A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives
In her book A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives
, Cordelia Fine cautions us when it comes to the conclusions of our brains. I claim that believers ought to take special heed of this and become agnostics. Believers retort that my brain may be deceiving me too. Let me say two things in response:
One) Okay let's all agree with the scientific data and become agnostics. I'm game if you are, otherwise dispute the data. Two) I do not affirm any religious beliefs. I am a non-believer. I don't think the evidence is there to believe in a three headed eternally existing God who created this particular world and became one of us to die on a cross for our sins in one lone part of the ancient world who bodily resurrected from the grave but was only seen by a few people, thereby forcing the rest of us to take their word on what they saw or spend an eternity in hell because we did not see this event for ourselves since we were born in a different time and place and were taught to think critically based in the modern sciences. Again, I do not believe this. It does not represent an intelligent plan from a perfectly good, all powerful God. If our brains deceive us when it comes to important issues like this then it's best not to be gullible and to demand evidence, hard evidence, positive evidence before we'll believe, especially since there are so many other believers in this world who are certain they are right about such matters too. Since there are so many different people all certain they have the answers to existence I can look at them all and say that until one of them steps up to the plate and offers something more by way of evidence than the others do then I cannot believe in any of them, and that's what I do.
, Cordelia Fine cautions us when it comes to the conclusions of our brains. I claim that believers ought to take special heed of this and become agnostics. Believers retort that my brain may be deceiving me too. Let me say two things in response:One) Okay let's all agree with the scientific data and become agnostics. I'm game if you are, otherwise dispute the data. Two) I do not affirm any religious beliefs. I am a non-believer. I don't think the evidence is there to believe in a three headed eternally existing God who created this particular world and became one of us to die on a cross for our sins in one lone part of the ancient world who bodily resurrected from the grave but was only seen by a few people, thereby forcing the rest of us to take their word on what they saw or spend an eternity in hell because we did not see this event for ourselves since we were born in a different time and place and were taught to think critically based in the modern sciences. Again, I do not believe this. It does not represent an intelligent plan from a perfectly good, all powerful God. If our brains deceive us when it comes to important issues like this then it's best not to be gullible and to demand evidence, hard evidence, positive evidence before we'll believe, especially since there are so many other believers in this world who are certain they are right about such matters too. Since there are so many different people all certain they have the answers to existence I can look at them all and say that until one of them steps up to the plate and offers something more by way of evidence than the others do then I cannot believe in any of them, and that's what I do.
67 comments:
Dear John,
Concerning point two... You are actually are affirming many things by your own omission.
These include...
The Jewish arrest notice for Jesus from the Mishnah, The only external source to spell Jesus' name correctly in his native tongue, Aramaic.
Flavius Josephus twice mentions Jesus as the Christ.
Cornelius Tacitus reports that the great fire of rome was started by people following Jesus as the Christ.
Just one of these statements is sufficient evidence for historians to report Jesus as a real person.
Not to mention anything from the Bible, which is hard to make sense of without Jesus or an empty tomb after his resurrection.
By stating that there is not good enough evidence then your are affirming something vastly different for these pieces of historical evidence which claim the opposite to you.
Phil
Phil, I'm not questioning whether Jesus existed here. Re-read what I said. I'm questioning a whole lot of other claims about him, his God, and the Bible. If this evidence is really as good as you think then why are there so many billions of non-evangelicals out there who are NOT convinced by your evangelical conclusions? I think you deceive yourself and cannot be honest about the evidence.
What about those who are not evangelicals but who believe that God is God, whatever you call him, and that any religion that believes in him is good enough for eternal salvation? I know a few Catholics who believe this. I also know some Universalists who believe this. It's harder to argue with these people since they also hold fundamentalists in contempt the same as I do. But in the end, their beliefs are also baseless and irrational.
HI John,
I am aware that you are not questioning his existence. Let me address my last point again...
'are affirming something vastly different for these pieces of historical evidence which claim the opposite to you.'
You say...
why are there so many billions of non-evangelicals out there who are NOT convinced by your evangelical conclusions?
My Reply,
Easy John, your posts makes the same point, they deceive themselves. By the way this is what the Bible says in Romans a long time before this point was written.
Phil
I've been thinking lately about what it would take for me to believe in Jesus again, and I can't see how it could happen. Even the idea of granting that it was indeed this uncaused God who created the universe is very difficult for me to do. I just think it's much more of an honest stance to say 'I don't know'. Affirming the opposite creates so many unnecessary concerns. Which god actually exists; how many gods are there? Is it a 3in 1, 1in1, 5in1, many, and are they all equal gods? If they/it exist, are there specific requirements needed from us, and how do we know for sure these requirement are from a god? Are you going to heaven or hell as a result of believing in a god; Are evil and suffering a punishment from gods; Do I have to go to a church or mosque; Do I have to be a christian or muslim; Do you have to pray to these gods, and do they actually answer them; Did God just tell you to shoot someone; Was that you God; God is coming soon (these are the last days). I've got it right and you've got it wrong; And so on, and so on.....
If there's a god out there, that's his business. I've never talked to a god and no god has ever spoken to me, so why should I speak on behalf of such a being as if I know and can verify this being. The possibility that I could be deceiving myself if I claimed I believe in God is more likely than not. The proof is in the many religions and religious beliefs that exist, along with what we know of "the brain".
A lot of people are now debating over the cause of the universe - do you (the believer) ever stop to think of the depths you have to stoop to in order to affirm what you would like to think is or should be obvious? You claim science, philosophy, personal testimony, and the bible helps to prove your God, but can you only use just one of these methods to do it? Why is so much ink being spilled and efforts used? It shouldn't be that difficult. Do you really think your God would want or expect you to believe in him via the Kalam cosmological argument? I will assume you don't, as early christianity itself can attest to. But I think this is very telling neither philosophy, the bible, nor science, by itself can suffice for belief in God and a specific religion.
In conclusion, when it comes to religious claims and God, we are less likely to deceive ourselves when we admit that you don’t know or take an agnostic position. After all, if there is a god, it is not as if you know it.
Andre
Phillip,I think you should be aware that Josephus mentioning Jesus is a forgery. Bishop Warburton of Gloucester (1698-1779) commented on the passage that Josephus supposedly written about Jesus. He states it is a "rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too." In fact, many believe Eusebius himself forged this passage. I think you should be careful when quoting Josephus as a source for Jesus existence.
Bishop Warburton?!
PFFFFFFFFT!!!
He wasn't a REAL Christian (TM)...
The fact is wanna be apologists like the Reverend Phillip Brown know that Josephus is a forgery, yet they continue to use it.
The reverend offers nothing new just recycled, rehashed, Josh McDowel, Bil Craig, and every other apologetic hacks weak arguments.
Hi Rev Philip
You say, .. "Just one of these statements is sufficient evidence for historians to report Jesus as a real person. "
I say, how your brain distorts and deceives. There were many 'savior hero' archetypes at the turn of the millennium during which jesus is said to have lived, but there is no [here me NO] extant, reliable contemporaneous source for the historicity of such a person; indeed the mythical jesus character is formed through an amalgam of a number of renowned itinerant preachers that did indeed live at that time. Josephus described quite voluminously a number of them in his 'Antiquities' tome, and as commented here by brosho7, anything Josephus wrote about jesus was an interpolation,that is, a bald-faced forgery.
In respect of Tacitus, those could easily have been started by the followers of Wotan. His commentary does not in any way provide prima facie evidence of the historicity of jesus.
In respect of what you say, .. "The Jewish arrest notice for Jesus from the Mishnah, The only external source to spell Jesus' name correctly in his native tongue, Aramaic", is sheer apologetical humbuggery. There are far too many inconsistencies in the historical record to posit some nonsense about jesus before the Sanhedrin. Indeed the Sanhedrin as a name only came into existence in 200CE. The following may give some insight:
"Sanhedrin comes from the Greek term sunedrion (literally, "sitting together") meaning council. The Sanhedrin is both a Jewish judicial and administrative body. The Sanhedrin was composed of local elites--including members of the high-priestly family, scribes (religious experts), and lay elders. It probably operated under some sort of Roman oversight, at least with respect to its taxing, law enforcement, and other administrative functions.
According to gospel accounts, Jesus was brought before the Jerusalem Sanhedrin, presided over by high priest Joseph Caiaphas.
(to be cont.)
To Rev Pillip (cont.)
Around 200 C.E., Sanhedrin becomes a technical term for a rabbinic court. A tractate in the Mishnah prescribes procedures the Sanhedrin is to use. The excerpts below, taken from the Mishnah Tractate, may shed light on the procedures used in the case of Jesus. One caution, however: the Mishnah was not compiled until 200, and it is therefore possible that some of the procedures and restrictions described in the Mishnah Tractate were not in force in the time of Jesus.
The gospel of John indicates that the Sanhedrin turned Jesus over to Pilate because it lacked the power to impose death: "Pilate said to them, 'Take him yourselves and judge him according to your law.' The Jews replied, 'We are not permitted to put anyone to death.'" The Mishnah, however, clearly shows that the Sanhedrin did have the power to impose death for certain crimes--at least sometime before 200 C.E. In particular, Mishnah Sanhedrin 6.1 to 6.4 specify the procedures for stoning. There is no evidence to suggest that the power did not exist in 30 C.E. On the contrary, there is evidence that the Romans preferred to leave as much power as possible to control religious crimes in the hands of Jewish authorities.
Mark and Matthew indicate that the trial before the Sanhedrin occurred at night and a capital trial at night was illegal. Mishnah Sanhedrin 4.1 confirms the illegality of a capital trial at night, assuming that the law stated in the Mishnah existed in 30 C.E.
Mark indicates that the charge against Jesus was blasphemy: "You have heard the blasphemy (Mark 14:64)." Under Mishnah Tractate 7.5, blasphemy consists only of uttering the name of God, so there is reason to question whether in fact that was the charge against Jesus. If it is assumed to be the charge, however, Mishhah Tractate 7.4 makes clear that execution by stoning was an available option for such a crime.
[The information about the Anhedrin is drawn from The Trial of Jesus by Alan Watson (1995)].
Rev Phillip, any historical thread remaining that attempts to posit an historical jesus is being cut, one by one, by modern investigative research, higher textual criticism, the proper role of placing historical events within their social and environmental context.
We have had two thousand years of cover-up, deception and distortion, but I have confidence truth will eventually win out. Even theology has to come out of the dark recesses of arcane mystery and stand naked in the bright light of scrutiny and reason.
Cheers
@ Brosho7 & exreforme.
Please see...
http://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com/2009/04/dan-barker-vs-john-dickson-on-josephus.html
Phil
Dear Papalinton
You said,
There were many 'savior hero' archetypes at the turn of the millennium during which jesus is said to have lived, but there is no [here me NO] extant, reliable contemporaneous source for the historicity of such a person;
My Reply,
This is a very misleading rhetorical argument. I am aware that there is no contemporaneous source for Jesus but please show me one historical figure from antiquity that does? It is not at all uncommon to find historical records written after the death of the significant figure, in fact if we compare your statement about Jesus with the detailed life of Alexander the Great, surely a significant historical figure! We find that Historians are highly confident that they can reconstruct a detailed biography from two major accounts, Arrian and Plutarch, whom wrote their biographies in the late first – and early - second century of a man who died in 323 B.C., over 400 years later. Does anyone doubt Alexander the Great was a myth because of the time difference between his death and recorded accounts? You seem to think this point casts doubt of the existence of Jesus but in historical reality the written accounts of the life of Jesus appeared very quickly in comparison to other historical figures. So it shows that you are actually the one distorting the facts. If you argue that Jesus did not exists then you must also argue the same for all historical figures. Do you?
Phil
@ Papalinton, (cont)
You said,
There are far too many inconsistencies in the historical record to posit some nonsense about jesus before the Sanhedrin. Indeed the Sanhedrin as a name only came into existence in 200CE. The following may give some insight:
My Reply,
Nothing the you argue gives any certain evidence that this was incorrect. Furthermore the fact that future tense is used, stoning was regular punishment, there is no reference to a crucifixion and that Jesus performed 'sorcery' a link to his miracles indicates that this is highly likely to be true as it is embarrassing to the Jews.
Phil
I want to say I agree with Loftus. There is no "evidence is there to believe in a three headed eternally existing God who created this particular world and became one of us to die on a cross for our sins in one lone part of the ancient world who subsequently bodily resurrected from the grave but was only seen by a few handfuls of people, thereby leaving the rest of us to take their word on what they saw or spend an eternity in hell because we did not see this event for ourselves or believe their written testimony since we were born in a different time and place and were taught to believe differently based on our own upbringing." Christians don't believe in a three-headed, eternally existing God. And we don't expect you to take their word on what they saw. You have no excuse you can know the resurrected Lord for yourself. This cuts through time and space and culture. No Christian is asking Loftus or anyone to believe the quote. Of course you should demand evidence and follow it. What the quote shows is a distinct misunderstand of what the nature of God is and what Christians believe. If you want to disagree with what the Bible says is fine...just stop misrepresenting what the Bible says.
Read more
One) Okay let's all agree with the scientific data and become agnostics.
John, I don't think of the problem of your deception in terms of embracing atheism. If our brains can so easily deceive us, I question that whether we can even be deceived about standards of knowledge, whether we can be deceived into thinking that agnosticism really is the best place to begin.
Besides, the problem with giving my imaginary skeptic preference as the OTF requires is that he is much meaner than your internal skeptic because he's too consistent to stop at religion and will consume many other things for which there is no "hard evidence" (like ethics, belief in external reality, the ability of the mind to know anything at all, that the universe is a logical place, etc. etc.)
To add to that comment above, if you want to ensure that you won't be deceived about anything, just don't believe in anything... at all. Not religion, not science, not ethics, not in how to button your pants.
But you won't even be able to believe that such a thing is even a good idea. And that would be the only smart bit of skepticism you'd have left.
3rd post,
One more thought.
Amongst those beliefs for which no hard evidence can be derived: Agnosticism is the best place to start from to arrive at truth.
No one ever starts from agnosticism for any type of knowledge we value. We may start from ignorance (which certainly does not have the same quality of skeptical baggage we find in western agnosticism), but we move from that through trust in our parents and instructors through out life even as we learn that trust is not without risk.
4th post, cause I can't resist.
Well, the hard evidence for the otf, for starting from agnosticism is that we all have geographically influenced beliefs (ala WIBA).
But the problem with that hard evidence is that there's nothing hard about it at all. It's a really superficial observation that distracts from much of the thought that goes into those beliefs.
Rob R and Rev Phillip
Can you imagine [I don't think I can, actually] where the sciences will take us once they have had the two thousand years head start that theology has had. What science has achieved in the last 50 years is simply exponential in its growth and development pattern, a process far outstripping theology beyond imagination. Science's predictive and explanatory power simply dwarfs the two thousand years of theology. Science trespasses on the boundary of the sacred not because it is opposed to the sacred but rather because it has no concept of sacred at all. Sacred is a religious concept, not a scientific one and definitely not a natural one. To science nothing is sacred, because 'sacred' is not part of its vocabulary. So when science ignores religious boundaries, it handles religion roughly - like any pithed frog or pinned butterfly. And when science finds facts that refute religious claims - about man, about society, about the universe, or about god[s] - it comes as a tear of the skin that no religion welcomes or can withstand.
Theology for its part, has not moved forward in the two thousand years since it produced the bible. Indeed the various christian cults, from catholicism to protestant evangelicalism, aren't products of two thousand years of theological research and development; Rather it is one year's experience repeated two thousand times over.
And that exact same book that our bronze/iron age primitive relatives wrote is what is supposed to epitomise or allegedly represent cutting-edge theology today. I mean, you would have to have rocks in your head if you really believed that, wouldn't you say?
Cheers
@ Rev Phillip
You say, .."the detailed life of Alexander the Great, surely a significant historical figure! We find that Historians are highly confident that they can reconstruct a detailed biography from two major accounts, Arrian and Plutarch, whom wrote their biographies in the late first – and early - second century of a man who died in 323 B.C., over 400 years later. Does anyone doubt Alexander the Great was a myth because of the time difference between his death and recorded accounts?"
Papalinton
Arrian and Plutarch aren't the only sources for Alexander. Those who want to study Alexander, have access to four tertiary sources (written in Greek and Latin), many quotes from secondary sources (all written in Greek) and one primary source, written in Babylonian and is also interesting because it offers a non-Greek perspective.
If we ignore a handful of inscriptions and a passing remark by the Athenian orator Aeschines, the contemporary, primary source on Alexander is the Astronomical diary that was kept in the Esagila, the temple of the Babylonian supreme god Marduk. It contains a day-by-day account of celestial phenomena, but also mentions other events, such as the level of the Euphrates, meteorological phenomena, food prices, incidents concerning Babylon and its temples, and political events. After all, celestial phenomena were omens of important political changes.
19thC and 20thC archaeologists have excavated millions of cuneiform tablets in Mesopotamia and Iran, and it has been impossible to publish them all. As a consequence of this backlog, the Astronomical diary still contains lacunas. Nonetheless, it contains very interesting information, such as the prices of commodities when Alexander's army was in Babylonia (sky high: the governor of the city had to close the market), an otherwise unknown invasion by Arabian tribesmen, and the correct dates of certain events (e.g., Alexander died on 11 June 323 BCE).
By comparison, there are no extant contemporaneous sources for the existence of jesus. The gospel accounts are hearsay, are contradictory at best, and are all basically embellished copies of Mark's gospel. Even the jesus's from the three synoptics is a different person to John's jesus. And Paul has absolutely no knowledge of the incarnate jesus, that roamed the earth. His jesus is a heavenly jesus who lived died and resurrected in the supernatural world.
Theology = 99% Mythology
Theology = 01% Philosophy
Theology = 00% Usefulology
Cheers
John, this just strikes me as more bluster because you accept things such as the quantum tunneling of the universe and abiogenesis in the absence of evidence.
Surely one thing we would have to agree on is that that "hard sciences", at least as they are right now, are not all-encompassing.
Phil; we take Arrian and Plutarch with a grain of salt and construct a tentative picture of Alexander the Great.
Do we really believe that Phillip and Olympia's prophetic dreams of their son's birth or that the temple of Diana at Ephesus burned down at the day Alexander was born?
This is the same reason we don't believe a iterant 1st century preacher actually turned water into wine, walked on water or rose from the dead.
Questions for Brad:
Do you think science is a finished business, that there are no new things to discover?
Do you think that all the great things science CAN discover have been discovered, and that anything new will just be trivial or incremental?
GHE,
I think science has a lot to learn and will produce new knowledge in the future, both trivial and important.
But to claim that you only believe things based on current evidence, as Loftus does, simply flies in the face of the current scientific record. It is based on speculation, and I think that needs to be recognized. Scientific speculation is not the same thing as scientific fact.
Brad said "But to claim that you only believe things based on current evidence, as Loftus does, simply flies in the face of the current scientific record."
But why would you believe things NOT based on current evidence?
A good, honest answer, Brad.
When scientists brew up a vat of demonstrably living goo out of raw chemicals (they ARE working on it, you know), what happens to abiogenesis then?
Will the theists say, "OK, you science guys were right, life can arise from strictly chemical processes."
OR
Will theists retreat to the next line drawn in the clouds and claim, "But you can't take God out of [insert next unknown aspect of existence that science hasn't fully defined yet]."
Paplinton,
Can you imagine [I don't think I can, actually] where the sciences will take us once they have had the two thousand years head start that theology has had.
You have faith in an unprovable eschatology as do I.
I suppose science will still be going on after a period well after which I expect Christ will have returned and redeemed the world in full. And we will continue in the tradition of Kepler to seek out worshipfully the mysteries of God's glorious creation, perhaps having the whole cosmos and beyond as our playground.
Science's predictive and explanatory power simply dwarfs the two thousand years of theology.
Well if the eschaton occurs within 2000 years, we won't have much of the same need for much theology. But I doubt it will end as I doubt God will reveal all of his secrets for which it is our nature to dwell upon and search out.
And yes, it already has dwarfed theology in areas where theology is not really geared to go, and yet remains very very inept in all sorts of questions that we can only approach with philosophy and theology: Ethics, human significance and worth, our relationship to God, and so on.
. To science nothing is sacred, because 'sacred' is not part of its vocabulary.
Indeed! including human worth and dignity. Yes, if you only accept that which is scientific, say good by to that which makes us fully human! It's a very good thing that nothing in science demands that we only consider that which is scientifically verifiable. And since human dignity and worth, and the great depths to which that goes, where sacredness is a fitting description is properly basic, we can be confident that such an impoverished use of science is absolutely wrong!
And when science finds facts that refute religious claims - about man, about society, about the universe, or about god[s
Yes, when it does, which it hasn't done yet, but it is your faith commitiment, your eschatology, that it will.
Theology for its part, has not moved forward in the two thousand years since it produced the bible.
Really!?! not since Jesus was a child? It hadn't progressed since the penning of the books of the new testament? The discussions on what books to put into the cannon? The councils on the nature of god and discussions on key heresies to avoid? The developments of Augustine and Aquinas? The reformers? the development of biblical criticism? The considerations of what is going on in the development of modern philosophy (Funny, the atheist David Hume has deeply influenced my understanding of the nature of faith), the explosion of Christian philosophy in the 20th century (even Luke prog of common sense atheism acknoledges that one)? No?
Well, I'm not confident in your grasp of the historical facts. Seems to me that God has never quit teaching his people.
And that exact same book that our bronze/iron age primitive relatives wrote is what is supposed to epitomise or allegedly represent cutting-edge theology today.
If standing the test of time is a bad thing, then your idea of progress is that nothing is ever established. You ask where we'd be in 2000 years of science. Well, if you are wright about that one thing, then in 2000 years, we will think everything you said was silly.
Rob R said,
"Really!?! not since Jesus was a child? It hadn't progressed since the penning of the books of the new testament? The discussions on what books to put into the cannon? The councils on the nature of god and discussions on key heresies to avoid? The developments of Augustine and Aquinas? The reformers? the development of biblical criticism? The considerations of what is going on in the development of modern philosophy (Funny, the atheist David Hume has deeply influenced my understanding of the nature of faith), the explosion of Christian philosophy in the 20th century (even Luke prog of common sense atheism acknoledges that one)? No?
Well, I'm not confident in your grasp of the historical facts. Seems to me that God has never quit teaching his people."
That's an overly rosy assessment.
Everything you mentioned above is better explained as MEN trying to beat the dents out of the original flawed and incoherent concept.
I said,
"Everything you mentioned above is better explained as MEN trying to beat the dents out of the original flawed and incoherent concept."
A little more elaboration:
The concepts of deity and religion (defined here as 'the organized, formal worship of deities') are both man-made as well.
Divine inspiration, you say?
Prove that there is such a thing as "divine". Show how it is anything more than merest speculation of men.
Can't use the Bible. That would be like saying "divine means 'with or exhibiting the quality of divinity'", which says absolutely nothing.
Also can't use argumentum ad populum (what I call "The Lemming Factor": everyone believes, so that is evidence of the object of belief).
Where's the hard evidence for
"divine"?
@Ryan,
What things do I believe that contradict current science?
@GHE,
Theistic Evolutionists already accept abiogenesis, but it should be pointed out that Venter's work has no bearing on origin of life research, it's not even proof of principle, because the life is completely manufactured (which, BTW, is the great merit of the work, that we can possibly manufacture bacteria for human benefit.)
I'm willing to do theology in dialogue with current science, just as long as skeptics don't try to hijack science as inherently anti-theological.
Hi Rob R
"Papal: Can you imagine [I don't think I can, actually] where the sciences will take us once they have had the two thousand years head start that theology has had.
Rob R: You have faith in an unprovable eschatology as do I.
I suppose science will still be going on after a period well after which I expect Christ will have returned and redeemed the world in full. "
Papalinton
Oh! Rob R, give it a break. Your response is all woo-woo pooh-pooh. Your word 'faith' is used by faithheads so indiscriminately as to render it meaningless. Given the track record for predictive and explanatory power of science I rely [and I am please to declare it] more on science's capacity to explain and provide a direction into the future than all the theist books I could mound together, since time began, and climb to the top to get a clearer view of the future. That mound would still be a dung-heap compared to the mountain built from scientific knowledge.
Eschatology, now there's another word that has been appropriated by religion, and given religion's track-record of marching on the spot for two thousand years, is rendered meaningless. The only eschatology that seems likely to occur, Rob, is probably not one you would wish; and that is the end of the world of the christianities, which seems to be trending, in Europe, and more recently in the US, downwards at an increasing rate. Yes, the process may be two steps forward and one step back, but the overall trend is downward.
You say, ... "... I expect Christ will have returned and redeemed the world in full."
Papalinton
Christians have been sprouting this little gem for two thousand years. A testament to the predictive power of scripture, or should I say, the prophesying power of scripture.
Sheesh
Rob R
You say, .. " .. and yet [science] remains very very inept in all sorts of questions that we can only approach with philosophy and theology: Ethics, human significance and worth, our relationship to God, and so on."
Papalinton
This is all palpable theological psycho-talk, inculcated since childhood. Ethics, [morality], human significance and worth are equally, and more clearly explained and demonstrated through our humanism and our common and universal humanitarian values and heritage. A good person is a good person for goodness' sake only; no need for a non-human overlord. As I say, strip away all that theism and what you have is the beautiful human being who is a humanist and a humanitarian by biology, by inclination, with inherent altruism, a social animal, that does best when co-operating with their fellow man, with all its foibles.
In terms of morality [Rob, you may not have included in your list, but it is nonetheless relevant], the sanctions for morality are also many and natural. Oneself, one’s family, one’s neighbourhood, one’s nation, one’s species, and one’s world are plenty, and any person who needs more sanction than that is probably a menace to us all. How many times has one heard christians say that without religion and their god they would run amok. Perhaps they would, but if so then they are less moral than those of us who control ourselves. More likely they are living a fantasy here as in so many areas of their lives: sooner or later even religionists without their gods have to settle down and go to work.
Your "relationship to god', is purely speculative woo-woo, at best.
Cheers
@ Rob R
" Papal: And that exact same book that our bronze/iron age primitive relatives wrote is what is supposed to epitomise or allegedly represent cutting-edge theology today.
Rob R: If standing the test of time [the bible, 2000 years] is a bad thing, then your idea of progress is that nothing is ever established...."
Papalinton
I wouldn't put too much emphasis or reliability on christianity's 2000 year run as any guide to its veracity, Rob. After all, christianity's forerunner, the religion of the Egyptians, lasted for about two and a half thousand years [probably longer] and in all likelihood [tongue-in-cheek] has probably become extinct as a practiced ritual these days.
Cheers
@ Brad,
Note that I didn't say he "created life" in my post above; I said "they're working on it".
You said,
"I'm willing to do theology in dialogue with current science, just as long as skeptics don't try to hijack science as inherently anti-theological."
I believe that I have never said that science is in conflict with theology directly. In fact, I have said many times that if it turns out that there IS a God as described in any of the world's scriptural traditions (or even in one that hasn't been "revealed" yet, if that happens), science must therefore pe a part of that god's creation, as it exists in the reality we all experience.
On the other hand, I have also said that if science ends up debunking all the claims that are made in God's name (creation, life, divine Jesus, "soul", etc.), then there's no compelling reason that we shopuld at thet point endeavour to include an unnecessary godess (to be gender-sensitive...) where she doesn't belong.
On the other hand, I'm not holding my breath for proof that God exists.
Brad,
What the hell are you talking about? Seriously.
John, this just strikes me as more bluster because you accept things such as the quantum tunneling of the universe and abiogenesis in the absence of evidence.
Absence of evidence? We actually have quite a lot of evidence that suggests that the big bang happened. There's also (some) evidence to suggest that our understanding of what the big bang was might not be what we think it was. I can accept that the big bang happened based on the evidence we have without claiming to have knowledge of what caused it. Especially in cases where there are multiple hypotheses that can explain the event but are awaiting additional lines of evidence to confirm or deny them, and I accept those theories about the big bang to that extant. Quantum fluctuations are just one of many possibilities to explain the big bang, none of which I affirm or deny due to a lack of distinguishing evidence. Personally, I'm somewhat partial to the brane world hypothesis, but I don't accept it any more than I accept any of the other possibilities.
As for abiogenesis, it is also a hypothesis with an increasing amount of evidence supporting it, although it is trickier. I accept it not as a full blown theory but as an increasingly plausible hypothesis that may not ever be able to fully explain how we got here. But even if it fails to be able to tell us exactly what happened at every step of the way, the study will bear far more insight into our biology than a million years of attempted divinations from a book of bronze age mythology.
Hi GearHedEd
You say, .. "Everything you mentioned above is better explained as MEN trying to beat the dents out of the original flawed and incoherent concept."
Papalinton
Right on the money. As we know, with science we get better; with religion, we get more. Theology has been marking time, marching on the spot for two thousand years. Every new work of theology is a rehash of all the old work. Even when they quote Aquinas its as though he is a contemporary scholar. For christ's sake the man has been dead for nigh on 1000 years. Of course all this study comes under the rubric, Apologetics. How apt. Nothing like having to apologise for all the theo-rubbish that has clogged humanity for so long.
Cheers dude
@ Brad,
"Theistic Evolutionists" are adaptationists; they understand that for their religion to survive, they'd better get on board with what science has proven (and realize that this is not an argumentum ad populum, or an argument from authority, but listen: EVERY biologist who is worthy of the title says that evolution is THE description that explains the diversity of species on planet Earth).
See Project Steve.
Thanks, Papalinton!
I may not respond to your posts much, but I read them all, and I am almost totally in agreement with you.
Keep up the good fight, amigo!
"theo-rubbish"...
(chortle)
"Phillip,I think you should be aware that Josephus mentioning Jesus is a forgery. Bishop Warburton of Gloucester (1698-1779) commented on the passage that Josephus supposedly written about Jesus. He states it is a "rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too." In fact, many believe Eusebius himself forged this passage. I think you should be careful when quoting Josephus as a source for Jesus existence."
Who are the "many" who think Eusebius forged the Testimonium?
Also:
"In fact, much of the
past impetus for labeling the textus receptus Testimonium a forgery has been
based on earlier scholars’ anachronistic assumptions that, as a Jew, Josephus
could not have written anything favorable about Jesus. Contemporary scholars of
primitive Christianity are less inclined than past scholars to assume that most
first-century Jews necessarily held hostile opinions of Jesus, and they are more
aware that the line between Christians and non-Christian Jews in Josephus’ day
was not as firm as it would later become.5 The implication of this is that supposedly
Christian-sounding elements in either the textus receptus or in Michael’s
Testimonium cannot be ruled inauthentic a priori."
...
"This study thus also implies that it is
Michael’s Testimonium that is much more important as a witness to Josephus’
original text about Jesus than Agapius’ Testimonium. By far the most important
aspect of Michael’s Testimonium in terms of recovering Josephus’ original passage
is its reading ‘he was thought to be the Messiah’, because this reading is independently supported by Jerome’s very early translation of the Testimonium, and
because it can readily explain Origen’s claim that Josephus did not believe in Jesus
as the Messiah. Therefore the most important aspect of Agapius’ text is its reading
that Jesus was ‘perhaps’ the Messiah, because this reading lends weight to the
hypothesis that Michael’s qualification of Jesus’ Messianic status was based on an
older exemplar of the Testimonium rather than being created by Michael ex
nihilo."
...
"In arguing that Agapius’ Testimonium was closer to Josephus’ original passage
about Jesus than any extant Testimonium, Pines followed a long line of earlier
scholars who assumed that Josephus’ original passage about Jesus must have
been very different from the textus receptus Testimonium, which these same
scholars assumed to have been substantially rewritten by a Christian forger.43 In
contrast, in arguing that Michael’s Testimonium, which is generally close to the
textus receptus Testimonium and which has clearly been taken from a recension
of the Syriac Historia Ecclesiastica, is more authentic than Agapius’ Testimonium,
this study implies that the textus receptus Testimonium is much closer to the passage
that Josephus originally wrote about Jesus than is often assumed. Indeed, the
evidence of Michael the Syrian’s Testimonium, used in conjunction with the evidence
of Jerome’s Testimonium, indicates that the only major alteration44 that has
been made to Josephus’ original passage about Jesus is the alteration of the
phrase ‘he was thought to be the Messiah’ to the textus receptus phrase ‘he was the
Messiah’."
Whealey, A. 2008. "The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic". New Testament Studies. 573–590
Let's assume for a minute that Josephus actually wrote this passage on Jesus. We can reasonably dismiss this as a legitimate source given the fact that this was written some 60 years after Jesus was supposedly crucified. This passage is hearsay at best. It is reasonable to accept that Josephus only repeated what was being preached about Jesus at the time when this passage was written. Furthermore, an eye witness account from someone who was contemporaneous with Jesus would be far more proof for the existence of Jesus. Currently, we do not have one account from Jesus' time period verifying the gospel stories,what he looked like, etc.
Brad; that was honestly a question and not an accusation.
But if I had to guess, I would say, at a minimum, the resurection of the dead and souls.
Papalinton,
I wouldn't put too much emphasis or reliability on christianity's 2000 year run as any guide to its veracity, Rob.
So what if you don't? You just assert something that is just as fallacious, that because it is old with much that hasn't changed that it isn't true.
So if that's what you want to argue, then yes, you think that progress is opposed to ideas standing the test of time.
Your word 'faith' is used by faithheads so indiscriminately as to render it meaningless.
words have more than one meaning. That's just the basic truth about language which any perusal of a dictinary will demonstrate. And the idea of belief in something or hope in something for which there is no proof as faith, well, your belief that science will continue for 2000 years and probably replace everything assigned to religion is an extreme piece of faith.
Given the track record for predictive and explanatory power of science
It's a reason to have faith. It's still faith. It's still unprovable. It's not even scientifically provable.
Here's another equally possibility, all within the scope of naturalistic framework. We may use our science to destroy ourselves, through environmental havock or warfare. It's got Steven Hawking scared such that he thinks our best chance is to populate other planets before it happens (something which we don't even know we can do for a variety of reasons).
So no, there is no scientific reason to believe that science itself will certainly progress for 2000 years. That means if you believe it, you have faith.
Eschatology... is rendered meaningless.
usage in a community determines the meanings of words. That's it. The word is used in consistant ways ergo it has meaning.
The only eschatology that seems likely to occur, Rob, is probably not one you would wish; and that is the end of the world of the christianities, which seems to be trending, in Europe, and more recently in the US, downwards at an increasing rate.
It is consistant with Christian eschatology that the world will rebel against God on a scale greater than ever. Then judgment will come.
Papalinton
Christians have been sprouting this little gem for two thousand years. A testament to the predictive power of scripture, or should I say, the prophesying power of scripture.
Yes, and only recently have we been seeing certain possible requirements coming true, the return of the Jews and a Jewish state, preaching of the gospel around the world. Such was not the case in previous centuries, and some things may yet remain to develope.
Ethics, [morality], human significance and worth are equally, and more clearly explained and demonstrated through our humanism and our common and universal humanitarian values and heritage. A good person is a good person for goodness' sake only; no need for a non-human overlord. As I say, strip away all that theism and what you have is the beautiful human being who is a humanist and a humanitarian by biology, by inclination, with inherent altruism, a social animal, that does best when co-operating with their fellow man, with all its foibles.
Strip away the theism, and you may get some varying forms of humanism. Christianity which states what is extremely fitting, that we are created in the image of God, is after all the most humanistic picture. Build up from science and you get nothing. What I said remains. Science cannot demonstrate ethics, human worth and dignity nor any other values.
If you believe you can support ethics from science, then let me ask you, what kind of experiment is it that might demonstrate that torture is wrong? Better yet, how could that experiment lead to an outcome that shows that torture is ever wrong. IF it's falsifiable, then you must be able to conceive of such an experiment with such results.
In terms of morality [Rob, you may not have included in your list, but it is nonetheless relevant], the sanctions for morality are also many and natural.
"Nature is red in tooth and claw"
-John Loftus.
How many times has one heard christians say that without religion and their god they would run amok. Perhaps they would, but if so then they are less moral than those of us who control ourselves.
Whether or not one is a Christian, they are still created in God's image and have a moral intuition, even if might be flawed. So no running amok is necessary.
And yes, some might. Yes, some people may be less moral than those who allegedly don't need Christianity. Thus, humanity needs Christianity and humanism isn't enough because it just can't work for just anyone.
cheers.
"Let's assume for a minute that Josephus actually wrote this passage on Jesus. We can reasonably dismiss this as a legitimate source given the fact that this was written some 60 years after Jesus was supposedly crucified. This passage is hearsay at best. It is reasonable to accept that Josephus only repeated what was being preached about Jesus at the time when this passage was written. Furthermore, an eye witness account from someone who was contemporaneous with Jesus would be far more proof for the existence of Jesus. Currently, we do not have one account from Jesus' time period verifying the gospel stories,what he looked like, etc."
Josephus was born in Judaea a few years after Jesus was crucified (and resurrected). While he obviously did not observe Jesus himself, he certainly was in a position to learn of Jesus from those who did.
I notice that nobody touched this with a ten-foot Crucifix...
---------------------------------
"Divine inspiration, you say?
Prove that there is such a thing as "divine". Show how it is anything more than merest speculation of men.
Can't use the Bible. That would be like saying "divine means 'with or exhibiting the quality of divinity'", which says absolutely nothing.
Also can't use argumentum ad populum (what I call "The Lemming Factor": everyone believes, so that is evidence of the object of belief).
Where's the hard evidence for
"divine"?"
---------------------------------
How about it Christians?
Divinity does not exist. I have said it.
You have one week to prove that it does.
Ready?
Go!
@GearHedEd
Answering A Fool According To His Folly - Defining "Divine Inspiration"
@ Rob
Papal: "The only eschatology that seems likely to occur, Rob, is probably not one you would wish; and that is the end of the world of the christianities, which seems to be trending, in Europe, and more recently in the US, downwards at an increasing rate.
Rob R: It is consistant with Christian eschatology that the world will rebel against God on a scale greater than ever. Then judgment will come.
Papalinton
Same ole, same ole; a self-fulfilling prophecy that's no worth a cracker.
Cheers
@ Marcus...
I responded to your post, on your blog (How did I know that your link would lead me into the swampland of "What Had Happen' Was...")
Does anyone who is NOT a DC regular ever go in there and comment?
I feel noticeably stupider for having been in there...
Ed, if you want to feel even more stupid, see this post at Marcus' blog where it took him 10 posts to admit he hadn't read Hawking's book.
Not sure why I put in the effort...
@ Ryan,
I'm sickened and horrified, yet I can't look away...
In case anyone was wondering why I didn't post much of anything yesterday...
I was having a Near Death Experience.
As I floated lazily up the warm, comforting tunnel toward the light, I saw Jesus, and guess who was with him?
Adolf Hitler.
It seems that "der Fuhrer" confessed his sins and accepted Jesus right after he bit down on the cyanide capsule, and so
All is Forgiven.
He told me this, and Jesus nodded and said,
"Yup. It's true."
But something pulled me back down to earth. It was Marcus McElhaney telling me he answered my "proof of Divine" challenge (he didn't), and linking me into his blog.
It seems that blog links have this supernatural power--they can tug one back into the here-and-now, when the hereafter beckons...
word verification = "ampsyco"
No shit.
GearHedEd...by your misdefinition of "divine inspiration" and "divine" you asked for the clarification. My point was that you have to get those straight before you even begin to address the straw men you are bringing up.
I didn't twist your argument. Just pointing out it's starting in the wrong place. You are indeed chastened. I don't think you understood my comments at all. If you think Proverbs 26:4-5 gives you instruction to twist arguments then you show just how bad your exegetical skills are and why I had to start where I did. And by the way...you are welcomed.
BS Marcus.
Let me spell it out for you ONE MORE TIME.
(1) The Bible (and all other scriptures) are said to have been handed down by "divine inspiration", not as thoughts originating in the minds of men.
(2) "Divine" is a concept that has absolutely nothing behind it, except for speculations of men.
(3) I didn't misunderstand anything; YOU misunderstood the challenge. I didn'rt ask for you to define "divine". I said prove that it exists.
And once again, you come back with lame turnabouts, as if I didn't know EXACTLY what I was asking for.
"If you think Proverbs 26:4-5 gives you instruction to twist arguments then you show just how bad your exegetical skills are and why I had to start where I did."
No, Proverbs doesn't give me instructions.
It gives YOU instructions.
Who is the Bible believer here?
Admit it Marcus:
You didn't answer the challenge, and you tried to deflect the discussion into a morass of semantics.
Prove DIVINE exists.
"I didn't twist your argument. Just pointing out it's starting in the wrong place."
My argument started exactly in the place I intended it to. For you to decide that it started in the "wrong place" is arrogant and relies on your fundamental dishonesty in discussing any of this so far.
GearHedEd, you did mis-define "divinity". And my point remains unless we agree about what "divine inspiration" is you cannot prove or disprove it's existence. Proving that the "divine" exists is different then proving that "divine inspiration" is true. I haven't used the Bible to prove anything. I gave a definition for "divine inspiration" and only showed that the Bible agrees with my definition and disagrees with yours. That's not proving the Bible with the Bible. Why can't you understand that?
I disagree with your premise and presuppostions for your "argument". That is why I'm saying its starting in the wrong place. I'm calling your bluff. And you have nothing to stand on regarding why your starting place makes sense.
ONE
LAST
TIME.
IT's not about divine "inspiration".
It's about the "divine" that's supposed to have been DOING the inspiring.
Misread what I said one more time.
You do NOT get to drag me into an arena of your choosing here. I issued a challenge, and you have three times now failed to answer it.
The subject is "divine".
I say it is a man made concept with no reality other than the definition given to it by the words of men, but it is NOT actual.
It was proposed so that there would be a place for invented gods to inhabit.
Now, "god" and "divine" are nearly synonymous, by the definitions you posted.
I say divine is an invention.
And like I said in your blog, I don't care if you could quote the Bible word for word in one sitting (actually I wouldn't be surprised if you COULD do it). But...
reciting the Bible only proves that you memorized the Bible. It doesn't make you a good person, it doesn't 'prove' that there's a god, and it doesn't verify that there is such a thing as a "divine" realm that a god could inhabit.
So stpop trying to instruct me and answer the challenge or go away.
GearHedEd, you need instruction. What gives you the right to set the arena. You brought up Divine Inspiration I didn't. You state a presupposition that there is no divinity and get mad when I state you can't state that as a truth claim. I reject the parameters you have set up. Pure and simple. No one said stating scripture makes you a better person, but twisting and misrepresenting scripture makes you at least stupid if not a bad person...as you do.
You're as dense as they come.
Marcus; Ed asked you to "Prove that there is such a thing as "divine". You've shown that humans can concieve of the divine as a concept, but humans can also concieve of Middle Earth, trolls and Dragons as concepts. Otherwise not answered his challenge.
Hint; you can't answer his challenge. If you could, you wouldn't need faith and Ed and I would both be believers.
Ryan, Neither you nor Ed know what "divine" means. I'm saying you need to start there. You are not believers because you don't get it.
Sigh... terrible..
Thanks for trying, Ryan.
The lights are on in Marcusland, but nobody's home...
Post a Comment