoming, but perhaps others have some insight.
Points of discussion for Brad concerning salvation (soteriology):
When I was saved, I asked Jesus to come into my heart. (I never asked him to leave; I just recognized that he doesn't exist.)
While evangelicals are adamant in their view that Jesus is the only way to eternal life, they splinter in diverse opinions concerning the mode of salvation.
Some insist baptism is required for salvation. Of those, insist specific words must be utter by the baptizer as the convert is immersed.
Some believe immersion is essential; others permit sprinkling.
Some require face-first immersion; others require three dips.
Other groups disassociate baptism with the act of salvation. These groups usually require a sinner's prayer such as, "Dear Jesus, I realize I'm a sinner. Please come into my heart and save me from my sins. Amen."
If this prayer of salvation is essential, why is the script not in the Scripture?
Some groups require repentance for salvation. Some accept simple belief (Acts 16) while others insist on "Lordship" salvation.
Some think you will speak in tongues; some believe you must believe in "Jesus Only" (Foursquare)
In other words...
Jesus is the only way to heaven, but there are dozens of different plans of salvation, each group believing they've got it right and all the others are confused by Satan.
What say you? Is your plan of salvation the correct one?
Light and Shadow, the idea of dividing into three measured components is an outcome of the Trichotomy error.
That aside your comment that 100% and 100% man is a contradiction misses the point that the spirit can be 100% God and the flesh 100% man - if you want to get carried away by the semantics ... your choice.
Deist Dan, if you are happy to justify your atheist position based on a literalist position on the bible and to deny that 2000 years of theological scholarship has added a single thought of value ..... well your choice too I guess.
But when you say Either Jesus had 2 minds which trinitarians normally reject (the one human from the flesh, the other divine from heaven) or he had one mind which simultaneously experienced ignorance and omniscience at the same time. you exhibit a lack of understanding of the Pauline body soul and spirit - there are no 2xminds - it is not a problem if you take the time to understand it ... but hey, don't let knowledge get in the way of a good argument ;)
sala kahle - peace
Kenn, well put together can I chance a reply to What say you? Is your plan of salvation the correct one?
All the plans you cover reflect your roots. You missed out salvation through works - baptism being an "optional" extra (acquired in the Catholic sense by "desire" as much as by deed).
The problem with the churches that back the various options is that they all seek to establish a monopoly on salvation - our way or no way - which is right - none are it that sense.
The Catholics seem to almost get there with identifying three elements necessary for salvation:
1) Moral law/living = doing what is right rather than what is evil
2) Spiritual grace = being in a "good" place with oneself, effectively wanting to be a good person
3) Adopting the teachings of the Church = focus on 10 commandments + beatitudes, really a commitment to to the community of the Church
Above is very much a summary - see the Catechism www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM for more detail.
The main point is that since Vatican II the Church recognises that anyone can get to heaven provided they have tried to live a good life. This is a far broader acceptance than the evangelicals usually hold. Naturally the Catholics claim to have the inside track - but I guess they are only human.
Sala kahle - peace
Philip R Kreyche,
to say, for instance, "I don't believe that a human being consists of a body and a soul" is one thing; to say (and mean) that you really, truly & actually don't understand this is quite another thing. If you can understand that (without necessarily believing it) then you'll be able to understand (without believing) how Christ is "100% God and 100% man with nothing left over". -- In other words, I don't understand what it is that you (and John) don't understand.
Understood, Lvka.
Now would you address my other questions?
Lvka - well said. I guess by "not understand" they mean don't want to - or are scared that understanding may impact on belief.
sala kahle -peace
Light and Shadow, the idea of dividing into three measured components is an outcome of the Trichotomy error.
Akakiwibear,
It's unclear as to your position. On one hand, you imply that Paul's concept of body, soul and spirt has significance. But, on the other hand, we do not have three parts. How is this possible? You've merely pushed the contradiction around on your plate and claimed you've "ate" it.
misses the point that the spirit can be 100% God and the flesh 100% man - if you want to get carried away by the semantics ... your choice.
Semantics? It seems you're merely appealing to "magic" or some form of special pleading.
First, Does Paul not specifically assign specific roles to each part of his his spirit, soul and body concept? If we are made in the image of God, would not each part in Man have the same function as in God. If not, on what basis do you suggest otherwise? Please explain why Paul's separation has importance in your argument, yet somehow fails to have any consequences.
Second, Is this some kind of "new math?" You've just described 50% man and 50% God. Or, at best, 100% God and 50% man. This still doesn't add up.
Even if we totally ignore Paul's division of the immaterial, do you not claim that man's intellect / reasoning / will is immaterial and separate from of our material body? if so, was Jesus' immaterial aspect 100% of God or 100% of Man?
At best, we might say Jesus was 50% man (a material body) and 100% God (immaterial soul / spirit). Yet Jesus was clearly not Biblically depicted in as exhibiting 100% of God's will / reasoning / intellect. Why is this?
Was God's immaterial, infinite nature, which normally functions without the need for any material aspect, somehow squelched by being associated a material body with human senses?
If so, this clearly contradicts the idea that God is somehow unbound by material space and time, yet he can effect material space and time. If not, then why did Jesus not exhibit 100% of God's will / reasoning / intellect?
I guess by "not understand" they mean don't want to - or are scared that understanding may impact on belief.
I don't understand how presenting answers which clearly lack cohesion are somehow acceptable when it comes to God.
I guess if you do not require an explanation as to how God actually does anything, then you do not require your accounts to actually make sense or not contradict each other, either.
Light and Shadow, you ask Even if we totally ignore Paul's division of the immaterial, do you not claim that man's intellect / reasoning / will is immaterial and separate from of our material body? if so, was Jesus' immaterial aspect 100% of God or 100% of Man?
In fact only by ignoring Pauls model does your problem arise. The nub of the argument is do you not claim that man's intellect / reasoning / will is immaterial and separate from of our material body? … and the answer is no. The recent neurological work on brain function shows that the brain (material) has a greater role in the man's intellect / reasoning / will . This is the role attributed to the soul in Paul’s model.
Now let’s track some easy parts of your argument:
Does Paul not specifically assign specific roles to each part of his his spirit, soul and body concept? If we are made in the image of God, would not each part in Man have the same function as in God. clearly not – as a supernatural being God would have little use for a body. You have over simplified “made in God’s image”
Is this some kind of "new math?" You've just described 50% man and 50% God. Or, at best, 100% God and 50% man. This still doesn't add up. which part of flesh = 100% man and spirit = 100% God confuses you? Are you concerned that I combined body and soul into ‘flesh’ – the reasoning is above. At a philosophical level we can debate a model of body-soul-spirit or the Plato based model of body-soul. However I am sure you see the benefit of Paul’s model as it is fully compatible with current advances in neurology.
… why did Jesus not exhibit 100% of God's will / reasoning / intellect? back to Paul’s model. Reasoning and intellect are soul which is 100% human (= brain function). Will depending on how we define it is either on the human side or the spirit side. The development of Christ’s own awareness of himself as man and God as seen through the gospels is a clear indication (in my mind) of the separation of soul and spirit. However to answer your point – Jesus’ spirit did exhibit the divine will/power of God by deliberately embarking Him on a course of action that would lead to a fairly rough death.
In conclusion if you do not require an explanation as to how God actually does anything, - I think I have a fairly good understanding and I apologise if in bashing out my comments I have not made myself clear.
Sala kahle - peace
Deist Dan,
Here are a few things you say that I think are mistaken.
1. You said "virgin birth did not mean they believed jesus to be god. They both distinguish jesus from god throughout their books." I agree that belief in a virgin birth does not entail belief in the deity of Christ. I am more concerned with the claim that Matthew and Luke 'distinguish' God from Jesus. Do you mean to say that you think Matthew and Luke say somewhere that Jesus was not god? That seems like a difficult claim to make, but I'd love to see your argument. As a former fundy, you are no doubt aware of the argument that in the gospels Jesus does things that, in his culture were tantamount to saying 'Hello, I'm god' i.e. the forgiveness of sins. I'll assume you're not convinced by this, but think it's worth mentioning.
It's interesting to me that you seem comfortable using the Bible to support your views, but do not mention the gospel of John, which is clearly the most theologically 'developed' gospel.
In regards to my red ball analogy you say "God and Man on the other hand are mutually exclusive. God is God because he is not a man, he has infinite attributes (according to christians but not according to the bible) he has the omni attributes. Yet man has the opposite, man has limitations, man is not immortal, not all knowing, not everywhere at one, not all powerful." In this case I don't think your conclusion that 'God and Man are mutually exculsive' is well supported. What about the omni-attributes requires that God could not choose to limit himself? If you want to say that to be god is to be all powerful, but to lack the ability to limit yourself, that seems like a contradiction.
You also say "to say that Jesus is fully god and fully man at the same time is to speak gibberish." And go on to say that it must mean things like Jesus was in one place and everwhere. I deny this second claim. Again, I think it is perfectly consistent with the idea of god that he choose to limit himself by becoming man. moreover, many theologians think that is part of the significance of the creation narative in genesis that man is created in the image of god. Some argue that this anticipates the incarnation, not that I expect you to be convinced by this.
Here's the main epistemic problem with your argument. We can say that the words 'circle' and 'square' (in a cartesian sense) are mutually excuslive. The definition of each entails the exclusion of the other. Do we have the same sort of knowledge about both God and man? I don't think that we do. To make your argument work you have to show that you know completely the definition of both god and man and that they entail the exclusion of each other. If somehow you think you have such knowledge, I'd be interested in hearing how you got it.
FYI. The cosmological argument is the argument that the universe must have a cause, not that it is finely tuned (that's the teleological argument).
Cheers,
Chris
In regards to my red ball analogy you say "God and Man on the other hand are mutually exclusive. God is God because he is not a man, he has infinite attributes (according to christians but not according to the bible) he has the omni attributes. Yet man has the opposite, man has limitations, man is not immortal, not all knowing, not everywhere at one, not all powerful." In this case I don't think your conclusion that 'God and Man are mutually exculsive' is well supported. What about the omni-attributes requires that God could not choose to limit himself? If you want to say that to be god is to be all powerful, but to lack the ability to limit yourself, that seems like a contradiction.
Allow me to jump in here and ask you to consider the folowing argument:
Premise 1: It is possible for a man to sin.
Premise 2: It is not possible for God to sin.
Conclusion: It is not possible for God to be God and a man at the same time, as this would require that what is impossible for him be possible.
Premise 1 is one that most Christians would agree with (in fact, most Christians would probably say that not only is it possible for a man to sin, it is impossible for him not to sin).
Premise 2 is the doctrine of the Catholic Church. See Catholic Encyclopedia Online, where "omnipotence is defined as "the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible." See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm. There we are also informed that "It is impossible for God to sin" because this would be an action "out of harmony with God's nature and attributes."
One obvious way out of the theological dilemma is to deny the truth of Premise 1 in its original form and amend it as follows:
It is possible for a man to sin unless the man is also God
In that case, we would have identified something that Almighty God cannot do that any mere mortal can do, and that is to sin.
Another way out of the dilemma is to deny Premise 1 altogether and say that it is possible for God to sin, his "nature and attributes" and all that notwithstanding.
What would be your approach, Christopher?
Gary,
First, I appreciate the clearness of your post.
For the proof to work you need the stronger premise in place of
premise 1: It is not possible for man not to sin.
If this premise is true, then it would seem that god and man do share mutually exclusive properties. Obviously, since i think god and man are not mutually exclusive, I don't think this premise is true. As they say in logic, one person's modus ponens is another's modus tollens. Since it is possible for god and man to be the same thing, they must not be mutually exclusive and it must be possible for man not to sin (but maybe only when that guy is also god).
On god's not being able to sin as a limit of omnipotence. There are two things to say here.
1. Even if true, it seems like not much of a limit on god's power. Or at least not one that impugns his character.
2. There are two way that I know of that theologians like to respond. First, that sin isn't a real action, but rather a lack of some thing. When we sin, it's not what we do that makes it sinful but what we lack (e.g. compassion, charity, humility in action). If so then to say god can't sin is another way of saying he lacks nothing. Second, to say god can't sin might be equivalent with saying god can't square the cirlce. That is he can't be logically inconsistent. Many would say that god sinning, when properly understood is a logical absurdity.
On god's not being able to sin as a limit of omnipotence. There are two things to say here.
1. Even if true, it seems like not much of a limit on god's power. Or at least not one that impugns his character.
If there are any limits on God's power whatsoever, then it would seem that the word "omnipotent" could not be applied him. We could say that God is very, very powerful, yes, but "omnipotent," no.
The problem of the concept of God's "omnipotence" is that, if you take it literally, you begin running into certain logical contradictions, either actually, or potentially.
Consider the following question: If God is omnipotent, could he, in effect, "clone" himself and create another God? Call the clone "God #2." If God #2 were an exact copy of God #1, then God #2, like God #1, would have to be omnipotent. If God #1 and God #2 did battle, which would defeat the other? By the definition of "omnipotence," each one would have to defeat the other, yet neither one could be defeated by the other. That's an obvious logical contradiction, so perhaps God's omnipotence prevents him from creating another God.
However, if God is less than omnipotent, but merely very, very powerful, he would not be so prevented. He could clone himself without creating a logical contradiction. But this would mean that a less powerful God (one who is very, very powerful but not omnipotent) would actually possess least one power that the more powerful omnipotent God lacks. Again, this would seem to be contradictory.
But regardless of the question of whether the notion of "omnipotence" is even logically coherent, I understand you to be saying that omnipotence is not a necessary attribute of God, since a being (Jesus) could lack omnipotence and still be God. It is your argument, if I understand it correctly, that it is precisely God's omnipotence that would allow him to give up his omnipotence, otherwise he's not omnipotent. If I may extend that argument a little farther, are we then saying that God's omnipotence would allow him to shed any of his other customary attributes as well, so that he has no necessary attributes at all? Otherwise, it would seem, omnipotence could not even be one of his customary attributes, much less a necessary one.
There are two way that I know of that theologians like to respond. First, that sin isn't a real action, but rather a lack of some thing. When we sin, it's not what we do that makes it sinful but what we lack (e.g. compassion, charity, humility in action). If so then to say god can't sin is another way of saying he lacks nothing.
Does not this "lack" argument imply that any newborn infant, who has yet to commit any "real actions" other than the most basic bodily functions, is more sinful than many adults? After all, the infant is lacking in compassion, charity, humility, etc., while an adult who might have committed numerous individual sinful acts over the course of his or life might, nevertheless, possess such traits in abundance.
Gary,
You said "The problem of the concept of God's "omnipotence" is that, if you take it literally, you begin running into certain logical contradictions, either actually, or potentially."
Sure, so that's a good reason not to think that all powerful doesn't mean the ability to do anything we can name, but only the things that are logically consistent. Of course god can't make a rock so heavy he can't lift it. But if you think that is a meaningful limit to omnipotence, then I think we mean to different things.
I take the claim that God is all powerful to mean that god can do everything that can possibly be done by god. This doesn't mean that he actually has done, or will do all of these things.
You also said "It is your argument, if I understand it correctly, that it is precisely God's omnipotence that would allow him to give up his omnipotence, otherwise he's not omnipotent." That is not my claim. All I would claim on this point is that it is within god's power to willfully limit it's exercise. There's no reason to think that Jesus wasn't as powerful as god, just because he didn't shoot lightning from his eyes. But even if Jesus was just as powerful as an average person, why would this entail that God gave up his omnipotence at the incarnation? I can bench press 200 lbs, even though I am not doing so right now, have I lost the power to do so? I don't think so.
Primarily, I disagree with your characterization of God shedding his power at the incarnation. I think a better way to think of it is a suspension of exercise. At the same time, I am personally not concerned about the claim that God has no necessary attributes, at least not in the sense I think you mean. However, I know this isn't a historically popular position. I think the more interesting question concerns god's actual attributes, even if they're not necessary.
Finally the lack argument. As I understand it, you can only lack something that it's reasonable for you to have. You and I aren't lacking wings, even though we don't have them. We're supposed to have compassion, honesty, etc. So when we don't exhibit these we're lacking. This argument is aristotelian in its origins, and I won't claim to have all the details down, but I think it's plausible. We call a person a sociopath when the lack normal human empathy. We don't make similar claims about a person's winglessness. We don't think the baby who lacks compassion is lacking anything they're supposed to have. So, if you think of sin as lacking something you ought to have (for it to be sin, we'd probably want this lack to be in someway intentional on a person's part), then the infant who lacks compassion isn't sinful at all.
In fact only by ignoring Pauls model does your problem arise.
First It's unclear how you can admit Paul's model as the means to support your position, yet somehow decide there are not three parts. We have 60% man and 30% God, or at best, 60% man and something less than 100% God.
Second, while I applaud your acceptance of recent neurological research, the claim that "Reasoning and intellect are soul which is 100% human (= brain function)", is both highly unorthodox and presents a multitude of problems for Christianity (which I'll outline further below). It's also a far leap from the Christianity John is criticizing here. I'd wager you'd be hard pressed to find support for such a material soul with other theists who regularly comment on DC.
The Bible depicts both the heart, soul and the spirit as equals. The soul can be troubled, as can the spirt. They can both perceive and think. As such, a majority of Biblical scholars, including William Lane Craig and James Moreland, hold that the soul is immaterial. The major discrepancy of Trichotomy is based on the merit of treating the soul and spirt as two separate things, despise both being immaterial.
Third, such a view contradicts the idea that we are made in the image of God. If God deliberately and willfully created space, time, our universe and human beings, then his will / intellect / reasoning must be non-material. If we do not reflect God's immaterial will, than what part of God's image do we reflect? Clearly, it's not God's material aspect as he has none. If we are made in the image of God, would not each immaterial part in Man have the same function as in God?
Fourth, if our soul requires a nervous system, then it appears we do not have souls at conception, but only several weeks later. Even then, our "souls" change radically as our neural systems mature and degrade. At what point in this this continuum does our soul represent us? What point did God know before we were born? What point lives eternally? Buddhism's response to this continuum, which was formed thousands of years before neurobiology even existed, was the idea of a "soul" which uniquely identifies us is an illusion.
Fifth, while a material "soul" would be indeed be extremely complex each choice would ultimately be the result of material cause and effect. This calls into question how God escapes responsibility for designing the material system that we use to reason and how he can judge us for our choices before our death.
Sixth, if, for the sake of argument, we suppose man's soul is material, it still fails to address the problem of how 100% of God's immaterial reasoning / intellect / will somehow coexisted with 100% of man's material reasoning / intellect / will.
If we exclude God's immaterial soul then we have 50% God. But why Did Jesus not sin if he had Man's soul?
Nor does it address how 100% of an infinite, immaterial God, who is unbound by material time and space, would be diminished or impaired by being associated with a material body with six human senses.
However to answer your point – Jesus’ spirit did exhibit the divine will/power of God by deliberately embarking Him on a course of action that would lead to a fairly rough death.
What you've described is 50% God and an appeal to emotion. Clearly, what Jesus was said to have endured, no person should have to experience. But other men have endured far worse for far longer periods of time of their own volition. Simply put, the supernatural has no exclusive claim on suffering.
I think I have a fairly good understanding and I apologise if in bashing out my comments I have not made myself clear.
It's not that your lacking clarity. You appear to be appealing to "magic" or special pleading to present Jesus being both 100% man and 100% God as cohesive position. God's nature only has consequences when it suits your position.
You said "The problem of the concept of God's "omnipotence" is that, if you take it literally, you begin running into certain logical contradictions, either actually, or potentially."
Sure, so that's a good reason not to think that all powerful doesn't mean the ability to do anything we can name, but only the things that are logically consistent. Of course god can't make a rock so heavy he can't lift it. But if you think that is a meaningful limit to omnipotence, then I think we mean to different things.
I think we mean the same thing, but it seems to me that the hoary "God and rock" example perfectly illustrates logically incoherent nature of the concept of omnipotence. Can God make anything so heavy that he cannot lift it? No, because that would result in a logical contradiction. Can I make something so heavy that I cannot lift it? Of course, and I have done so. So there's another thing that I can do that Almighty God cannot. God could only do what I can do by being less than omnipotent.
But even if Jesus was just as powerful as an average person, why would this entail that God gave up his omnipotence at the incarnation? I can bench press 200 lbs, even though I am not doing so right now, have I lost the power to do so? I don't think so.
I'm afraid you've lost me there, Christopher. "Even if Jesus was [only] just as powerful as the average person" would seem to mean precisely that he had no omnipotence at the incarnation, else one could not meaningfully say that he was "just as powerful as the average person." If Jesus could have bench pressed an infinite weight, not merely 200 pounds, then he was infinitely stronger than the average person. We must therefore conclude that a "true man" could bench press an infinite weight, provided at least that he were a "true God" at the same time.
Let us here stipulate that the amount of weight that Jesus actually could have bench pressed was never, so far as is known, put to the test. However, we are led to believe that he had difficulty carrying even a single cross on his way to execution. Therefore, I would venture to say that there is good scriptural warrant for saying that Jesus could not have bench pressed more than a couple of hundred pounds even had he wanted to. On the other hand, maybe he was just a goldbrick on the Via Dolorosa.
Finally the lack argument. As I understand it, you can only lack something that it's reasonable for you to have.... We call a person a sociopath when the lack normal human empathy.... So, if you think of sin as lacking something you ought to have (for it to be sin, we'd probably want this lack to be in someway intentional on a person's part), then the infant who lacks compassion isn't sinful at all.
Fair enough, with regard to the infant, but what of the sociopath? If his lack of empathy is not intentional (and I think it's implied by the ordinary usage of the word "sociopath" that it is not), are we saying that the sociopath, like the infant, is without sin? "Not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect?"
Christopher said...
"Do you mean to say that you think Matthew and Luke say somewhere that Jesus was not god? That seems like a difficult claim to make, but I'd love to see your argument. As a former fundy, you are no doubt aware of the argument that in the gospels Jesus does things that, in his culture were tantamount to saying 'Hello, I'm god' i.e. the forgiveness of sins. I'll assume you're not convinced by this, but think it's worth mentioning.
It's interesting to me that you seem comfortable using the Bible to support your views, but do not mention the gospel of John, which is clearly the most theologically 'developed' gospel."
John's gospel doesn't provide support for jesus being equal with god either. At best it says in the prologue he was a god, more specifically the begotten god along with the true god. Thus two gods, not exactly jewish monotheism (note it doesn't say these two persons share one substance/essence). Ironically Jesus makes strong statements in John's gospel distinguishing himself from the true God (john 17:3, 20:17). In fact John even says he wrote the gospel to convince you that jesus is the messiah and son of god (john 20:31), not to convince you that jesus is the only true god, or member of a trinity. In John 10, Jesus is accused of making himself god or a god, Jesus responds by quoting the psalms where the judges of israel were called gods (psa 82), he then says essentially "if they were called gods, and the scripture cannot be broken, then why do you say i am blaspheming for claiming to be the son of god, when i was sent and sanctified by god" (John 10:33-36).
Jesus backs away from the idea that he was the supreme god, instead says he is claiming to be the son of god, and can claim that because god sent and sanctified him. He could have said "yes, i am god". Most people do not realize that the word god is applied to moses (exo 7:1) david (psa 45:6,7), judges of israel (psa 82:6), and others. It wasn't exclusively used for yahweh, it had a lesser application for mighty ruler, which is why satan was called the god of this world by paul (2cor 4). Thus jesus could be called "god" in this lesser sense as others were (john 10:28) without being "the one true God" as jesus applied that title exclusively to his god and father (john 17:3).
This is a coherent attempt at harmonizing the scriptures, i know of no other way to do so on this issue. I think your taking the whole divinity of jesus concept for granted before it has been proven, which is what most christians do since that intepretation was imposed on them from the moment of their conversion.
Regarding the synoptic gospels, when they speak of god they are not speaking of jesus.
I will give luke as an example...
Luk 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.
Trinitarian/deity of christ proponents read their beliefs into the texts when the texts say the exact opposite. You ask where is the evidence in the gospels jesus wasn't god, i ask where is the evidence that he was?
Regarding Jesus being worshipped, forgiving sins, judging the world, performing miracles, etc. None of these show he is god.
Jesus said he could forgive sins because "the son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" as he said. He then gave this authority to his disciples (john 20).
Jesus received worship(reverence), however the bias is revealed when you learn this word can be used for god as worship or for humans as reverence/homage etc. It doesn't say they worshiped him as god, rather as the messiah/heir to davids throne they bowed to him just as they bowed to david in the old testament. The LXX records the same word being used for what david received on several occasions. Jesus even said he would have people worship at his disciples feet.
Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
It is the same greek word.
Jesus performed miracles according to the power that god anointed him with according to himself and his disciples (john 14:10, acts 2:22, 10:38). Jesus said he could do nothing by himself (john 5:30). Later his disciples healed and raised the dead after being anointed with the same spirit jesus was anointed with (acts 2:32-36).
I can go on and on, every argument for the deity of christ is easily refuted. It was a developed doctrine and not the view of the original disciples. Look at the book of acts, it is embarrassing to the idea that they believed jesus was god, they call jesus the servant of the god of the fathers (acts 3:13). Peter said god made him both lord and christ (acts 2:36), paul preached him as man (acts 13:38, 17:31) peter said god was with him (acts 2:22, 10:38).
It does not simply distinguish jesus from the father, as would be expected in trinitarian theology, but it goes beyond that and distinguishes jesus from god outright. Jesus is distinguished from the god of the fathers, the god of all comfort, the only wise god, the only true god, etc.
Christopher said...
"Here's the main epistemic problem with your argument. We can say that the words 'circle' and 'square' (in a cartesian sense) are mutually excuslive. The definition of each entails the exclusion of the other. Do we have the same sort of knowledge about both God and man? I don't think that we do. To make your argument work you have to show that you know completely the definition of both god and man and that they entail the exclusion of each other."
This is where you part company with nearly all christian theologians fyi. However since i do not believe in the god of the bible, it becomes a purely philosophical argument which is pointless. It seems to me that a being that is omniscient, could not choose to not be omniscient, but that is merely my opinion.
Jesus being god is absent from 99% of the NT scriptures and nowhere to be found in matthew, luke, mark, 1 & 2 Peter, james, jude, romans, acts, 1 & 2 corinthians, 1 timothy, 2 timothy, philemon, the majority of hebrews, the majority of johns gospel, 1,2,3 john, Philippians (yes i said it is not in Philippians), Colossians (not there either the "by him" in verse 16 should read "in him" check the greek), nor in the book of revelation (the word god is used over 80 times in the book of revelation, and it isnt used for jesus once in that book)
Isn't it odd that the deity of christ is absent from so much of the bible and based essentially on a handfull of cherry picked proof texts and a few misunderstood concepts. Proof texts that could have easily been manipulated by copiers later to conform to there ever evolving traditions/dogmas.
Christopher the real story however is that we have no reason to believe the gospels at all. We don't have the originals, we do not know who wrote them, we do not know when they were written, we do not know what changes were made to them, we do know they contradict each other, and we do know they contain clearly fictitious stories similar to other ancient tall tales. We do know that we do not witness these kinds of events today, and we do know there is no good reason to believe that they happened long ago and far away.
The Trinity explained!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hxNhpfdExE&
Deist Dan - good comment. Interesting that the the Creed states a belief in God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ.
The Trinty of course is a later creation of the early church (325, the Council of Nicaea if I am not mistaken) trying to explain the relationship between God, Christ & Holy Spirit.
Certainly it is not strongly biblical (Matthew 28:19 & 2 Corinthians 13:1 ??) and as such the doctrine is based on Scripture plus Tradition.
This put literalists in a tough position.
sala kahle - peace
Back to your original post, Mr. Loftus:
“…No reasonable answer can be given for why a triune God, who was perfect in love neither needing nor wanting anything, created in the first place…”
“..'tis no argument of indigence in God that he is ... of the emptiness or deficiency of a fountain that it is inclined to overflow.” – Jonathan Edwards
God can create from abundance.
“…a timeless being who was somehow able to create the first moment of time. How a timeless being could actually do this is extremely problematic…”
What if time is just an abstraction that describes the relationship of one event to another? What if the real issue at hand is being or existence? God could think much differently than we do in His timeless existence.
“…This timelessly eternal triune God who parodoxically created time must now forever be subject to events in time…”
So what? God is not bound by time, but He does experience it.
“…No sense can be made of how the death of Jesus actually forgives sins…”
Every time we forgive another person, we decide to experience the pain and loss that has been inflicted on us by that person. The cross of Christ is God’s taking upon Himself the pain and loss that we have inflicted on Him by our sin. We forgive the way we do because that is the way God forgives, and we are made in His image.
“We forgive people who have not been punished…” by absorbing the pain and the debt they own to us.
For more on this, see “The Reason for God” by Tim Keller.
“…Where is the human side of this God-man now (i.e. the human nature of Jesus)? … Now we have a trinity with an embodied 2nd person in it…”
Taking on a human nature added to God’s being; it did not subtract from it. How does that create a problem?
“… sinners sent to hell retain their free will, since it’s argued they continue to rebel in hell, while the saints who enter heaven have their free will taken away to guarantee there will be no future rebellion in heaven…”
Sinners and saints continue to make choices based upon their desires even in heaven or hell. Free will, in the sense of free agency, is a gift given to us that cannot be violated. God gives a new set of desires to the saints, and they begin to love Him.
“… the additional problem of the lack of evidence for these beliefs…”
There is plenty of evidence for anyone who has the desire to look for it without prejudice.
“Christians must defend too many beliefs, any one of which, if incorrect, would be fatal to their whole worldview.“
As previously discussed here, atheists have their own indefensible assumptions (logic, reason and uniformity of nature for examples).
You ignore or discount without reason the evidence for Christianity.
Post a Comment