Answering Two Questions Asked by a Reader of My Book
I have read your book trying to look for answers to my own questions regarding the Christian faith. I had only recently became a Christian about a year ago and now I am experiencing serious doubts if the Christian God is real.My response:
God rescued you out from your destructive teenage years and gave you a new life, and you were committed enough to become a pastor, did you ever feel like you are a bad person because you rejected this God who had rescued you from your destruction? Because this is what I feel right now, although I have my doubts, but He nonetheless was the source that pulled me out of my own destruction, yet now I am trying to logically prove he doesn't exist.
Secondly, in response to one of your claims that women are viewed as second class citizens and were look downed upon, here's an article that talks about the two passages and proves your claim contrary. If you can shed some light on this as to what you think, it would be great.
Thanks for reading my book and writing to me. I'm always curious if my readers get through it all since it's a big book.
Good questions.
It was my faith that rescued me in my younger years, not God, you see. Many youths are rebellious. As they grow up they learn to adjust or they spend their lives in prison. I was raised in a good family so I would have made the necessary adjustments to my life as I got older. It was a time when the Jesus Movement was flourishing, yes, but so also were a lot of other different religious movements. Did you ever get a good look at the faces of the Charles Manson killers as they were coming and going to trial? They were happy, blissful, deluded. That was me for Jesus. It could have been the Moonies, or Islam, but the deluded effect is the same. I no more feel bad for rejecting the Christian God as you do in never accepting Allah. Neither one of them exist.
When I was a conservative in every other respect I would have accepted what you sent me about women being able to teach. I was a biblical feminist and I read all of the literature I could get my hands on at the time because people around me didn't agree. Although, looking back this is surely not the overall thrust of the passages in question. Just like what Christians have done with the passages about eternal conscious suffering in hell, slavery in the Bible, the environment, the care of animals, anti-Semitism, and now homosexuality, they are gerrymandering the text to fit with modern notions. First our morality evolves and then Christians later find that morality in the Bible.
Cheers,
John W. Loftus
33 comments:
If this guy had a real experience, why does he need to try to "logically" prove to himself that it wasn't real?
BTW, what are the passages in question?
Brad:
Because he is trying not to be gullible.
d,
Do you mean investigate the claims of someone before you accept them?
But for me the thing is that he will have to use the same mental faculties that brought him to his decision to re-interpret his experience. It is the same person in each case, so I'm not sure the word "gullible" applies here. Sometimes experience can trump logic, as in quantum mechanics.
"Although, looking back this is surely not the overall thrust of the passages in question. Just like what Christians have done with the passages about eternal conscious suffering in hell, slavery in the Bible, the environment, the care of animals, anti-Semitism, and now homosexuality, they are gerrymandering the text to fit with modern notions. First our morality evolves and then Christians later find that morality in the Bible."
But they're still finding it in the Bible, showing it's there somewhere. Regarding conscious torment in hell, that was questioned by Origen in the second-third centuries B.C.E. He's a little too early to be "modern."
The way, the truth, and the light does does not suffer your attempts at deconstruction. 'Debunking Christianity' is mistaken.
Thank you for your rational, thoughtful, and sublime comment, Double A.
Your pithy argument is sure to sway...guinea pigs; at least it might, if they could read and communicate. But they can't, so we'll never know.
It was my faith that rescued me in my younger years, not God, you see.
"God" is a placebo.
But they're still finding it in the Bible, showing it's there somewhere.
Or showing that the human mind is capable of rationalizing just about anything if it sets its mind to it.
But I'll grant you - the Bible is an amazingly complex piece of contradictions crafted by many hands over hundreds of years. So it is probably fairly easy to find justification for just about anything you want to do in the Bible if you look hard enough. Which explains how Pat Robertson and Shelby Spong can both use the same book as the basis of their religions. (and then confuse everyone by calling them both Christianity - if what Robertson practices and what Spong practices can both be labeled as Christianity then the label is essentially meaningless as a descriptor of anything. But I digress...)
Brad:
>> But for me the thing is that he will have to use the same mental faculties that brought him to his decision to re-interpret his experience.
Not necessarily. If he used rationalization in one situation and used reason in another, then I think the former situation would be more likely to be grounded in truth and not self-deception.
>> It is the same person in each case, so I'm not sure the word "gullible" applies here. Sometimes experience can trump logic, as in quantum mechanics.
It certainly does. Just because someone finds that certain beliefs bring them a great deal of life satisfaction and inner peace does not imply that those beliefs are true. That would commit the fallacy of appeal to emotion. As such, he SHOULD be sceptical about his beliefs if the main reason for holding them is that they make him feel warm and fuzzy inside.
>> Sometimes experience can trump logic, as in quantum mechanics.
It is helpful to remember that our cognitive capacities evolved to effectively navigate the macroscopic world, and I think that would include our ability to use logic. As such, logic does not necessarily have to apply to the subatomic realm wherein various bizarre phenomena can occur, such as non-locality, for example. We are committing a fallacy of composition if we believe that subatomic particles must behave the way macroscopic entities do, including following the rules of logic.
Now, before you start riding in with ideas about using this idea to justify the inconsistent and incoherent concept of God, you have to remember the REASON why scientists were so disturbed by the bizarre interpretations of quantum mechanics. They were so concerned, because quantum mechanics WORKS INCREDIBLY WELL! It accurately predicts the behaviour of subatomic particles exceptionally well. It is because of its unparalleled usefulness that its bizarre properties are tolerated.
If you compare that to God, which does not seem to explain or predict anything, and seems to be fundamentally empty, except in a fictional sense, then the difference becomes clear as day.
You know what's funny, dguller, is that two threads before this one I saw about 8 atheists make an appeal to emotion encouraging Cole to leave Christianity behind. I think the favorite term is "liberating".
But I still don't think you've answered my objection. Whether it's reason or rationalization the same person is going to be interpreting his experience. You can characterize, but only from an outside perspective. And I think you've illustrated why postmodern science is important. If it has "worked" for this man, in the sense of changing his life, then I think he can put logic on hold for a time (but not totally throw it out, of course). You're probably familiar with Plantinga's idea of a properly basic belief.
But when skeptics beat the drums of "logic" and "science" during a time of doubt, the inquirer can be bullied into the skeptic's position before considering all of the evidence, especially from academia.
Brad:
>> You know what's funny, dguller, is that two threads before this one I saw about 8 atheists make an appeal to emotion encouraging Cole to leave Christianity behind. I think the favorite term is "liberating".
As I said before, an appeal to emotion is only fallacious if it is used to demonstrate the truth. In other words, if someone is genuinely uninterested in the truth and only in beliefs that bolster their self-esteem and sense of liberation, then one can appeal to emotion without problem. However, if one takes the further step of saying that therefore those beliefs are TRUE, then one is in fallacy territory.
So, if Cole had already rejected the truth of Christianity, but worried about the effect of this rejection upon his psychological well-being, then reassuring him that he would likely find the experience of embracing his atheism as liberating rather than constricting is not fallacious at all. In other words, Cole had intellectually embraced atheism, but had not emotionally embraced it, and thus bringing in emotions is certainly relevant, pertinent, and not fallacious.
>> But I still don't think you've answered my objection. Whether it's reason or rationalization the same person is going to be interpreting his experience.
Why does it matter so much that it is the same person? If that same person is engaging in genuine intellectual inquiry with regards to the truth of some proposition at one time, then he or she can engage in self-serving rationalizations about the same proposition at a different time. I don’t think it is particularly relevant that it is the same person, but what IS relevant is WHAT that same person is doing to derive his or her beliefs. In other words, are they using a process that would minimize bias, distortion and wishful thinking, and thus enhance their capacity to uncover the truth, or are they using a process that maximizes bias, distortion and wishful thinking, and thus minimize their capacity to uncover the truth? I think that is the main issue here.
>> You can characterize, but only from an outside perspective.
To a certain extent, this is true, but how is it relevant?
>> And I think you've illustrated why postmodern science is important.
I have no idea what “postmodern science” is. Care to elaborate?
>> If it has "worked" for this man, in the sense of changing his life, then I think he can put logic on hold for a time (but not totally throw it out, of course).
Again, if he is not fundamentally concerned with the truth, but only with whatever set of beliefs will guide him towards living a meaningful life, then he certainly can put logic and reason on hold. The problem is that navigating the world requires an understanding of what is true, and thus reality will eventually hit this person, and the more he is emotionally invested in those set of beliefs, the more contorted his rationalizations will be in order to maintain them in the face of cold, hard empirical truth.
>> You're probably familiar with Plantinga's idea of a properly basic belief.
Totally worthless idea, in my opinion.
>> But when skeptics beat the drums of "logic" and "science" during a time of doubt, the inquirer can be bullied into the skeptic's position before considering all of the evidence, especially from academia.
You are right. The best way to consider all the evidence is in an illogical and unscientific fashion. That way, one can basically believe whatever suits one’s emotions and underlying biases, because you have thrown out the best tools we have to uncover the truth about anything.
Cicely said that
"God" is a placebo.
Very good point I've never thought much about before. I've heard a number of Christian friends talk about Jesus or God saving them from some life horror, e.g., alcoholism, adultery, crime, etc. It does seem to be some sort of placebo effect.
dguller---great discussion with Brad. I'm glad I wasn't the only one who wasn't sure what "postmodern science meant." Thank you.
So I just did some sophisticated research methods (well, put "postmodern science" into google) and got this nice post by Victor Stenger on PostModern Science And of course he was the dude that wrote "God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist."
dguller,
I don't think Cole had embraced anything at that time (I don't know about now). Most of the comments I read were encouraging him to "take the plunge" because it is exhilarating.
What do you consider a rationalization verses reasoning? I think there is a very fine line, and I'm not sure you can pronounce to this person whether or not he rationalizing. Do you really know his motives that well?
Postmodern science is pretty much anything in the 20th century that dismantled the mechanistic modern view of the universe. Examples would be relativity, quantum mechanics, systems theory, etc.
Also, you throw out Plantinga's ideas too quickly, I think. The concept of a properly basic belief answers the problem of the subject-object distinction. The fact that you think your observations correspond to the real world or that you are conversing with me shows that you have some properly basic beliefs for which you don't need to argue. We all do, but I think it's a little more controversial to place belief in God as a properly basic belief. I think that is what you are actually rejecting.
So let me get to my main contention here. I think that New Atheism falsely claims to be based solely on logic and science. When I went through a period of doubt, it came from watching a series of Youtube videos ridiculing Christians. I didn't want to be "unsophisticated" and for that began to question my beliefs. Fortunately, IMO, I didn't reject everything or renounce my commitment to Christ before I really looked into the issues.
I realized that those videos, which had so much online support, were not arguments at all. It was intellectual bullying, and I realized that instead of succumbing to social pressures, I needed to investigate the claims myself. So when I got back to using reason, I saw that most of the arguments weren't very strong, or based on bad information (did you read the link I posted above, there are a lot more like that)
If I became a skeptic at that time, it would have been an emotional decision masked as "logic". I kind of feel like Cole is being bullied. I mean, do you read some of the things people say about me, Loftus included?
You see, if you think there is such a thing as "cold, hard empirical truth" absent of interpretation, then you're still thinking in the 1800's. We all form our own life stories, and logic is always mixed in with emotion, experience, and social pressures. No one escapes it. Once again, John's OTF is an example of a postmodern idea, but with a modernistic corollary.
I don't even mind skeptics trying to promote their position, its fun for me to argue with it. But if it is done on the pretense of "science" alone, then I think it is an illegitimate claim.
Brad
Have you read Harris' book "The End of Faith"? He doesn't deny "spiritual" experiences and in fact endorses a certain kind. He just opposes absolute truth claims such as "saved by grace" as anything more than metaphor to articulate these experiences. Did you do any reading in support of your faith doubts? Reasoning in support of a previously fixed belief, to regain support of it, may not be the best use of reason.
Brad:
>> What do you consider a rationalization verses reasoning? I think there is a very fine line, and I'm not sure you can pronounce to this person whether or not he rationalizing.
Roughly, rationalization is the use of reason to justify a predetermined conclusion, whereas proper reasoning is the use of reasoning to uncover the most justifiable conclusion, and to believe in it until better evidence comes along to question its validity. It is a fine line only because human beings are so good as deceiving ourselves regarding our true intentions.
However, there always comes a point when it becomes clear that an individual is not following the rules of reason and is only rationalizing, and the sad truth is that it is obvious to everyone but the person who is rationalizing. At that point, the cognitive dissonance is too great, and they are forced to delude themselves further to maintain psychological equilibrium.
It is because of such facts of human psychology that we have to be very careful about what we belief, always holding them somewhat tentatively, because our unconscious motives are so murky. And it is because of such facts that any claims to absolute truth are to be looked upon even more so with extreme scepticism.
>> Do you really know his motives that well?
No, I don’t know them at all. Perhaps I misspoke earlier. My only point was to elucidate the conditions in which an appeal to emotion is fully justified and not fallacious. Perhaps it did not apply to Cole, but neither of us knows the truth of that matter, only Cole does.
>> Postmodern science is pretty much anything in the 20th century that dismantled the mechanistic modern view of the universe. Examples would be relativity, quantum mechanics, systems theory, etc.
Okay.
>> Also, you throw out Plantinga's ideas too quickly, I think. The concept of a properly basic belief answers the problem of the subject-object distinction. The fact that you think your observations correspond to the real world or that you are conversing with me shows that you have some properly basic beliefs for which you don't need to argue. We all do, but I think it's a little more controversial to place belief in God as a properly basic belief. I think that is what you are actually rejecting.
You are right. I should have been clearer. Yes, I believe that his ideas are totally worthless to justify the religious worldview. However, they are perfectly useful to justify the basic background beliefs that human beings utilize in order to function in the world, such as the subject-object distinction, for example.
>> I realized that those videos, which had so much online support, were not arguments at all. It was intellectual bullying, and I realized that instead of succumbing to social pressures, I needed to investigate the claims myself. So when I got back to using reason, I saw that most of the arguments weren't very strong, or based on bad information (did you read the link I posted above, there are a lot more like that)
First, good for you for not believing in something due to social pressure, and for deciding to investigate the claims in question for yourself.
Second, can you provide some atheist arguments that you originally found compelling, but then came to see were utterly fallacious? I would like to get a sense of how you reasoned through this issue.
Third, I did quickly read that link. It focused upon John’s use of authority figures in Christianity to justify a certain proposition, and it turned out that maybe the authority figures that he cited were not as in agreement about the issue as he claimed. So what? It doesn’t strengthen the case for the resurrection, because the scholars STILL do not agree about it, which was his point anyway. Nobody really knows what happened, and there are solid reasons for doubting it as a real historical event. So, the post allegedly dismantled John’s attempt to use the fallacy of authority, and thus attacked his WEAKEST argument. That is certainly not compelling by my standards.
>> If I became a skeptic at that time, it would have been an emotional decision masked as "logic". I kind of feel like Cole is being bullied. I mean, do you read some of the things people say about me, Loftus included?
Well, no-one should feel bullied, and one should try to be as unemotional as possible when deciding upon the truth of these issues. I do not think that there is any need to belittle or mock people, but I do admit to succumbing to these practices myself, especially when dealing with someone who is absolutely certain about his beliefs, and is simply unable (or unwilling) to genuinely look at the evidence, and proceeds to waste my time by releasing flares of fallacies as distractions from the main issue. It can get frustrating dealing with idiots. Oops, I did it again! ;)
>> You see, if you think there is such a thing as "cold, hard empirical truth" absent of interpretation, then you're still thinking in the 1800's. We all form our own life stories, and logic is always mixed in with emotion, experience, and social pressures. No one escapes it. Once again, John's OTF is an example of a postmodern idea, but with a modernistic corollary.
I agree with you. I also feel that if “we all form our own life stories, and logic is always mixed in with emotion, experience, and social pressures” and that “no one escapes it”, then our beliefs SHOULD be held tentatively until we are reasonably sure which ones are more in alignment with logic, reason and evidence. Furthermore, the more bizarre and improbable our beliefs become, the more likely they are due to “emotion, experience and social pressures”, and thus more likely to be products of bias, distortion and wishful thinking. As such, they should be held with LESS certainty rather than MORE, right?
I really do not think that the uncovering of these psychological facts about human beings can possibly help the believer, because it gives solid evidence that the beliefs that they hold with so much certainty have a strong possibility of being self-deception and self-delusion. I think that they make the argument that we have to be MORE careful with what we hold to be true, and to really make an active effort to follow the evidence, and not just rationalize our already held beliefs. It just requires a bit of honesty. I mean, you once felt that your beliefs were on shaky ground, it made you very uncomfortable, and when you found some possible reasons to bolster your beliefs, you embraced them with open arms. Are you sure you didn’t do it because of “emotion, experience and social pressures”?
>> I don't even mind skeptics trying to promote their position, its fun for me to argue with it. But if it is done on the pretense of "science" alone, then I think it is an illegitimate claim.
I think that scientific inquiry is the best means that humans have ever devised to uncover objective truth. It is not infallible, indubitable and metaphysically true. But it doesn’t have to be. Like Churchill said about democracy, “It is the worst system of government, except for all the others”. I would say the same about science. It has its flaws, but the alternatives pale in comparison. And the truth is that sceptics follow the principles of scientific inquiry far more than their religious counterparts, and thus have more grounds to justify their positions on “science alone”. However, you are right that this is not always so, and we must be cautious to look at the evidence as objectively as possible before making any conclusions.
Christopher:
Thanks for the link. Stengler, as always, is just great.
dguller said, I did quickly read that link. It focused upon John’s use of authority figures in Christianity to justify a certain proposition, and it turned out that maybe the authority figures that he cited were not as in agreement about the issue as he claimed. So what?
Exactly. Did you also read in the comments where I dealt with it? I have since heard from Robert Price that I got it wrong. Okay? I got it wrong. I did not do this purposely, and if I get a chance to revise the book I will get it right next time around.
But the point is that my case does not rest on this quote. I made a case in that chapter regardless, and Layman, as far as I know, does not have my book. He was emailed a quote from it by someone else. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.
My claim is that all he did was nitpick. But do you see what Brad claimed because of a nitpick? THAT'S the kind of stupidity that we deal with in Brad, who is a team member over at CADRE comments. So now what would the other members over there think if I nitpicked their site by concluding from his stupidity that they all were stupid, eh? The fact that Brad even linked to this tells me he is still ignorant about what it proves...nothing. Let him write a book about God and the universe using the various disciplines of learning that I have attempted and see if someone somewhere won't nitpick something he said. Sheesh.
Listen, here's how apologists do their thing. They find some nitpick and claim it undermines my whole case rather than deal with the over all thrust of an argument. That's bullshit, deluded bullshit. Until Layman or anyone else over at that lonely blog actually engages my argument they deserve little from me but disdain and derision.
dguller,
I think we've found a lot of common ground, here.
First, it kind of embarrasses me to admit it, but the video that really got me was a man dressed in a ninja suit mocking prayer. There was a lot more going on with my personally, but that was the "straw". So after that I went on a binge of blogs and books, bringing me even here to DC, and I eventually came back to faith based on some arguments and some experiences. I had to throw off a lot of theological baggage along the way, though.
You know, for me to really be consistent I think I would have to deny that I have "absolute knowledge" of God in the Reformed sense. I think it is coherent and rational, but not conclusive, either philosophically or historically. The secular alternative just never seemed compelling, even though I think there are arguments to be made in that direction.
I think your ideal of a stoic examination of the facts, though, is not just a myth, but unhelpful. This is the great insight of postmodernism, IMHO, that Derrida showed that truth is something that cannot be extracted from our beings. We don't have to fall off the edge because of basic beliefs, but I think we can embrace our whole being, including reason and logic, to guide our lives.
I also think that scientific inquiry is a very helpful method of gathering information. My contention is that much of New Atheism is based on a pretension of science rather than actual science. I've had numerous exchanges where the skeptic discounted a peer-reviewed paper I cited because it hurt their argument. One even disparaged the peer-review method.
As for the bullying, do you see how Loftus responds? I am called stupid twice, ignorant, deluded, and full of BS. (maybe I brought it on myself, I knew that would get a rise out of him). I have other reasons for doubting his arguments besides just that one instance, but I think it's instructive in actually checking the claims even of "skeptics" and "free-thinkers."
*maybe I brought it on myself, I knew that would get a rise out of him*
Yeah, this is a respectful way to engage me. Right.
Brad:
>> I think your ideal of a stoic examination of the facts, though, is not just a myth, but unhelpful. This is the great insight of postmodernism, IMHO, that Derrida showed that truth is something that cannot be extracted from our beings. We don't have to fall off the edge because of basic beliefs, but I think we can embrace our whole being, including reason and logic, to guide our lives.
First, careful about the straw man you are knocking down. I never said that one must suspend or eliminate all our emotions in order to properly examine evidence for veracity. I never said that, because it would be demanding something impossible. We cannot help but bring our psychology with us when we are assessing evidence, but there are methods to improve our accuracy and there are methods that worsen our accuracy. I think that it is a good standard to engage in practices that minimize bias and optimize that capacity to uncover the truth. Thus far, the best method is scientific inquiry, and if you think that there is a better alternative, then please present it. If not, then why keep focusing on straw men rather than the real deal?
Second, I really do not think that you want to take Derrida as your source on this issue.
One, because it is Nietzsche who really founded this idea that our knowledge is fundamentally hermeneutical and interpretive, and thus essentially bound to our all-too-human foibles. And you know what HE thought of organized religion.
Two, because Derrida relentlessly criticized organized religions as messianisms that corrupted and distorted the messianic underlying impulse of faith itself. If you are interested in this matter further, I would strongly recommend the work of John D. Caputo.
Anyway, that is just an aside that has nothing to do with the main issue between us, which I explicitly state below.
>> I also think that scientific inquiry is a very helpful method of gathering information. My contention is that much of New Atheism is based on a pretension of science rather than actual science. I've had numerous exchanges where the skeptic discounted a peer-reviewed paper I cited because it hurt their argument. One even disparaged the peer-review method.
I am not defending the New Atheism, and I am not defending the sceptic that you encountered on a previous occasion.
I am trying to persuade you that due to our inherent psychological mechanisms, we have the tendency towards bias, distortion and wishful thinking, and that the best way that has been uncovered thus far to minimize those tendencies is scientific inquiry. As such, when we are attempting to uncover the truth about an issue, then the best epistemic practices are to utilize the principles of scientific inquiry.
Do you accept this or not?
If yes, then you MUST put the findings uncovered by scientific inquiry above those uncovered by unscientific principles, and that must include many tenets of religion.
If no, then what possible superior alternative exists?
Good questiions.
REPLY TO FIRST: I have read several testimonies on exchristian.net that involve people who were addicted to something, and then got hooked on the Bible, and then left Christianity but did not return to their former addictions.
I also have read testimonies of Bible believing Christians who could NOT get off the bottle and whose addictions killed them in the end.
Reading such testimonies might help you out if that's what's troubling you.
REPLY TO SECOND: I can think of no better summation than this one that unfortunately is no longer on the web, but here it is:
"Jesus Was No Feminist" by Amy-Jill Levine
The argument that Jesus was a feminist who liberated women from a misogynistic Judaism has numerous adherents, appears in numerous volumes, and is preached from numerous pulpits. It provides Christian women personal comfort, and it allows the liberal Church uncomfortable with the divine Jesus to preserve him nevertheless as culturally unique. But for all the popularity and utility of the thesis, it just ain't so. Worse, it's un-Christian. The case for Jesus as a liberator specifically of women requires inventing a bad Judaism with "many taboos," with "many cultural and rabbinic prohibitions." Basic historical research and even the Gospels themselves indicate both that Jewish women were not so burdened and that--more striking--Jesus' view of women was consistent with that of the vast majority of his fellow Jews. For example, we read that Jesus "spoke with a Samaritan woman (John 4:1-42), a foreigner and adulteress whom no other rabbi would approach." First, the woman is not an adulteress: she was married several times and was currently living with someone not her husband, but she was not an adulteress. Second, Jewish men certainly approached Samaritan women (indeed, the mother of Herod Antipas was Samaritan). Third, the "rabbis" represent hundreds of people who wrote over several centuries beginning, notably, after Jesus' time. Some had misogynistic tendencies, as did some church fathers (e.g., Tertullian, who tells all women, "You are the Devil's gateway!" [On the Dress of Women I,1,2]). Others were not. Concerning the hemorrhaging woman, some Christian readers emphasize "menstrual taboos," even though the woman in the passage isn't menstruating--and then they insist that Jesus abolishes them. But the Gospels say nothing of the sort. In telling this story, the Gospels do not mention purity or uncleanness, let alone Jesus' abolishing of the Torah. Christian Bible readers often speak of "uncleanness" but, without ever defining it, give the impression that it is dirty or sinful. Wrong again: "uncleanness" mmeans to be in a state of ritual impurity--therefore an unclean person would be prohibited from entering a Temple (the same prohibitions appear in the Roman and later Christian society). Uncleanness applies to men as well (e.g., ejaculation makes a man unclean).
[CONTINUED BELOW]
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
The point of the story is not that Jesus does away with taboos; it is that a woman approaches him in public (no one in the story screams "get away, get away, unclean woman"), and her faith in him prompts her healing. Then we have Jesus as one who "rebuffs" taboos concerning corpses. To touch a corpse is not a "bad thing" and in some cases, such as with burials, it is a necessary thing, a mitzvah, as both the Book of Tobit and Joseph of Arimathea reveal. Again, no one in the Gospels (including the "synagogue ruler" whose dead daughter Jesus touches) shows surprise at Jesus' action, so why should we? Finally, we have the Jesus who prevents men from divorcing their wives for "minor irritations." Jewish men did not and for the most part could not do this, because Jewish marriage was sealed with a contract, the Ketubah. A few rabbis did argue that men could divorce for any reason, but others permitted divorce only in the case of adultery (a point Matt. 5:32 also makes). Nor, by the way, is the complete forbidding of divorce (Mark 10:7-12) necessarily good for women. Jesus did not "elevate woman to her proper place in creation, her status as co-equal with the male with regard to her union and relationship with her Creator." He did not need to, for within Judaism woman was not displaced. We know this not only from various Jewish texts, we know this from the Gospels. There we find women in the Temple (Anna and Mary) in synagogues (the bent-over woman -- and note, ancient synagogues had no women's balconies or screens). Jewish women had independent access to funds (the mwomen who support Jesus), owned homes (Martha), and traveled freely. These women were not repressed by Judaism, and they did not follow Jesus because he liberated them from religious taboos. Women followed Jesus, and do so today, for the same reasons that men do. Perhaps single women were especially attracted to Jesus' new family, for the women we see with him are not explicitly embedded in family systems. Mary and Martha, Mary Magdalene, the Samaritan woman, the adulterous woman, Anna, the Syro-Phoenician, Joanna, Susanna, Mrs. Zebedee--are all shown apart from husbands. In Jesus' family, relationship was determined not by marriage or biology, but by faith: his "mother and brothers and sistmers" are those who follow divine will (Mark 3:31-35). Christian women can find much that is inspirational in Jesus' story; they do not have to trash Judaism--and so bear false witness against their neighbor--in order to do so.
Levine does not delve into verses in Paul's letters, nor into some very anti-women sayings of the church fathers. Those I'm sure you can find discussed online.
Cheers!
Ed Please feel free to email me at my home address, not my gmail.
dguller,
I'm happy to say that science is useful as a method of gaining knowledge, only to point out that there are many areas in our life where science just cannot address the issues, like deciding to marry someone.
Derrida obviously was a loud critic of the church, and just about everyone else, but I think that his argument was well aimed. For a fuller treatment of postmodern epistemology, I like Ricouer's work.
OK, to the main argument.
I agree that science is a great way to minimize bias, and think that it can be responsibly applied to religious studies. It gives at least a helpful corrective to YEC. But you just can't base every part of your existence on science, there are other valid forms of knowledge. Just take some of our properly basic beliefs, or important relationships. There is aesthetic knowledge, legal knowledge, even "street" knowledge.
But even science can't get rid of all of our bias. Archaeology, for example, is all about interpretation, and charges of bias are a staple in ANE archaeology, as argued and lived out by Dr. Avalos. Even mature scientists are still susceptible to this bias, and that is only in their field. Trying to atomize all of our knowledge just isn't possible for one person, so generalizations have to be made. This is why I think it is illegitimate to claim that one person needs to discount his or her personal experience prima facie, because we just can't know all of the "evidence."
But just so I'm not misunderstood in the context of this argument, let me reaffirm that I think science is incredibly useful and it has helped form many of my beliefs and deformed others. But science is simply not all-inclusive and cannot answer every question.
Brad:
>> I'm happy to say that science is useful as a method of gaining knowledge, only to point out that there are many areas in our life where science just cannot address the issues, like deciding to marry someone.
Why not? If you are going to decide whether to marry someone, don’t you need to know some facts about them? How do you go about doing so, except by engaging in a form of inquiry, guided by scientific principles? Or, do you not bother to learn anything at all about the person you want to marry, your future circumstances, and other important facts before you decide to marry someone? Science cannot tell you what to do, but it can provide you with the most accurate representation of the facts that is humanly possible.
>> I agree that science is a great way to minimize bias, and think that it can be responsibly applied to religious studies. It gives at least a helpful corrective to YEC.
Right.
>> But you just can't base every part of your existence on science, there are other valid forms of knowledge. Just take some of our properly basic beliefs, or important relationships. There is aesthetic knowledge, legal knowledge, even "street" knowledge.
First, I never said that one should base every part of one’s existence on science. One should only base those parts of one’s existence that are concerned with the truth about things. Certainly, the part of our existence that only wants to feel good, that is careless about being deceived, and so on, have no need for science, and happily ignore it. However, if TRUTH is important, then science is essential.
Second, you are right that certain properly basic beliefs are taken for granted in order to any form of inquiry to get off the ground. That is why I never said that science can uncover ALL truths. There ARE some truths that it cannot uncover, especially the ones that are presupposed by it, such as the existence of the external world, the regularity and order of the world, and so on.
Third, science is certainly relevant to all those forms of knowledge that you cited.
>> But even science can't get rid of all of our bias.
I never said that it could. I said it was the best method to MINIMIZE our biases.
>> This is why I think it is illegitimate to claim that one person needs to discount his or her personal experience prima facie, because we just can't know all of the "evidence."
You do not have to discount your personal experience, prima facie, but you DO have to be sceptical, because your personal experience is prone to distortion and bias that compromises its veracity. Personal experience is ONE part of knowledge, but it must be filtered through scientific inquiry in order to minimize the inherent bias and distortion that are present.
>> But just so I'm not misunderstood in the context of this argument, let me reaffirm that I think science is incredibly useful and it has helped form many of my beliefs and deformed others. But science is simply not all-inclusive and cannot answer every question.
Sigh. I never said it could answer every question. I said it was the BEST METHOD HUMANS HAVE DEVISED THUS FAR TO MINIMIZE OUR INHERENT BIASES AND DISTORTIONS, AND THUS MAXIMIZE OUR CAPACITY TO UNCOVER THE TRUTH ABOUT A MATTER.
If you agree with this, then you MUST follow what science has uncovered.
If you disagree with this, then what alternative can you offer that is better than science?
dguller,
It's late so I'll make this short.
I pretty much accept everything that science has uncovered. I reserve the right to question method of individual studies, but beyond that I have no problem affirming the body of scientific knowledge. But I also affirm my faith. I don't think it's an either-or, its a both-and.
I think that the emailer should intensively study the science as it interacts with Christian faith, but on his own terms. I'm objecting to the a priori suggestion of some commenters (John included) that he will only be rational if he rejects his Christian conversion experience. I don't see any inherent disagreement between the contemporary body of science and orthodox Christian faith. Don't introduce any bias into his personal inquiry by prejudging his experience. I think you can affirm that, as well.
Brad:
Firs, are you saying that there is NOTHING in the fundamental tenets of Christianity that violates the laws of nature that science has uncovered?
Second, I'm not only talking about the professional practice of science. I'm talking about the rules of human inquiry, in general. In other words, ensuring that one's position is logically consistent, that it does not involve fallacies, that it is supported by solid empirical evidence, that it does not contradict other well-established areas of human knowledge, and so on.
Are you honestly telling me that the tenets and beliefs of Christianity meet ALL those conditions? Really?
What about the resurrection of Jesus? What about the Eucharist? What about the miracles in the Bible, such as the sun standing still? What about Noah's flood?
dguller,
I think we're agreed in general on method so far, but maybe not application.
Before I go any further, am I smelling Hume's and Troeltsch's analogical arguments against miracles behind your last post?
Brad:
>> I think we're agreed in general on method so far, but maybe not application.
Tell me more about our difference in application.
>> Before I go any further, am I smelling Hume's and Troeltsch's analogical arguments against miracles behind your last post?
I don’t know who Troeltsch is. And I like Hume’s idea that if someone claims that something happened, which is extraordinarily unlikely, given all that we know about the world, then that person must have extraordinarily strong evidence for that claim. I actually haven’t ever heard anyone come up with a good explanation for this.
Anyway, if you agree that science is the best method that humans have devised to minimize bias, then why not agree to apply this notion in your life by putting scientific claims above theological claims?
dguller,
I guess I think I have submitted my beliefs to scientific examination, as much as they can be submitted.
And Hume is a dangerous line to follow philosophically. Not only does his argument against miracles produce some absurdities, but he even went further in his skepticism to deny causation. I don't think Hume's philosophy can be applied universally.
Brad:
>> I guess I think I have submitted my beliefs to scientific examination, as much as they can be submitted.
First, I take it that you are implicitly agreeing with my contention that scientific inquiry is the best methodology that we have to minimize bias and increase our chances of uncovering the truth about how the world works.
Second, which beliefs do you hold that (a) are directly contradicted by current scientific consensus, and (b) are impossible to be studied by modern science? I’m just curious about (a) and (b).
>> And Hume is a dangerous line to follow philosophically. Not only does his argument against miracles produce some absurdities, but he even went further in his skepticism to deny causation. I don't think Hume's philosophy can be applied universally
First, what absurdities are you referring to?
Second, he never denied causation. He denied NECESSARY causation as something that was beyond human capacity to confirm. He fully endorsed contingent causation as discovered by repetitive observation.
Third, you still haven’t answered Hume’s challenge that if someone brings a claim that violates the body of knowledge that we have uncovered thus far, then that person must bring evidence in greater degree than the body of human knowledge.
Post a Comment