Here is an old, but interesting story. It should be a familiar story to our Christian readers. Deanna Laney was commanded by God to stone her children to death as poof of her devotion to Him. Unlike the Biblical story of Abraham, God didn’t pull any punches at the last minute. He did not stop Laney from hitting her sons, ages 8, 6, and 1, with rocks weighing up to 14 pounds. Maybe He was out of sacrificial goats to use as replacements. She fulfilled God’s will by killing the two eldest, but failed Him by only permanently injuring the one-year-old. Perhaps that is why He abandoned her to the Texas ‘justice’ system.
While this story is not new, I recently had a couple of thoughts regarding this issue. First, how is Laney’s claim that God spoke to her any different from Akiane Kramarik’s claim? Christians cannot claim that God would never command a parent to perform such a horrendous act because He’s done it before. If the two situations are any different, what is the criteria? How are we to determine the validity of future claims of messages from God?
Secondly, since Laney ended using an insanity plea, how do we know that Abraham wasn’t suffering from similar delusions? Maybe, like Laney, Abraham only thought that God told him to kill Isaac. Claiming he was crazy would certainly go a long way to removing this problematic feature of Christian theology. Then again, it would admit that there is an error in the Bible.
–Sidfaiwu
Related posts:
April 30th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
After reading this story, it seems clear to me that God was an accessory to these murders. We can’t say what his motives were, but his hand in the events is evident and, at the very least, he did not act to stop the killing.
No one is above the law.
April 30th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
“When we talk to god, it’s called prayer. When god talks to us, it’s called schizophrenia” — anon.
April 30th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
mmm let’s see. If it’s in the holy books, it’s god’s word (TM) therefore above reproach. God is merciful in instructing his followers to kill their kiddies if it so pleases his godness, even better after psychologically damaging both follower and kiddy, god has a change of heart. Too merciful, no?
If it happens now and you live in a religious society, it’s acceptable, just so long as you quote the scripture correctly and being a man always helps.
If however, you live in a society that’s somewhat less than fundamentalist, you’re insane and your belief in god makes people want to go easy on you. After all, we know religion leads to good morals don’t we? A religiou would never have a tale about a merciful god instructing his followers to commit infanticide… oh wait…
April 30th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
I think that nobody should be allowed to interpret the Abraham story until they’ve read Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling. Just a personal opinion.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:08 am
Abraham is different than this crazy woman, he was a prophet get revlation, and the last one who got the revlation was Muhammed and even through Gaberial, not directly from God. God will never talk to somebody personly.
Second thing, that Abraham went to the desert where there is no water, nor food, and he had his two sons, and it was an order from god, and God told him call the people and they will come from every where, and his son hit the ground with his legs and it opens a well in the ground, and this well still exist till now to prove that was true.
The summary of what I wanted to say, tha Abraham did what god told him through his angel, and God never let him down.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:34 am
“and God told him call the people and they will come from every where, and his son hit the ground with his legs and it opens a well in the ground, and this well still exist till now to prove that was true.”
Bullshit, pure bullshit. Show me this well and show me how you know it’s the well from the myth.
“Abraham did what god told him through his angel, and God never let him down.”
God was a monster for asking a man to kill his son. No loving being that cared about the wellfare of another would do this. He could’ve just given them water. Second Abraham was a monster for obeying.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:47 am
Here’s a brain bender. Aside from religious texts that come from Abraham’s distant “descendants” via Ishmael and Isaac, what record do we have of his actual existence? Moses, the guy who supposedly wrote about him, turns out to be at least 3 different people, as discovered by writing style analysis of early Hebrew texts. Then you have the ramblings of Mohamed, a schizophrenic jerk who’s teachings can be interpreted as both the religion of peace and the justification for “killing the infidels”. If that isn’t loony, I don’t know what is.
Pretend for the moment that the religious history written in the Bible and Koran are both steaming piles of crap. What real, secular evidence is there for the existence of Abraham, much less the validity of the story of him being told to kill his kid? What if this is merely a tale told to illustrate the level of faith “God” requires so the religious leaders can hold power while the blind sheep just follow along.
Crazy: adjective, Using a fable to justify the blind following of an invisible bearded man in the sky whose voice consists of chemically imbalanced men writing their delusions on paper.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:02 am
<sarcasm>
Wow, people, way to be tolerant and understanding of others’ beliefs. Great to see no one is throwing nasty names and descriptions around.
</sarcasm>
Now as to the post Mohamed made:
I thought God DID talk directly to Moses. That was what made him “glow” after receiving the 10 commandments.
Also, why do you believe the story? IS it based on objective evidence, or it it beacause you were told to believe? I am not trying to belittle your faith, but I am curious.
—————————————————
As to the story, What makes people believe the story of Abraham, but not this lady’s story?
If Abraham lived today he would be in a psychiatric ward somewhere, because in modern societies, we judge people (in law) based on their actions, not their beliefs.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:20 pm
It is just *too* convenient that God won’t speak up and confirm anything in the bible or the koran. Too convenient that Mohamed was the (self-declared) last prophet, that God will not speak to anyone anymore, that there won’t be any miracles anymore, and so on. You know, just a little “yes, I really meant that” would help a lot, for an all powerful being, surely that’s not so hard to do.
It’s all circular logic, either hearsay or just the word of a “prophet” and nothing is verifiable. And that stinks of deception. Maybe “Abraham” didn’t really exist, and he’s a character invented to indoctrinate and manipulate people. Maybe most of the prophets were insane, conmen or both. People can be so gullible, and without independent confirmation, there’s no way that I can trust anything written in one of those books.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Pseudonym Says:
“I think that nobody should be allowed to interpret the Abraham story until they’ve read Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling. Just a personal opinion.”
from the wikipedia article on the subject:
“faith is founded in the belief in the absurd”… “Silentio’s opinion is that what separates Abraham from being a killer is his faith.”
So simply because Deanna Laney has faith, she’s not a killer, according to Kierkegaard? The 9/11 terrorists, and other suicide bombers, aren’t killers either?
Or, is it a special kind of faith? How do you measure or assess faith to know if it is of that kind?
That really is so absurd.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:46 pm
How could Muhammed knows about all of these stories, and how he could tell that accurate and he didn’t study the bible because he didn’t even know how to read.
Stop being ignorant, and don’t forget that you beleive in fairy tales(evolution and big bang).
May 1st, 2007 at 7:17 pm
NoReligionIsPeace: Kierkegaard’s book goes much deeper into it than that. That summary isn’t exactly inaccurate, but it’s also fairly misleading.
DeusExMichael:
We have pretty much the same record that we have for any other ancient figure who wasn’t a monarch. We don’t, for example, have any external documentary evidence for the existence of Aesop. All we have is what he wrote (and not all of what he “wrote” was actually written by him), and a story about his life that came much later. But nobody seriously doubts that he really existed.
This seems like a good opportunity for a mini-rant.
When we read about ancient figures like Aesop or Helen of Troy, we usually have no problem with believing that they really existed, even though we may concede that some (or even most) of what’s written about them is not literal history. It would be unreasonable, after all, to require that 2000+ year old writers play by modern rules of journalism and biography.
But for some reason, when it comes to a religion that still exists and is locally in the majority (e.g. a Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion), some people seem more eager to believe that maybe those figures never really existed at all. That’s when we start leaving history and start the journey into pseudohistory.
I don’t have a persecution complex or a siege mentality, by any means, but I think it’s intellectually dishonest when a small minority of secular historians and prehistorians (usually armchair historians) treat Judeo-Christian religious texts differently from any other work of ancient mythology.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:25 pm
“I don’t have a persecution complex or a siege mentality, by any means, but I think it’s intellectually dishonest when a small minority of secular historians and prehistorians (usually armchair historians) treat Judeo-Christian religious texts differently from any other work of ancient mythology.”
on the contrary, you treat it differently. atheists treat ALL mythology the same.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:41 pm
“Stop being ignorant, and don’t forget that you beleive in fairy tales(evolution and big bang).”
Lying again Mohamed? You state that you know people don’t believe in evolution one day, then say that we believe in them another. Just like you state that you don’t want anyone to go to hell and suffer one day, then one another state how you’ll be so happy in your Islam boudoir with sweet wine and milk knowing that us non believers will be suffering in your pathetic god’s hell. Check your posts on this forum, you contradict yourself whenever convenient.
Which is it? Do you say we believe in evolution or not? Do you not want us to suffer or do you really hope we do? It can’t be all of the above. Which is lie and which is truth?
May 1st, 2007 at 8:33 pm
“…and God told him call the people and they will come from every where, and his son hit the ground with his legs and it opens a well in the ground, and this well still exist till now to prove that was true.”
According to Greek myth, Hercules placed the Pillars of Gibralter where they are. They are still there today. Does that make the tale of Hercules true?
May 1st, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Here’s were Mohamed said he knows we don’t believe in evolution:
http://religiousfreaks.com/muhammed-caricatures/comment-page-13/#comment-50627
May 1st, 2007 at 9:38 pm
At first there was nothing. Then god said “let there be light”. There was still nothing but atleast you could see it now…..
May 1st, 2007 at 10:32 pm
For what it’s worth, I treat my mythology different from most Christians, too. I acknowledge that it’s mythology. I also claim that it works for me, and your mileage may vary. But we’re off the main topic…
I’m sure that you do. It’s true of most atheists, but it’s not true of all. Some have a real bug about mythology that’s associated with the locally-most-common religion. (In most English-speaking countries, that would be Christianity. In other places, it’s something else.)
I don’t think this is surprising. Familiarity breeds contempt, after all. But it is intellectually dishonest.
My point is that this “What evidence do we have for Abraham’s existence?” question would likely not be asked if we were talking about other legendised historical figures.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:48 pm
My point is that this “What evidence do we have for Abraham’s existence?†question would likely not be asked if we were talking about other legendised historical figures.
Because we have these fictional biblical figures shoved down our throats as if they were as real as our parents. We don’t have Zeus, Venus, Woden, Ulysees and the rest of the gang jammed down our throat as real. And very few if any people in the world use these guys as a moral compass.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:49 pm
I think some of us feel it’s intellectually dishonest but politically expedient in this environment where myth-based politics are killing dozens every day.
I think that approach though is intellectually cowardly. There are better ways to deal with dangerously irrational thinking than by adopting the opposite irrational stance - there is no real need for it ~ nothing destroys irrational ideas quite as well as honest and open-minded inquiry (although getting people to be either honest or open-minded, is not so easy!!)
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:48 am
On an unrelated note, the site RSS feed has a “hacked by chinese” entry. Not a patch on CyberWarrior Tim’s efforts, but you still might want to check it out.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:04 am
Brian
What kind of evidence do you want , should we shoot video for you to know that he existed, if you just can make me a time capsule I would really take my video camers and go shoot it for you:)
Seriously what kind of evidence, just give me one evidence you would like me to provide and I will do it. so what the evidence that napelone was a butt hole, or even existed?
The other thing, stop trying to be smart and take my words out of text and try to make a story out of it, you act like fox news, they take one word and make a story out of it.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:19 am
Evidence
Ok, go to this well you speak of and get definitive proof that it’s the well from you fairy tale. You can’t and you know it. It’s like the Pope saying he knows Mary was a virgen. He doesn’t know it and can’t prove it.
And I’m not twisting your words. You lie. It’s that simple. You say you know that people don’t believe in scientific theories but turn around and say that we believe in them like you believe in religion. You either think we believe in scientific theories like evolution or you don’t. One is a lie. I’ve shown links where you say this. Stop lying.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:26 am
I’m not lying, and the person who lies is the one who scared, I’m not scared of any thing, the one who should be scared is the one who doesn’t know where is he going and where is he coming from, and I think it would be you.
Secondly I don’t like somebody to call me liar, I never called such a thing and actually I know you lie, you lie even to your self by believing in what you thing and convincing your self that you are right.
Any way it’s ok, athiest accused our prophet Muhammed that he is liar, and I’m not better than him, I know your motive, so it’s ok.
You can ask sidfaiwu if I lie or not, and I think he will tell you better.
I hope you become more civilized and don’t call people names and trying to be silly like that, if you can’t take argument and you can’t win, don’t act like kids “you are liar waaaaa”, we are not here to win arguments, people come here to say what ever they want, you want to answer it, it’s ok we are in free country:))
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:23 am
Mohamed, you have said that you accept that I don’t believe in evolution, I have the link above. That is a fact. And in post 11 on this page you said that the people who (I have posted above) have posted before you believe in evolution and the big bang. That is also a fact. These facts contradict. You can’t believe both. So, you are lying. I like Sidfaiwu for his comments and insight. But I don’t need his opinion about whether you have lied or not. You plainly have.
I have been extremely civil with you. I have explained to you that science isn’t belief. That is is supported by evidence. That evolution isn’t random. Yet you show how uncivilized you are by not even arguing that. You ignore it totally. I have not called you names. I have only stated that either you lie when you say you know I and others don’t believe in evolution or you lie when you say we do. Now stop attacking me for being more civilized than you.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:50 am
The evidence I seek is simple. I want a reference to Abraham in a record that is separate from the Bible and Koran as they have shown to have all the historical accuracy of a dime store romance novel. He is supposedly a very important man in his time so why is there no record of him in the Babylonian or Egyptian texts? Why is it only those who claim descent from him that record his existence? Further, why is the only surviving record of his story penned hundreds of years later? Why is there no contemporary record? How about one penned by his own hand? I know if I am talking to God, I am going to write some of that shit down. Further, Moses, the one who supposedly wrote Abraham’s story turns out to have been at least 3 different people, not one actual man. How anyone can call that historical record is beyond me.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:10 am
Pseudonym,
“…treat Judeo-Christian religious texts differently from any other work of ancient mythology.”
The stakes are much higher. I think it’s legitimate to require higher standards of evidence for religious texts. It’s fine to try out an ice cream store simply because someone tells you they liked it. However, it’s also normal to have a house inspected by an expert (well, I wish house inspectors really were experts) before buying it, even if someone tells you they like it. The levels of assurance that are needed by a rational person increase with the stakes.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:17 am
Oh, and if you want me to believe in an invisible man in the sky who watches us all the time, will send us to hell if we misbehave to suffer for all eternity, but loves us, you better have good evidence! (inspired by George Carlin).
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:23 am
Mohamed Says:
“How could Muhammed knows about all of these stories, and how he could tell that accurate and he didn’t study the bible because he didn’t even know how to read.”
He could have faked being unable to read. Or, someone else could have read the bible to him. Or, the facts that he didn’t know how to read, or knew all about these stories, could have been made up by whoever reported it. There are tons of possibilities and other explanations if you open up your mind. Are there any proofs that he really didn’t know how to read, and couldn’t have learned of the bible stories in some other way?
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
On a side-note: I’m going to see George Carlin this Saturday!
Anyone else notice the hacked RSS feed? Where the hell is Gas?
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
To go back to the topic a bit.
That woman is going to hell on the fast track. Either god told her to kill the kids, and she goes and denies god by pleading insane, or god didn’t tell her and she murdered two kids… wrong move lady.
anyway, Mohamed, i wonder.
We keep showing you counter proof (well, not actaully counter, because you bring none) that all you claims are either plain wrong, or highly circumstantial.
As far as I remember, every single point brought up by you, supporting your side of the story has been chewed up and spat out as crap (sorry for the unpleasant use of words) How can you still claim your belief in God in founded in proof?
If you believe in God because you need the feeling of someone looking out for you, of having a purpose in your life and to feel safe, then why not just admit it? There’s no shame in that.
But trying to back your claim with this evidence, which doesn’t hold up to even the slightest scrutiny is not the way to go. If you believe in God, believe because you want to, believe because you NEED a god, but don’t say have proof there is a god, because there is no such thing.
I can’t say that there is no god, but I will rip every argument you support his existence to shreds.
I should really write a good piece about this someday.
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:41 pm
The evidence again, that Muhammed told the stories in Quran and it’s the same prophets that the bible mentioned, he didn’t know how to read, nor how to write.
Why is that, because it’s the same god for the three reiligion, and let’s assume that Muhammde was that smart and he can fool a lot of people( which is impossible), why would he tell the same stories like bible, he should tell different story, so at least he would be uniqe and he looks like he get something different, but he didn’t because it’s the same god.
Mr Brian, I said before which I thing you are trynig to act like stupid intentionly, that I beleive that evolution exist for weak creature to survive, it’s just tool god put in this earth for the species that doesn’t have brain to survive, but it doesn’t QUALIFY( I hope you get it this time) to explain human-being existence.
By the way Utah Jazz is going to bea Huston( off topic)
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:48 pm
DeusExMichael:
Once again: Why would you expect otherwise? Who is going to record the existence of an Egyptian Pharoah except for a) the Egyptians, and b) anyone who defeated them? (After all, anyone who lost to them is hardly going to record it.)
You’re thinking too much like a modern biographer/journalist and not enough like an ancient chronicler. Back in the day, writing cost a lot. You needed someone who could write (i.e. a scribe), and materials that were expensive to produce. Nobody is going to write anything down just for the hell of it. And most of everything that wasn’t literally set in stone was lost, reused as a palimpsest or simply degraded over time.
Here’s a little research project for you: What documentary evidence is there for the destruction of Pompeii in 79 CE? The physical evidence is good, so we’re not going to disagree that it happened. This was a pretty significant event, we can probably agree on that. So what contemporary documentary evidence would you expect to find today? And what is there?
And the $64k question: Is it better or worse than the documentary evidence for Abraham?
NoReligionIsPeace:
If the point is to convince someone else to follow the religion, that makes a certain amount of sense, I suppose. But that was not the question being asked, was it.
BTW, I suspect that you don’t actually believe that the stakes are high. I know I don’t.
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:51 pm
“I should really write a good piece about this someday”
Didn’t Sam Harris do this already? It’s only like 80 or so B5 pages, you can finish it in an hour and a half, maybe two hours at the max…
I would love to try a challenge one day with a fundie where he get’s his best “conversion” text up to 100 pages long, and I bring along “letter to a christian nation”, and then we take turns for 30 minutes every day reading the *others* book out loud to the other, without comment or argument, and see what our belief systems look like at the end of it.
I don’t think they could sit through it :)
//does anyone know any cute 20-something fundie girls?
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Mohamed, you are either unable to understand what I write or deliberately avoiding my question. I don’t care whether you believe or don’t believe in evolution. My point is you say I do believe (see above) but also say I don’t (see other post). You are lying in one of those cases
Now the reason I’m harping on this is simple. You try to have it both ways. When it’s convenient you say we believe, like it’s some little fairy tale that you scorn in comparison to your belief. This is false, we have offered numerous explanations as to why it is false. You have not argued that these explanations are valid. You choose to ignore them so you can repeat you childish claim that we believe them.
When pressed you say you know we don’t believe in evolution, that you know that it’s only an explanation.
Which is it? Own up to your beliefs, either you believe that we believe in evolution or you believe that we don’t. You can’t have it both ways. Either you lied when you said we believed, or you lied when you said you knew we didn’t. Arguing with you is like handling a slippery fish, always changing to suit. You might believe it’s clever, but it only reveals that you have no argument firm enough to defend. Now, in all likelyhood you won’t address the substance of all my posts, and will pretend that it’s something else. I hope you don’t. I would like to see what you actually believe, and to see you argue it with something that approaches logic.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:57 pm
“Here’s a little research project for you: What documentary evidence is there for the destruction of Pompeii in 79 CE?”
Pliny the elder saw it, went and had a look from Stabie, with a retinue of people. He died there from the fumes. His nephew Pliny the younger recorded it. There were witnesses. And he wasn’t the only person to record it.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Brian: Who else was there and recorded it? So far, you have one first-hand report which still exists.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Pseudonym: Okay, show me physical evidence that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt. There is no Egyptian record of it. In fact, the Hebrew men involved in the pyramid construction process were honored with tombs near the Pharaoh himself, not the mass graves of a slave. Further, the Hebrew word Moses literally translates to Ramses. So their leader was a Pharaoh?
Further there is no physical evidence of a huge group wandering the desert for 40 years. One would think thousands of people would have left traces somewhere. The only peoples wandering that desert were the nomadic people that wander it to this day.
Pompeii’s destruction was widely chronicled by many scholars from the land surrounding the disaster. There is both physical and recorded evidence of this occurrence. Show me even one piece of physical evidence to back up the stories in the bible.
Lacking the physical, I will even take the writings of these men’s contemporaries. There must have been one to have written of the mass exodus of Egypt’s slave workforce and destruction of its army in the depths of the sea, right?
Nope, not even one shred beyond the writings in the Bible. No physical evidence and only one witness to all of this. Even in the Bible that wouldn’t have worked.
“In the mouthes of two or three witnesses shall all thing be established.” 2 Corinthians 13:1.
Where is your second witness? No physical evidence and only one writer that isn’t even the contemporary of the event and you really want me to believe? That is just silly.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Oh, and one more thing: Do you know why Pliny the Younger wrote that letter to Tacitus?
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:57 pm
“Do you know why Pliny the Younger wrote that letter to Tacitus?”
Well, obviously to start a new religion based upon stories of mountains blowing their tops and killing uncles who got too curious. I mean it’s not like Pliny the Elder, Pliny the younger, and Tacitus have been verified as being actual historic characters. And we all know that mountains don’t erupt, the whole idea of a volcanoe is obviously fraudulent and a fairy tale. Pompeeii, Herculeum, Stabiae, and Mount Vesuvius, never existed did they? Not attested to. Not like those real characters from that great history book called the bible. I still marvel at how a single man, with no real tools could build a boat in 40 days, that we couldn’t do this day. Then house all those hundreds of thousands of species inside his boat and how he forgot the dinosaurs and trilobytes so they became fossilized. And how even though he forgot to put plants in his boat they didn’t drown that whole time under the water. Now that’s real verified history.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:13 pm
DeusExMichael:
You’re off topic. We’re talking specifically about Abraham.
But you’re almost making my point for me. My point is that even huge events in a relatively literate culture (like the destruction of Pompeii) often leave almost no documentary evidence. We have one document from one eyewitness.
Asking for evidence “that is separate from the Bible and Koran” is simply not going to happen, because, quite frankly, we’re lucky to have even one documentary reference. If we weren’t talking about a buried city that we happen to know the location of, the documentary evidence would almost be on par.
I say “almost” because, of course, the Torah was not written down by eyewitnesses. Traditionally, Moses wrote the account in question. He almost certainly didn’t, but even if you assume he did, there’s no way he was an eyewitness to his own distant ancestor’s life.
I don’t care what you believe. I just want you to treat the Bible as you would any other ancient text, like boris claims that atheists do. (And, indeed, most of them do.)
Look, I don’t know if Abraham really existed or not. What I do know is that the evidence is about as good as that for the existence of any other non-monarch-level non-writer ancient historical figure that you care to name.
You may, of course, not agree that everything said about him is literal history. Can’t argue with you there.
Now, we’re getting off-topic, but…
I think you’re mistaking me for a biblical literalist.
I’m not sure where you got that from. As far as I can see, that’s not true. “Mosis” actually means “son of”, much like “Mac” in Scotland. There were several Pharoahs with the name Thothmosis, which literally means “Son of Thoth”.
Even on the off chance that it’s true (which I doubt; evidence please), you might like to think about European surnames, which often came from professions. “Smith” was a blacksmith or metalsmith, for example. Where did surnames like “King”, “Bishop” or “Pope” come from?
Excuse me? Why would a nomadic culture (I don’t know how many they were, perhaps not “thousands”) leave a large trace? Exactly what evidence would you expect to find? Not permanent structures, that’s for sure.
For the record, plenty of nomadic groups settled down eventually. Or did you think that our pre-human ancestors also built cities?
Only one witness to the destruction of Pompeii. Your point?
That’s a quote from Deuteronomy 19:15. I didn’t know this was a legal case.
Where did I say that?
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:42 pm
“I don’t know if Abraham really existed or not. What I do know is that the evidence is about as good as that for the existence of any other non-monarch-level non-writer ancient historical figure that you care to name.”
If that’s the standard of proof then we have to accept that Ulysees existed and cyclops, poseidon etc. The Illiad was written down long after it “occurred”. It has magic and miracles. Characters that may or may not have existed. Shouldn’t we fear the wrath of Zeus? Consider Troy, it was out of favour with the gods……
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:47 pm
ok, there is big differnce when I say I beleive in god, and when I say I beleive in evolution, I beleive in god means that I worship god, when I say I beleive in evolution exist for species sake, that means that I think in it as a good thoery for weaker and primitive creature to exist to go with the surounding enviroment.
I hope I got your point and you got mine, because I still don’t get why you calling me liar for?
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Since you have no intention of answering the question, I’ll do it for you.
Pliny the Younger wrote his account in a letter to Tacitus because Tacitus asked for it for his Histories.
Think about that for a moment. Had someone not asked for it, there would be no eyewitness evidence to the destruction of Pompeii at all. As important and remarkable an event as it was, it wasn’t important enough for a very literate eyewitness to write about it at the time.
Why, then, would you expect anyone to write about a guy who happened to have a lot of nomadic ancestors? Why would you expect this evidence?
I hope you’re not suggesting that merely being mentioned in the Bible, Egypt and Canaan didn’t exist either.
You are completely and utterly missing the point, so I’ll try to spell this out again.
History is a methodology. It’s a bit like science a bit like detective work. It’s like science in the sense that you make hypotheses about what happened, and then you work out what evidence you’d see if X happened, and what evidence you’d see if X didn’t happen.
Today, people have blogs where they note every time their cat hacks up a furball. Two thousand or so years ago, literacy was rare and writing materials were expensive. People simply didn’t write things down unless there was a reason to. And without the benefit of modern archival technology, what was written down was either reused (because paper-equivalents were so expensive) or destroyed. Unless the document was important enough to copy, it’s likely that it didn’t survive.
For our purpose, this is the key thing: If you have no reason to expect any evidence of X exists, even if X really happened, then its absence proves nothing.
Indeed, there are plenty of examples of historical events which nobody seriously doubts happened (reports may have been embellished in the retelling, of course), but for which there is exactly no first-hand evidence left.
As an example, whether or not the Trojan War really happened is up for some debate, but most historians believe that at least some of it is true. This is despite there being no first-hand documentary or physical evidence. All we really have is the Iliad, and we know it’s at best a fairly fanciful retelling.
The suggestion that the question of the existence of Abraham requires two pieces of evidence is, quite frankly, obtuse. You’re lucky to get one piece of evidence at all.
And all we’re really talking about here is whether or not there was a guy of that name who had a lot of descendents. Honestly, what’s the big deal here?
As for Noah, sure, the story that we have is almost certainly fanciful, but I don’t find it hard to buy that there was a real flood (or possibly several floods) which decimated the “world” as it was known at the time and eventually ended up as mythological legend. We even have other flood stories from the region, like the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Atrahasis Epic.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:02 am
“Stop being ignorant, and don’t forget that you beleive in fairy tales(evolution and big bang).”
“there is big differnce when I say I beleive in god, and when I say I beleive in evolution, I beleive in god means that I worship god, when I say I beleive in evolution exist for species sake, that means that I think in it as a good thoery for weaker and primitive creature to exist to go with the surounding enviroment.”
I called you a liar because of the above quotes. Your first quote makes it quite clear that you are talking about belief in gods. You make it clear that people who “believe” in evolution have faith in it and are ignorant. The who “fairy tale” quote makes it quite clear that you don’t mean belief as in best explanation.
So, the next time someone says that you don’t have proof for the Quran or that Mohamed was a prophet don’t retort “Stop being ignorant, and don’t forget that you beleive in fairy tales(evolution and big bang).” Because if you do, you will have lied again.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:09 am
“You are completely and utterly missing the point”
I had no real point. Just being sarcastic. I tried to put a hint at the end but the website cut it off assuming it as a HTML tag.
To be honest I agree with you, we just don’t have the evidence. Obviously Pomepeii has been discovered and that coincides with Pliny’s account. And there are cuniform tablets from the Hittites that seem to suggest that the Trojan war was fought over territory/resources. But it’s only a suggestion. I think that’s why anybody who says this or that happened in antiquity really is just fantasizing. And that goes for the whole bible/Koran. Sure, there are some factual tidbits in those books, and some common sense. But to suggest there is a god from those books is the same as saying the Illiad confirms the existence of Zeus.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:48 am
Brian,
I don’t beleive that Evolution is the reason for the human being existence and that’s the fairy tale of it, and then the whole big bang is really fairy tale.
Should I repeat my self 500 times. I think you are lying saying that big bang and evolution are the reason for this world existence, because I have feeling that you don’t even beleive it.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:01 am
Brian: I think we’re in essential agreement here.
Where I disagree with most Judeo-Christian religious people is in the very nature of religion itself. Religion isn’t something you believe in, it’s something you do. And as such, it makes no more sense to ask “Is Christianity true?” than to ask “Is the wearing of hats true?”
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:08 am
“I think you are lying saying that big bang and evolution are the reason for this world existence, because I have feeling that you don’t even beleive it.”
I never said evolution was the reason for the worlds’ existence. I don’t believe I’ve ever actually argued about the big bang with you, but if I have I’m sure you’ll show me the links.
I have said so many times that I don’t believe in scientific theories. You have read that. How many times do I have to say it? I have said they are just explanations for naturally occuring phenomena. Are you incapable of understanding this? This is why I call you a liar when you compare belief in a god to accepting evolution as the best explanation we have for all the forms of life we see. You say you know I don’t believe in it (see link above) and yet you still come out with crap like “Stop being ignorant, and don’t forget that you beleive in fairy tales(evolution and big bang)”
You either do believe that I believe in scientific theories like you believe in religion or you don’t in which case don’t compare it to religion. Is it that hard for you to understand?
Science is not faith, it’s a series of explanations that change to fit the evidence. Saying I or other rational people believe in science as though it were like your faith in the Quran is a lie.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:14 am
“Religion isn’t something you believe in, it’s something you do.”
Yeah, it’s most definetely a cultural thing. The trouble is people can be so attached to it, that they can’t see it’s just something that through sheer luck their family/culture practises. Not a truth, just a parochial tradition.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:22 am
You can’t have faith in something might change all the time, so as you said theories could change, but god never change.
Just to let you know something, I don’t read any of the wikipedia links, I don’t trust Wikipedia, I don’t like to read user writting and fantasis, based on wishings and dreams.
Man with out beleif is an empty man, what are you here for in this life, is it working and eating and drinking, is it any purpose for your existence, or it’s just happend, have you ever thought about, and if you thought about, did you read about it, and see what options out there to explain what you are here for in this life, or it’s just life you are going to spend it with no purpose.
That’s why Gasonmo felt the way he is feeling now, the way he can’t explain, the emptiness in his life, even though as he mentioned he has every thing any man could hope for, but it still something missing, the purpose why is he here for.
I didn’t want to jump on this topic when he mentioned it, but that’s the truth, if you forget god, god will make you forget your self, he will make you confused.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:36 am
“You can’t have faith in something might change all the time, so as you said theories could change, but god never change.”
Good, so don’t ever say: “Stop being ignorant, and don’t forget that you beleive in fairy tales(evolution and big bang)” again, because you know it’s a lie!
As to your unsubtle attempt to change the subject.
I don’t believe in god and I have a great life. I know many people who also don’t believe in god and have a great life. So, you using Gasmonso as evidence, without any proof as to why he is having a funk is just wishfull thinking on your part. You have no proof that it’s because he doesn’t believe in god. It’s quite sad how religious people use other’s suffering as proof that they are somehow in command of a truth. Like those guys who said the recent college shootings in Virginia were proof that god was angry that he’d been kicked out of the classroom. As if you could kick an all powerful god out any place. Silly.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:24 am
Brian, dont you see? It’s because god gave us free will that we have pushed him out of the classrooms. So god sent an unbalanced college student into the world to set it all straight by killing innocent fellow college students. Man, that is some sick logic, however iv heard it more than a few times on my college campus(NCSU is a lot like VT and not to far away). I really wish all the best to the survivors of that tragedy and hope that this changes their lives for the better in the end. The most powerful story that came out of this was a professor giving his life to save those of his students. This man survived the Holocaust, he survived against an entire country wanting to kill his kind, all so that he would be murdered is cold blood by a sick little prick. What god would let that happen?
Sorry for not being on lately, just wrapping up exams. Plus most of the fundies seem to have disappeared.
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:37 am
Maybe not, but humanities view of god has changed A LOT over time.
Why does life have to have a purpose? This is where most religious nuts go wrong. You asume, most egocentrically, that life has to have a purpose, your mind simply cannot grasp that the world is not about you.
If you need comfirmation of life in the form of God, then that is a weakness in YOUR character. If you need to hide from real life, in the feeling that God wants good for you and that everything will be fine, then go ahead and hide in religion, we don’t mind.
However, when you call us empty and sad (clearly not the case, i’ve never been happier since i left church and christianity behind me) I have to say that you are obviously wrong, and know nothing at all about humanity.
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:40 am
Heh, I almost dated one, until she asked if I was “A good catholic guy” When it turned out she was serious, I ran like hell.
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:43 am
“Why does life have to have a purpose?”
Alcari, its very simple, as humans our purpose is to continue and further the progress of mankind. This is the same with all other animals for that matter. So its not that we dont have a purpose, its just that our real purpose isnt good enough for them.
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:51 am
Pseudonym,
you say “I think it’s intellectually dishonest when a small minority of secular historians and prehistorians (usually armchair historians) treat Judeo-Christian religious texts differently from any other work of ancient mythology.”
So, you accuse people of being intellectually dishonest and when I respond to that, you belittle my answer by saying “that was not the question asked”. If that’s not dishonest, it’s disingenuous.
Then you go on, being more dismissive: “BTW, I suspect that you don’t actually believe that the stakes are high. I know I don’t.” Let me explain why I believe that they are very high, although I suspect that you’re a troll. People organize bible study groups all the time. The bible is quoted to them every time they go to church, and by every bible thumper. Fundies (many of them in the bible belt here) believe firmly in what is written in it. The characters in the bible are used to indoctrinate us from early childhood, with story books, etc… Then these people go and make political and ethical decisions, they vote, make laws, and judges smuggle monuments to the 10 commandments in the courtroom with religious fervor (real event). To suggest that the accuracy of the bible doesn’t matter is disingenuous, when it makes such extravagant claims and people believing in it almost word for word have such a great influence on our world. And finally, because the accuracy of that book is not questioned openly and often enough, you get people doing copy-cat crimes, sacrificing their children and whatnot without understanding that they are committing a crime. If those are not high enough stakes, I’d like to know what you think are.
Then don’t get me started on Sharia law: an entire legislative system ruling the lives of millions, based on the interpretation of another old book that could be a complete fantasy. So, I believe it is evident that all religious books that carry power in our lives should be held to greater standards of evidence, due to that very power, whether they are from the “Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion” or any other religion.
You say:
“The suggestion that the question of the existence of Abraham requires two pieces of evidence is, quite frankly, obtuse. You’re lucky to get one piece of evidence at all.”
To get back to the original post, the question is not whether or not someone named Abraham existed; it’s whether or not there really was someone ordered to sacrifice his children to God, by God himself, as some kind of sick test of his faith, who was going to do that, and who got spared at the last minute by God’s intervention. Why doesn’t that happen all the time anymore? If it was a just thing to do then why isn’t it now? Or did God make a mistake? Or is this story pure fantasy, or the telling of the story of a psychopath, serving as a justification for yet more psychos?
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:17 am
Mohamed Says:
“The evidence again, that Muhammed told the stories in Quran and it’s the same prophets that the bible mentioned, he didn’t know how to read, nor how to write…”
Huh, thanks for trying to explain it. That doesn’t make sense to me, however. I find it somewhat humorous and sad that I must appear as obtuse to you as you appear to me (this is not meant as an insult).
May 4th, 2007 at 1:45 am
It doesn’t make sense to you, because you don’t want to think about it, you don’t want to think how his stories about the prophet which came in Quran matched the bible.
You are going to say he might heard it and he fooled people with it, but would that be reasonable?, if somebody want to fool somebody, I think he would get his own stories and compete with the bible, but it’s all from God, so there is no competetion, he was just telling what comes to him from God.
I know it’s not going to make sense to you again.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:17 am
@Mohamed
If a man writes a book then says “I couldn’t read or write, but now I can, by magic of god! So I wrote book, but I didn’t copy, promise! It is the same by magic of god!”
2 possibilities are:
#1. He can write by magic of god
…or…
#2. He is lying crazy guy
What do you think?
And… “I didn’t copy, honest, it was miracle” - sounds exactly same like every lazy university student who copies!!!
That is NOT proof. You are smart guy, come on, you know in your heart that, even if there is proof, THIS is not it…
May 4th, 2007 at 2:19 am
sorry, #2 is vague - I should say
#2. He is crazy guy who learned to read the normal way but wants to tell lies about it
May 4th, 2007 at 2:54 am
so you mean to tell me that “the prophet” taking a highly successful (already was at that point) religion model and copying it, is somehow unlikely and hard to believe? what better way to give one self “credibility” than to claim one is the last (ever) prophet in a long line of other “holy” prophets. if i was to start a religion, thats exactly what i’d do…
mohammed, i have a bridge to sell you. god told me you need a bridge… interested? think about it, i know nothing about bridges. truly a miracle…
May 4th, 2007 at 2:57 am
Plagiarism is rife with religious texts and as any good salesman knows. Selling a new, unknown product with little commonality with the crowd is a hard sell. Where upon a product with ties to existing product is easier to sell as people respond more positively to something which has been tested and found usable.
It does not have to be the same product but it has to be similar so people are familiar enough with it. Familiarity breeds contentment.
We could also debate which parts of the bible were not already plagiarized by Christians from other cultures, would be a short to non-existent list but that is not the point.
The point is that there is really nothing confirming that the stories of bible or quran are original but those stories do try to obfuscate the true origin with internal references and various taradiddle with the oh, so willing help from the believers.
Me, I believe Abraham and Laney both were insane but Abraham had the good fortune to have some servant bold enough to stop him from killing his son. Deranged mind transformed that servant into an angel.
I find it highly peculiar that god who talks to people never seem to talk them out of silly acts or just tell them to stop acting like twits but keeps sending angels to do the stopping.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
to make a short translation of what jagannath said, and what is our biggest problem with the bible and quran.
There is nothing that proves the books are true, other then what is written in the books themselves
May 4th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Ah, well my sentiments can be composed with elect words as Alcari has established here. :)
May 4th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Not sure if this was covered, but God actually did allow this in the bible:
Judges 10:6-12:7. The story of his daughter’s sacrifice is covered in Judges 11:29-40.
So, let’s not think that God won’t allow anyone to go all the way.
May 4th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Actually Jephthah decided it himself to sacrifice the first living thing coming to meet him after he returned victorious, that was not required by the god. Not really comparable with Abrahams story where god told him to go and sacrifice his son.
God does allow and disallow sacrifices in the bible and that is the root of the problems. One would expect to make his mind of such issue instead of dilly dallying around it.
May 4th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Alcari,
“There is nothing that proves the books are true, other then what is written in the books themselves”?
So, are the places, people and events mentioned in the Bible all made up? Were the apostles fictional characters or real people? If they were real people, why on earth would they commit their lives to spreading the “made up” story of the resurection? Why endure constant ridicule, abuse, arrests, and finally death for what they must have known was a lie?
May 4th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Boris,
If you read enough, christinity wasn’t spread at the area where Muhammed raised, so there is nothing to copy from.
Muhammed didn’t write by him self, Muhammed was telling it and Osman write it down for him.
Muhammed didn’t know any thing about any other reiligions, the only thing he didn’t do, that he didn’t worship idols like his people, other than that he had no knowledge of any other religion.
May 5th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Does the Koran teach that Muhammed died?
May 5th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Also, I believe that large portions of the Koran seem to have been taken directly from the Torah.
May 5th, 2007 at 12:49 am
The Quran teach that Muhammed is just human being he was chosen and he is the best human being came to this earth, so human being mean he also died.
We beleive in Torah and Bible and Quran, Muslim can’t be a Muslims with out beleive in the three messages, Torah and Bible change by people through the time, but it still has the god word in most part of it, while Quran didn’t change.
The other thing Quran is written differntly than the Torah and the Bible, Torah and Bible wrote by people after Moses died and after Jesus lifting to the sky(he didn’t die yet), but the Quran has been written as Muhammed said after revlation in his life.
May 5th, 2007 at 1:36 am
@mohammed
how exactly do you know that he had no knowledge of other religions? islam is so similar to other abrahamic mythology that there are only two explanations: plagiarism or divine influence. i don’t need to tell you which one is infinitely unlikely.
May 5th, 2007 at 5:24 am
@Doug:
You have to be joking. If, as I interpret from this, you are a christian, then you hold hinduism, islam, sihkism etc all to be lies, and yet you see these people on the TV news doing exactly what you say the appostles did. You think they “must know” it’s a lie? Or not? Yet early christians would be different???
How is that an argument????
May 5th, 2007 at 5:34 am
uhh, all the places, most of the people and some events in the last Tom Clancy novel are real. Does that make it thruth?
May 5th, 2007 at 5:39 am
@Mohamed:
Muhammed didn’t write by him self, Muhammed was telling it and Osman write it down for him.
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of that - sorry for my ignorant presumption…
But it doesn’t change anything, what you are describing, these days, is called “academic collusion” or “conspiracy to fraud”….. So if we have Osman saying “it wasn’t me, honest, it was all him”, and Mohamed saying “yeah, what he said”… that’s pretty weak evidence for god-magic.
Also, what about Islam people today who can’t read, but hear Islam only from the Mullah? So if Mohamed can’t read but knows about Jewish religion, then I think perhaps then the similarities show Mohamed was sneaking off into the Synagog to worship with the Jews! Well ok… I know that’s not a very nice idea, but still, what would make that so impossible?
So still we have:
Observation: Someone says a book came from god-magic
Possible causes:
1) They saw some god-magic
or
2) They are lying
Like I said before - and you are too smart not to know it - there might be evidence, but THIS is not evidence.
May 5th, 2007 at 6:06 am
Lets see, christianity had been around for nearly 700 years at the time of quran was written but for some reason rumours and knowledge of it had managed to skip by the lands of muhammed.
Seriously, claiming that no one knew of christianity or judaism in medina makes it look really bad for the society and I for one am not ready to believe the arabs of that time were as ignorant as claims like that would require them to be.
They would not admit of borrowing texts from others but claiming that they just managed to avoid the myths of their own homeland and new teachings being spread around and then wrote near identical holy book to existing ones borders ridiculous and I for one cannot believe it.
Today you can be a muslim without believing in any of the holy books as you are born to a society where converting to other religion or to forsaking religion is impossible without moving to a country where it is possible and even then you are in danger of being targeted by some true believer.
May 5th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Jagannath,
There was Christians around and there were Jews around too, but they didn’t dare to invite people to their religion, because the people wouldn’t let them do that. Mecca was the pilgrimage for a lot of people who worship idols, which brought them business, so nobody dared to change this fact(Christians or Jews).
Again, if people treat Christians so bad in ME, that’s not Islam, it’s from the ignorance of Muslims, not from Islam.
By the way I was in Egypt, and I visited the Alexandrian catacombs, it’s really amazing place to see, I lived in Alexandria for 25 years, I didn’t know such place exists, thanks for my wife, you can see how the Roman tortured Christian in this place. Here is the link if you want to see the pictures, and one of the pictures for Hall Of Caracalla Remembrance To Christians Killed in Alexandria’s Amphitheater.
Islam saved Christians from the Roman, the evidence in this link if you want to check the web site http://www.delange.org/Catacombs/EP8.htm.
Any way you can visit the web site, it’s really amazing place to see, I was so amazed how this people build this thing, and how they buried their dead people, and how civilized and organized they were, by the way this place now is under the modern city of Alexandria, where they had to dig so deep to show this place.
I’m sorry if I got off topic here, but it something I wanted to share with you, and I think it proves how the Christian were prosecuted under the Roman and who saved them, and it was Islam but different Muslims than what you see now, so the Islam is right and the Muslims now is wrong.
May 5th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
recovered catholic,
Sorry for the delay in responding, but I just got home.
The difference between the Hindus, Muslims, and others who die for their beliefs today and the apostles is huge. Someone may die today for what they believe to be true but no one will die for what they know to be a lie. The apostles claimed to be eyewitnesses to the resurrection and they went to their deaths affirming that claim. Not something most would be willing to do for a made up incident.
Oh, and Alcari, are you aware of anyone who believes that Tom Clancy is writing non-fiction?
May 5th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Sorry, Doug, but I still don’t see a difference. Would you mind elaborating a little more please? Also, how do we know the apostles were martyred and for what reason?
May 5th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
sidfaiwu,
A person may be sincere in their religious belief and may even die for that belief, even though it may actually be false. The apostles however, claimed to be eyewitnesses to the resurrection. If they were fabricating the story, it is inconceivable that they would face a lfe of persecution, arrest, and ultimately death for what they knew was a lie. Could they keep the conspiricy going? Does that seem reasonable? It’s not like they had anything to gain by spreading this crazy sounding story about Jesus. What was their motivation? What changed them from cowardly followers of a dead rabi to bold proclaimers of an impossible sounding claim?
As far as the apostles deaths go, there are some deaths recorded in the NT, (which you probably won’t consider trustworthy), for instance Acts 12 records the death of James by Herod Agrippa who died in AD 44, the 4th year of Claudius Caesar. Also, early church history records other deaths (which you will also probably find unsuitable).
Just curious, what would it take for you to consider the New Testament reliable?
May 5th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
sidfaiwu,
Hey, I guess I am talking to you on two threads:^) I will stick with this one for the duration. I am off to study algebra and will look for your response in the am. Later.
May 5th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
“Islam saved Christians from the Roman”
Ok, a few dates here. Unless I’m wrong christianity was a separate cult from Judaism in the decades after the supposed crucifixion/resurection thingy. The Christians were persecuted for a few centuries by the romans. Then Christianity became the religion of the Roman empire. All this happened before Mohamed was born. So which christians were saved by Islam? Were they heretics? And secondly, were they forced to pay a tax for not beling muslims and treated as second class citizens to speed up their conversion?
May 6th, 2007 at 3:29 am
Brian,
Let me tell you the history my friend, when Muhammed shows up, Roman was still in Egypt, and they slaved Christians, you can read the history and you will find me correct, Muslims went to Egypt and they throw the Roman out, and Christian suffering stopped.
Muslims paid Zakat too, there were not taxes at this time, otherwise I shouldn’t pay taxes in USA because I’m not Christian, if that’s your logic.
Christians didn’t convert because of what you mentioned, Christians converted for what they found are true, and they found Muslim mercifull with them, that’s why, you can’t change somebody’s beleif by money, Both parts pay money, Zakat couldn’t be for non-Muslim.
I’m afraid you are going to accuse me that I’m liar again :) just kidding.
By the way GOOOOOOOOOOOOOO UTAH JAZZZZZZZZZZZ(off Topic).
May 6th, 2007 at 4:14 am
The Roman Empire under emperor Constantine made Christianity the state religion. He died in 337. So any romans in Egypt at the time of the Islamic conquest would have been christian. It is possible that the christians you refer to were Coptic not orthodox. But they were still christians just like the romans. In fact I think you’ll find the romans were actually byzantine greeks. The muslims didn’t go to Egypt to throw out the Greeks, they did it to expand the muslim territories.
The tax I was refering to was the “Jiyza”, which only non muslims living in a muslim country pay. And non believers have to acknoledge the supremacy of Islam and not convert anyone to their religion. I think anyway. I’m sure you’ll correct me.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:19 am
Hello Mohammed. You really have your history mixed up. Christianity flourished across North Africa in the six centuries before your prophet, but the persecution of the Roman Ceasars ended with Constantine in the early 4th Century, four centuries before the beginning of Islam. When Islam subjugated the North African church, the Christians became second class citizens and were prohibited to practice freely, if not forced to convert. Also, North African Islam has always practiced the evil of slavery even to this day.
All too often the Islam that is preached in the West is sanitized to make it more platatable. If you would look at the history of your religion from *outside* of Islamic sources, including the history of the Quran and your prophet, you might get a clearer picture.
May 6th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Hello Doug,
Forgive for taking a while to respond. I’m actually entertaining a guest all week so my participation will be intermittent, I’m afraid.
So the difference between the apostles and other religion’s martyrs is that they were eye witnesses? Okay, I can give more credence to firsthand accounts than secondhand or more. But that is precisely the issue I have with the accounts of the apostle’s deaths and the NT. The earliest copies of the New Testament that we have were written over 300 years after the life of Jesus. These have probably been copied, interpreted, and translated numerous times. Worse yet, these copies were not used to create our moder New Testament, inferior copies were. These where then copied, interpreted, and translated numerous times. The conclusion that I draw from this is that is that the miraculous elements of the New Testament were added slowly and incrementally over the centuries by parties who had an interest in adding them. This would especially be the case if the stories were passed down orally for a few generations before making into writing.
I admit that I am no biblical historian and can easily be mistaken on some of what I wrote. I have only talked with people who have a lot more knowledge on the subject than I and read some online information. So please, don’t take my word for it. Instead read up on Biblical history and make your own conclusion how reliable the NT is.
“Just curious, what would it take for you to consider the New Testament reliable?”
Separate, written, eye-witness accounts from multiple and separate parties that can conclusively be tied to the location and time of the eye-witnesses. Some of the witnesses would have to be non-believers as well.
May 6th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Hey Sidfaiwu,
I believe that you are a bit off as far as NT manuscript dates go. You can look at some early NT papyri such as p52(John Rylands Fragment)125 A.D., p46
(Chester Beatty Papyrus) 200 A.D., p66(Bodmer Papyrus) 200 A.D. These are some pretty good examples of early manuscripts. Especially p45 p46 p47 p66 p75 of the Chester Beatty Papyrus group which contains almost all of the New Testament and is dated around 200 A.D. The originals are thought to have been written between 50 and 70 A.D. Even though these papyri are from different geographical areas, they are very good copies with only minor grammatical differences between them and the numerous other copies of the text (aprox. 24,000).
I will also admit that I am not an expert in the field of Biblical textual criticism, but I do think that there is some compelling evidence for the New Testament’s reliability which should be seriously considered before casually dismissing it as myth or well intentioned exageration. The scribes thought that they were copying God’s word and were very careful as the ancient manuscripts prove.
Perhaps you would consider reading “The New Testament Documents, are they reliable?” by F.F. Bruce. It is only about 12 chapters and you can read it here: http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm
As for non-believing witnesses of the same time and location, have you considered the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120)? In his “Annals” he writes about Nero’s persecution of Christians and he names “Christus” as the founder of their group who “…was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius…” He goes on to make an allusion to the resurrection by writing about the “…pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again…through the city of Rome also.” (Annals XV, 44)
There are more examples, but for now, algebra calls:^0
I will give serious thought to your points and I hope you will do the same.
Thanks for the dialogue.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Mohamed may be talking about the persecution of the Monophysites (in 629), ten years before the Arabs invaded in 639.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegyptus_(Roman_province)
———————————————————
relevant parts copied from the wikipedia page
———————————————————
Byzantine Egypt
…
The new religious controversy was over the nature of Jesus Christ. The issue was whether Christ had two natures (Human and Divine) or one. This may seem an arcane distinction, but in an intensely religious age it was enough to divide an empire. The Monophysite controversy arose after the First Council of Constantinople in 381 and continued until the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which ruled in favour of the position that Christ was “In two natures”. This belief was not held by the monophysites as they stated that Christ was out of two natures in one nature called the “Incarnate Logos of God”. Many of the monophysites claimed that they were misunderstood, that there was really no difference between their position and the orthodox position, and that the Council of Chalcedon ruled against them because of political motivations. But Egypt and Syria remained hotbeds of Monophysite sentiment, and organised resistance to the orthodox view was not suppressed until the 570s.
The reign of Justinian (482–565) saw the Empire recapture Rome and much of Italy from the barbarians, but these successes left the Empire’s eastern flank exposed.
Persian conquest
The Persian conquest of Egypt, beginning in 619 or 618, was one of the last Sassanid triumphs in the Roman-Persian Wars against Byzantium. Khosrow II Parvêz had begun this war in retaliation for the assassination of Emperor Maurice (582-602) and had achieved a series of early successes, culminating in the conquests of Jerusalem (614) and Alexandria (619). A Byzantine counteroffensive launched by Emperor Heraclius in spring 622 shifted the advantage, however, and the war was brought to an end by the fall of Khosrow on 25 February 628 (Frye, pp. 167-70). The Egyptians had no love of the Emperor in Constantinople and put up little resistance. Khosrow’s son and successor, Kavadh II Šêrôe (Šêrôy), who reigned until September, concluded a peace treaty returning territories conquered by the Sassanids to the Eastern Roman Empire.
The Persian conquest allowed Monophysitism to resurface in Egypt, and when imperial rule was restored by Emperor Heraclius in 629, the Monophysites were persecuted and their patriarch expelled. Egypt was thus in a state of both religious and political alienation from the Empire when a new invader appeared.
Arab conquest
An army of 4,000 Arabs led by Amr ibn al-As, was sent by the Caliph Umar, successor to the Prophet Muhammad, to spread his new faith, Islam, to the west. The Arabs crossed into Egypt from Palestine in December 639, and advanced rapidly into the Nile Delta. The Imperial garrisons retreated into the walled towns, where they successfully held out for a year or more. But the Arabs sent for reinforcements, and in April 641 they captured Alexandria. Most of the Egyptian Christians welcomed their new rulers: the accession of a new regime meant for them the end of the persecutions by the Byzantine state church. The Byzantines assembled a fleet with the aim of recapturing Egypt, and won back Alexandria in 645, but the Muslims retook the city in 646, completing the Muslim conquest of Egypt. Thus ended 975 years of Græco-Roman rule over Egypt.
May 6th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Hey Hokan, thanks for the info. Mohamed won’t accept it though, because you quoted Wikipedia and he doesn’t trust that source. Just teasing Mohamed ;-)
So, I think we can agree that Islam kicked out the Greeks, who saw themselves as successors of the roman empire?
Hey Doug you say that the papyrii were dated about a century or so after the time Christ is suppossed to have died/resurrected. What dating did they use? Second, it’s still a century after in a superstitious, highly politically charged and largely uneducated society that’s more than enough to make up resurrections and miracles. You only have to look at how quickly the cargo cults of the Pacific islands arose and how remarkably similar they were to the incipient christianity.
May 6th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Brian,
I guess it would be easier to dismiss the NT if there were not so many accurate ancient manuscripts. The copies, which are dated around 150 A.D., (I’ll get back to you on the dating method used) are nearly complete copies of the entire NT of which fragments dated much earlier match almost exactly.
You mentioned a “superstitious, highly politically charged and largely uneducated society”. Were you talking about people who watch The View?
Also, I really think it’s a big stretch to compare early Christianity to the cargo cults.
One last thing, do you believe that Jesus was a real person?
May 6th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Hi Doug, I think there we lots of people called Jesus around that time and no doubt a few were radical Jews, preaching some form of modification of the mainstream judaism of that time. So, sure, one or more of the Jesus preachers could’ve been recorded. But the message was massaged and changed so much. Miracles added to impress the superstitious people along the way.
It’s very much like the cargo cults. Within a few years people were waiting for the return of a John Frum, who would give them great material rewards. There is no evidence of this man existing, but don’t tell that to the faithfull. Just like christians waiting for superJesus to return and conquer the bad guys.
And the society of the era was superstitious, they believed in god (or gods if you’re roman), though sickness was caused by demonic possession, etc . It was politically charged as the Romans were supressing the Jews. And largely uneducated, if you weren’t a religious person or roman functionary, you probably didn’t read or know much more than local cultural “wisdom”.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:45 am
Brian,
Just correction, Muslims didn’t conquer these countries to expand their empror, they did it to spread Islam, that want the only way to do it, like now I don’t thing it’s proper to do it this way, because there is a lot of ways to do it, communication now make it easier for people to hear about Islam, you have the media every where, you have the internet.
Muslims didn’t force Islam on any body, they conquer these countries to just tell there is religion called Islam, people stayed in Christinity, no body heard that Muslims tortured Christian to enter Islam.
You are right about Jizyah, but do you think it was wrong thing to do, especially when Muslim pay Zakat too?
I really don’t like Wikipedia, I’m sorry for my feeling for it, I know there are people objective about what they are writting, but I don’t trust that all people are.
I’m always skeptical about what I read, even when I read to sheikh, I have to think about what I’m reading, and if this sheikh didn’t make sense in what he wrote, I don’t even read to him again, and you can apply this to a lot of things that I read, sports and computer and other politics, the only one is not objective and I really like to hear him is Bill o’rally, because he really amazes me, he knows that he is lying and he is still lying.
The other thing that I want to indicate to here, that why always Jewish supressed from somebody?, is not werid?
May 7th, 2007 at 4:15 am
Brian, your opinion doesn’t have foundation in fact. The documentry evidence for the reliability of the NT writings far outstrips any other ancient writings. It is such that to consistently deny it one has to deny the evidence for all the classical writings also. The science of textual criticism has established a 99+% accuracy of reconstruction of the original texts. There is nothing missing from those texts and where there are variants, no real difficulties arise as to probable meaning. The information available is massive.
The kind of theories you propose have no basis in historical fact. It sounds more like 19th Century theories that were created in a sceptical yet factual vacuum and have long been debunked. Yet these myths persist in this so-called enlightened age because people want them to. If you consider yourself a free thinking person, follow the evidence where it leads. Mohamed accepts what he has been told as true; are you not also following the opinions of pop secularism?
May 7th, 2007 at 5:12 am
@Neando
Which branch of textual criticism gives the 99+% accuracy? Eclecticism, Stemmatics, Copy-text or Cladistics? I am asking this as the highest score I know is, 83,5% by United Bible Societies, admittedly that number is from few years back but it probably has not changed that much.
One has to remember that textual reliability does not equal historical reliability, merely how well the original text has been preserved.
Harry Gamble put it better than I can,
May 7th, 2007 at 6:22 am
@Pseudonym
I personally have issues with Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling and I cannot really suggest anyone to use it as basis for evaluating the story of abraham.
Kierkegaard separated ethics and faith to autonomous concepts and even allowed to use faith as means to be elevated above the law. I do admire Kierkegaards battle for individuality against the Hegelian unity concept but on this issue, I believe he dropped the ball. Maybe it was due his personal issues of the time.
If one is to use great authors in regards of abraham then perhaps one should consider Kant.
This would be much more feasible interpretation of the whole issue of a talking god, who is for some reason overly fond or dialog instead of public speaking.
Also, assuming the existence of god and the story of abraham, then one comes to a conclusion that the whole situation is all bent out of shape to start with.
Why would a god, omniscient god need the act of sacrifice to know the depths of Abrahams faith? God would know it already and this leads to a thought that faith was not in the test but understanding.
Bible makes it seem so that Abraham had a direct line to god and they had a personal relationship, he if any should know what god wanted but the sacrifice test showed that he had no clue of gods desires. God was forced to stop him from destroying the grand-sire of gods chosen people.
This is peculiar also as story says an angel stopped Abraham but why? If god is omnipotent why he did not stop Abraham directly? God who loves parting seas and burning bushes decides that on this occasion grandstanding is bad taste?
I still do believe that Abraham was insane as are any who perform such acts in name of god or any other authority figure.
May 7th, 2007 at 7:48 am
Hi Mohamed, how are you today?
“Muslims didn’t conquer these countries to expand their empror, they did it to spread Islam”
Couldn’t the have sent a few envoys? Maybe a few muslims to live in a town and demonstrate that Islam was better than conquering? Would seem a better way to me. Worked for the early christians.
“Muslims didn’t force Islam on any body”
That’s not true Mohamed, many people were given the choice, die or convert.
“You are right about Jizyah, but do you think it was wrong thing to do”
Why should they pay any different to muslims? They were humans after all.
I didn’t quite get your comment about Jews. Can you repeat please?
May 7th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Hi Neando, Jagannath said it for me already. :-)
May 7th, 2007 at 10:52 am
@Brian,
“That’s not true Mohamed, many people were given the choice, die or convert.”
Only true for non abrahamic religion followers(atheists included of course). Those of an abrahamic religion were treated (according to the standards of that time) well.
“Why should they pay any different to muslims? They were humans after all.”
This one sparked my curiosity actually… Moslems claim that Jiziah is and Zakat are just two different names for taxes(one is payed by a moslem because he believes in god, the other is protection money since the infidel lives in a moslem country), but I have never actually seen how this stuff was payed… Zakat is easy: 2.5% of the money you have if it meets certain conditions. How was/is Jiziah payed?
May 7th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
@mohammed
i just love your comment about islamic conquerings of the time. it demonstrates one very important principle of most religions: manipulating people to believe that imperialism has some divine purpose. the american equivalent began with manifest destiny, and to this day many xtian americans believe USA is somehow chosen by god for whatever. mohammed, you’ve already demonstrated (with some of your comments on science, as well ‘black magic’, spirits and all that nonsense) a grave lack of education.
there was *nothing* altruistic about islamic empires of the time, the conquer of other countries happened solely for the purpose of widening the sphere of influence for the ruling class. believers like you were used as a tool. had you lived in those times you would be more than happy to pick up a spear and go convert them infidels.
in western countries, most people will admit that their respective countries’ imperial times were not their proudest moments and were wrong on many levels (there are exceptions to that i.e. neo-nazis in germany, but they tend to be in minority). in contrast, muslims believe that they were conquering for betterment of man kind. what BS! what would you say to someone who claimed the crusades happened to the benefit of muslims? same rationale…
May 7th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
What about me talking about the seoul, was that alson nonsense, that’s not nonsense, and black magic exist and some people practice it, and thay take the consequences for it.
The other thing, Islam when conquered the countries, Islam didn’t make this country worse, they made them better, Islamd didn’t take the wealth of any country, instead it increased, for example Spain, specificaly Andalas, it was the only place in Europe has lights every where in the street, where Europe was sinking in dark, so don’t compare Islam with the other occuption like Britain and France killing people and take the wealth in all the countries they conquer.
The Brits and the french nor the American didn’t have a message to deliver, it was all based on greed.
Read some history:)
May 7th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Hey Mohamed, the way you talk about Islamic conquests reminds me of people talking about a modern prison. It has tv, you get to exercise, 3 good meals a day, and if you’re lucky not beaten up or otherwise molested. The fact is it is still a jail and you have no freedom save that given to you by your incarcerators.
The countries may or may not have been better off under the Islamic rulers. But that evades the point. They were conquered and they were subject to restricted freedom. They didn’t have the ability or choise to leave. It may have been a benevolent dictatorship, but it was still a dictatorship.
By the way, the British believed they were the height of civilization and saw themselves as a great empire in the steps of the Roman empire. They definitely did have a message, that they were chosen by god and they had to make the world British. The french similarly and now days the Americans. I think you should read some history too my friend.
May 7th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Hey Brian,
So you don’t believe that there was a man named Jesus who just happened to be executed under Pontius Pilate but he was just one of many guys named Jesus?
Have you found sufficient cause to disregard Tacitus’ Annals as well as the NT?
May 7th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Hey Doug, I have yet to see any independant evidence that Pontius Pilate ordered a Jesus to be crucified and that that Jesus was the Jesus of the Gospels. Just as I’ve seen no independent evidence that the Jesus of the gospels existed and that he performed miracles and was the son of the god (whose existence has no proof at this point in time). You will of course furnish me with this independent evidence of miracles, divinity and proof that this same Jesus was before Pilate now and then I won’t have to believe or not believe. I’ll know.
Look forward to your irrefutable proof.
May 7th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Hey Brian,
In an earlier post I listed an independent source: the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120) In his “Annals†he writes about Nero’s persecution of Christians and he names “Christus†as the founder of their group who “…was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius…†He goes on to make an allusion to the resurrection by writing about the “…pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again…through the city of Rome also.†(Annals XV, 44)
Also, in an earlier post referring to the NT you said, “the message was massaged and changed so much. Miracles added to impress the superstitious people along the way.” Have you read the NT? If the message was “massaged” don’t you think that keys figures would have been portrayed in a better light? Take Peter for instance. Here’s the guy that the Roman Catholic Church names as their first pope, yet the NT records things which would make sense to “massage” out of the message. He’s said to have denied to have even known Christ 3 times, Jesus calls him Satan, and Paul rebukes him to his face for his poor teaching. If there was any cleaning up of the message, why would these embarrassing accounts be left in?
Would you consider yourself and agnostic or an atheist?
May 7th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Hey Doug, Christus is greek for “one who has been annointed with Chrism”. It was meant to refer to the messiah or a holy person. Anyway, that doesn’t mean it was the Jesus Christ. So you haven’t demonstrated that the christus was the christ. But, even if you had, that would mean you’ve identified a man annointed with an oil who went before Pilate. This man may have been the man who the NT was based upon. It doesn’t prove that the stories written about him are factual and it doesn’t demonstrate he was the son of god. Jesus may have existed, but that doesn’t help the verity of the NT stories and his divninity. It’s quite possible that the Roman historian just asked a local hick who told him the Jesus myth that Pilate has condemed him and he was ressurreced, hence the comment about supersticion.
Compare Jesus to Robin Hood. There may have been a person named Robin Hood, but it is highly unlikely that he stole from the rich, gave to the poor, had merry times with his merry men and impressed the local maidens as in the movies. And there is no evidence to support it.
Peter has been deliberately portrayed as bad so that like a good hollywood movie he sees the light and becomes this great leader. Tom Cruise plays the role in almost all his movies.
I consider myself an atheist. I have seen no evidence to prove god, goldilocks or Zeus
May 8th, 2007 at 12:22 am
@mohammed
i come from a country that was under the turks for 500 years. there are 2 major accomplishments in our history: giving the turks a blody nose at kosovo field, and getting rid of them (aided by other balkan nations) 500 years later. don’t f-ing tell me about islamic rule. i know all about it. our country was not better for it. instead we were in our own dark ages for the duration of turkish invasion. you can’t BS me…
May 8th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Brian,
“It’s quite possible that the Roman historian just asked a local hick who told him the Jesus myth that Pilate has condemned him and he was resurrected, hence the comment about superstition.”? You asked me to name an independent source and when I do, your response is to insult the source? Tacitus is widely considered ancient Rome’s greatest historian. It seems highly unlikely that he just “asked a hick”.
Comparing Jesus to Robin Hood? Be serious. I mean, I know Robin Hood had a big following and all, but come on.
Seriously though, you don’t see any evidence of a superior intelligence behind this complex universe? It just happened? If this is the case in your mind, isn’t life without ultimate meaning for you? Won’t you eventually be forced to make the choice that Hemmingway did?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:40 am
“you don’t see any evidence of a superior intelligence behind this complex universe? It just happened? If this is the case in your mind, isn’t life without ultimate meaning for you?”
I didn’t insult the source. But a historian can only write down what info he has. If all he has is hearsay, that’s all he can write down. Or are you saying Tacitus , was there and/or got his sources cross checked and verified? I’d like to know how you know this.
“you don’t see any evidence of a superior intelligence behind this complex universe? It just happened? If this is the case in your mind, isn’t life without ultimate meaning for you?”
Ha ha ha, stop it you’re killing me. That is a really pathetic argument. Are you telling me the only reason you behave nicely and stay alive is because you believe in an imaginary person? Priceless. We evolved to think and feel what we do. I don’t need an imaginary friend to explain it and give it some false meaning. Life is great, live it.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:41 am
whoops, sorry I put in the wrong quote in the first part. Was too busy giggling.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:59 am
Brian,
I don’t know that Tacitus got his sources cross check and verified, but I do know that he was a highly respected Roman historian writing about things which involved Nero and Rome and was known for his accuracy. I’m also confident that if he did have his sources cross checked and verified that you would say that his writings were “massaged”. Maybe your invisible masseuse can meet up with my invisible Friend someday.
So, you honestly don’t see even a hint of intelligence behind the universe?
May 8th, 2007 at 2:02 am
Good night Brian,
Don’t forget to say your prayers…:^)
May 8th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Hello Doug,
I finally found a few moments to read your response. Like I wrote earlier, I’m not an expert on the topic. I do plan on reading more on Biblical history and the history of the early Christian church (Pagels’s new book looks fascinating), but I have a lot on my reading list right now.
I do want to comment on one thing you wrote:
“The scribes thought that they were copying God’s word and were very careful as the ancient manuscripts prove.”
Well, if the child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church taught us anything it’s that organized religion is willing to deceive in order to protect its interests. I’ve even read some evidence that the Catholic church inserted verses into some of Paul’s epistles in order to justify excluding women from religious leadership. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the source, so take my word for it as a grain of salt.
I guess what it comes down to is that you have found sufficient reason to believe the NT and I have found sufficient reason to doubt the more fantastic elements of the NT. Here I subscribe to Sagan’s balance: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I’m willing to accept that there is enough evidence that a Jewish religious leader named Jesus lived and died in the time and place described in the Bible. Why do I accept this? Because the existence of Jesus the man has absolutely no relevance to my life today, apart from an interesting, socially progressive and liberal philosophy for the age. It is not extraordinary at all that there was a persecuted religious leader at that time and place. A couple of independent verifications suffice to convince me of the mundane elements of the NT.
What is extraordinary are all the reason-defying miracles in the NT. If virgin births, resurrections, and so forth did occur, it would have an enormous impact on how we experience the world and understand it to operate. Since the impacts are so huge and the events are so extraordinary, it requires substantial evidence, a whole lot more than a couple of independent verifications with only vague, second hand references to the miracles.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:40 am
I am bit leery of trusting the short passage in the Annals about christians.
For one, Tacitus claims there was immense multitude of convicted. At that time there was no immense christian population in the Rome. It was year 64 and if there would have been great number of christians in rome, it would have been recorded by others also.
Other text which uses a similar type of wording is the first letter of Clement 6:1
Compared to Tacitus
But such vast multitude is not mentioned in the Acts by Luke, nor is the account of Tacitus acknowledge by:
Tertullian (Early christian church leader),
Lactantius (Early christian author),
Sulpicius Severus (Aristocrat/monastic),
Eusebius (Father of christian church history)
nor Augustine of Hippo (Doctor/Bishop/Saint),
who all wrote of the persecution of christians at the time of Nero.
If one looks for historical verification for Tacitus, then one can read the Lives of Twelve Ceasars by Suetonius which verifies that Christians were harmed by Nero but there is no linking Christians with the fire of Rome.
Now approaching the situation from the Clements point of view, Multitude is easily accomplished due the small numbers of christians in Rome but for Tacitus, a roman, such adjective would require substantial number of people.
Secondly for a historian of Tacitus caliber the mistake of demoting Pontius Pilatus to a Procucator from a Prefect does not really seem that likely. Romans were very organized and Tacitus received much of his detailed information from the archived texts. The difference between Procucator and Prefect is too great for a clerical error, other is comparable to a landlord and other is a military leader.
On the same vein the mention of Christus is doubtful as it explains why Christians are called Christians but Tacitus would know from the records who the leader who suffered the extreme penalty was and the name was not Christus but Jesus.
The above reasons make me agree with the scholars who believe that the passage of text was added to the Annals by a Christian scribes after Christianity gained acceptance. It creates stories of martyrs which are highly sought after in new religions.
Even if there is debate over the neutrality/partiality of Tacitus I find it doubtful he would have been that careless as to exaggerate the numbers. It is possible that he was highly affected by the aftermath of the fire of Rome and the following massacres as he was only 8 at the time but it does not seem probable either when considering his accuracy on issues concerning Rome. Also, to Tacitus, Christians were just a cult of jews, they had no real meaning to him.
Tacitus is regarded as one of the most reliable sources of his time but even he would not be able to prevent creative editorialism after his death.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
“So, you honestly don’t see even a hint of intelligence behind the universe?”
Honestly I do not. The universe is vast and almost completely of no use and inhospitable to humans (the supposed height of the designers plan). Most of this Earth is completely inhospitable to humans. Just try and live under water for a while (the major part of the Earth’s surface) or in a non-tropical latitude without man-made clothing, shelter and heating apparatii and you’ll soon see what I mean.
The designs of everything are way less than perfect; people, for example, have a vestigial stomach called the appendix (why would god need to give us this?), we get hernias because our skeleton still hasn’t completely made the transition from walking on 4 legs to walking on 2 legs (surely god, being omnipotent could’ve designed us better, no?), etc.
So, the great designer created a massive universe for nill purpose, created imperfectly structed beings, created diseases that torment good people, even young children who have no concept of life or evil and never will. He keeps an eye on us constantly, knows all we do, taking away any free will (he already knows what we’ll do, so our life is predestined). He wants to punish us for breaking rules he made up and predestined us to break. And he sent himself down (the son) to die for the rules that he predestined us to break, but of course being god he couldn’t really die. He was born of a virgin. No wait, that was a tranlation error, the original messiah myth stated the messiah would be born of a young woman, but when it was translated to greek they used the word parthenos (virgin). It’s fantasy.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:14 am
Hey guys, I’m burning daylight so I’ll just make a short comment to each of you for now.
sidfaiwu,
While I can’t agree with you on your conclusions, I do appreciate your gracious tone throughout this dialogue and I hope that you will continue to look for that substantial evidence. I believe it’s there.
Jagannath
“But such vast multitude is not mentioned in the Acts by Luke” That’s because Acts was written before the Roman fires.
Brian,
Which is it going to be? “Life is great, live it”? Or
‘Whoa is me, we are in such sorry shape on this inhospitable world with these crappy bodies which barely work right?” Your description of the world is just silly. Of course the oceans are inhospitable to humans, but life would be just a tad bit more inhospitable without them. This world was designed for life. The Bible never claims that the world is perfect, only good. “The heavens declare the glory of God,and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” Psalm 19:1
I can’t really address hernias as I have never had one. Neither has my 86 year old grandfather, who’s family never owned a car. Guess his skeleton was a bit more evolved than most.
For someone who says that he doesn’t even believe in God, you sure sound angry with Him.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Hey Doug, you love strawmen arguments don’t you.
“Which is it going to be? “Life is great, live itâ€? Or
‘Whoa is me, we are in such sorry shape on this inhospitable world with these crappy bodies which barely work right?”
I never said life was bad or that our bodies barely work. That was a strawman you created so that you could so knock it down. I just pointed out that the majority of creation is a pretty pointless and the creator did an inefficient job. Remarkably it does fit the scenario one would expect if the development of the life on Earth followed an evolutionary path….What you might call good even.
“I can’t really address hernias as I have never had one. Neither has my 86 year old grandfather, who’s family never owned a car. Guess his skeleton was a bit more evolved than most.”
Wow, you’ve done a statistical survey of 2 and drawn a meaningless conclusion. Lovely, all I was saying hernias are attributable to the not so well “designed” human skeleton viz-a-viz standing and bearing loads in an upright position.
“For someone who says that he doesn’t even believe in God, you sure sound angry with Him.”
Another strawman for you too knock down. How can I be angry with something that I don’t accept exists? I can get frustrated with people like you who deliberately distort my arguments, but can’t be angry with your imaginary friend.
May 9th, 2007 at 3:22 am
@Doug
There is a strong following for the date 80 for the acts and even the most uncertain scholars but the date between 70-110. The similarity with the works of Josephus pushes the dating to around year 100 and some even consider it to be a work of him.
Also there is no mention of Acts prior 117 in ancient texts.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Nice going Doug, it looks as if you’ve been balancing a formidable handful very well, more or less on your own. Sorry I can’t offer much now, except encouragement. The biblical-historical scholarship is interesting, and somewhat out of my league.
Also, a question for Brian: from the other forum:
‘†because we all have diffrent religons‒
“Do we? I don’t. And buddists don’t.”
Do you mean that Buddhism is not a religion?
May 9th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Hey Mapk. I guess that depend on how you define religion. If you define religion as belief in supernatural beings such as the christian god, than Buddhism isn’t a religion. Buddhism in the form suppossedly from Buddha, teaches that there are no gods, no beggining or end of the world as such (correct me if I’m wrong). So, it’s more a philosophy than a religion. I know that the Dali LLama is supposed to be a reincarnation or avatar of a god, but the Tibetan form of Buddhism is a mix of standard Buddhism and god worship.
As to Dough going well, mmmm, he’s distorted my standpoint and ignored many points that don’t agree with his arguments and not provided any substantive evidence of his arguments. He seems to think that because a few books mention a myth, the myth is real. Like I said before mentioning Robin Hood doesn’t mean that he actually did or was what was mentioned, just as a reference to Jesus doesn’t make him the Jesus and certainly offers no proof of his divninity or that the miracle stories were not later innovations. It seems you don’t require evidence for Doug’s incredible claims…..
May 10th, 2007 at 1:20 am
Brian,
I posted a response but I’m not seeing it. I’ll try again tomorrow.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:30 am
Hey Doug, thanks for trying. Have a good night.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:39 am
Maybe it was too wordy. Hope my response doesn’t show up 3 times!
Good night.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:42 am
They don’t appear to have made it past the “gasmonso” filter. Same thing happened to a few of my posts the other day. I can’t speak for your posts, but mine probably of a less than edifying standard. Which is why gas’ filter spared us the viewing. ;-)
Take care.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:25 am
I’ve have a bit of time to be more comtemplative and not as hasty in posting. Hopefully, this post will be more grammatically, orthographically and logically sound (a vain hope probably!)
Mohamed, you stated in post 69 that “If you read enough, christinity wasn’t spread at the area where Muhammed raised, so there is nothing to copy from.”
“Muhammed didn’t know any thing about any other reiligions”
This struck me as odd being 6 centuries after christianity appeared and not being geographically far from it’s birthplace. I found this tidbit:
“Upon receiving the first revelation, he was scared. When he returned home he related the event to his wife Khadijah. He was consoled and reassured by Khadijah and her Christian cousin, Waraqah ibn Nawfal.”
It would appear from the quote that the prohpet would have more than a passing acquantaince with christianity. Even if he didn’t ask, he would’ve easily picked up the basics.
Doug (post 108):
“Comparing Jesus to Robin Hood? Be serious. I mean, I know Robin Hood had a big following and all, but come on.”
Are you saying the Jesus story is truth because more people believe it? Up to this point I’ve seen nothing to convince an open minded person that he was divine and performed miracles.
“If this is the case in your mind, isn’t life without ultimate meaning for you? Won’t you eventually be forced to make the choice that Hemmingway did?”
This quote brought laughter from me. I think I should explain. No only do you appear have such pride in your beliefs that you know the answer to life .You believe that over half the worlds population, 3 billion, who don’t believe in the god of Abraham, are all going about life without meaning and probably will end tempted to suicide because they don’t share your special belief. To me that is arrogance. And I only said your argument was pathetic, not you!
Anyway, look forward to critisms and rebuttals.
Peace.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Hey Doug,
If your posts have a lot of links, it will get filtered. If you still have a copy of your comment elsewhere, try removing most of the links are re-posting.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:22 am
When traffic arrives at a steady flow, and one traveller races through ahead at twice the pace, the speedster is unlikely to notice that everyone else is still upright and moving safely and surely on the road, all, presumably desirous of the same ultimate destination.
Now it is clear what you meant, Brian. Without prior explanation, you assumed your own (or a variant) definition of the term religion, rather than a primary one; a definition which, recognised by my Bookman Dictionary, Encarta Encyclopedia and a worthy man I know who, all his life, has studied comparative religion, applies to Buddhism.
But more importantly, it is clearly evident that the contributor called TT simply meant to make the point, not that everyone held to one, but that that many religions do exist throughout the world.
I don’t expect that you arr really offended that I am impressed by Doug’s knowledgeable arguments, just as others seem to be, whether they agree with him or not. Be assured that I am also impressed by some others’ arguments, even though I don’t support them in principle. Doug seemed to be, in my view, standing nobly, alone, against three diverse, formidable opponents, and would, I thought perhaps, welcome some spiritual cheering on.
May 10th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Hey MAPK,
You’re right, I do hurry, both out of natural inclination and the fact that I sneak moments to check this website during work. I try to avoid it at home, because there’s more to life than debating myths and philosophy.
Here’s a definition that I think applies to religion and I didn’t assume it, got it from dictionary.com
“a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
The supernatural agency bit is, at least to my knowledge not part of the basic teaching of Buddha. I’ve read others who say that it is quite open to debate whether Buddism is a religion in the western sense too. I agree that many religions exist. It is understandable, when our consciousness got to the point that we could ask why we are here, then it was only natural that in order to feel the world made sense and resure oneself of some control in a chaotic world that took mens life capriciously that objects would be given animus (soul) and later this would be abstracted to gods. Doesn’t validate the teaching of any religion to say that it exists.
I’m not no offended by you suggesting Doug has knowledgeable arguments. I just dispute the claim. No offense to Doug but the NT is quite obviously composed long after the events in fits and spurts and with a post hoc addition of messianic purpose. It is not textually complete or correct. Just read it. I mean apparently Jesus told the yokels “let he who hasn’t sinned cast the first stone…” they sheepishly left him and the woman alone. But the story continues. Who witnessed this to write it? Jesus didn’t write it and neither did the woman and no one else was there. It would seem that it is a later addition to demonstrate that Jesus wasn’t the ranting fanatic, especially after him saying all the OT laws were still in vigour and saying it was ok to kill your kids if they didn’t do what was expected of them.
So, cheer on, if that’s being noble.
May 10th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Brian,
I really wasn’t trying to build a straw man. I was just taking the picture that you painted about the creation and comparing it with the real world. You are the one who said that “most of this Earth is completely inhospitable to humans” naming the oceans as an example. I’ll ask again, is it your opinion that the earth would be more pleasant without oceans?
As far as my hernia survey goes, well, I suppose I could do more through research. I just thought that I would use someone as an example who had walked more that most in his life and had no problems. You did say that “we get hernias because our skeleton still hasn’t completely made the transition from walking on 4 legs to walking on 2 legs” Walking upright + a skeleton designed for 4 legs = hernias, right?
Wikipedia lists the causes of hernias as: obesity, heavy lifting , coughing,
straining during a bowel movement or urination (my personal favorite), chronic lung disease, and fluid in the abdominal cavity
(Between 1995 and 2005, 16,743 Americans died from hernias and about 1 in 200 will get a hernia.)
It turns out that hernias are quite common in more than a few 4 legged creatures as well. I found numerous examples of hernias in cats, dogs, horses, cattle, and pigs. And just in case you go thinking that only domesticated animals made the list, I also found examples of polar bears, tigers, and even sea lions with hernias.
Now Brian, I know that you will say that this only shows what a shoddy job the Creator did, but you might also say that evolution has dropped the ball. I mean, if evolution can turn a prehistoric wolf into a whale, surely it should be able to take care of a little problem like weak abdominal walls.
You, my friend, have some incredible claims yourself.
p.s. I’ll respond to your analysis of John chapter 8 after dinner and I do appreciate the encouraging words from MAPK L thank you very much.
May 10th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
“I mean, if evolution can turn a prehistoric wolf into a whale, surely it should be able to take care of a little problem like weak abdominal walls.”
Hey Doug, I think your quote demonstrates your misunderstanding of evolution. It is not a process that leads to better design as seen by us. The fittest are the ones that have what it takes to survive and procreate more then the less fit specimens. In fact, weak abdominal walls support evolution not design, because it mean that they weren’t a problem that lead to species wide lack of fitness, but only in specific cases. Hence why we have vestigial bits and pieces like the appendix, they generally cause no problem, so there is no adaptive pressure to “loose” it, the fact that a few die isn’t important to survival of genes. Only if you see evolution as a “natural” designer, who is designing for what we perceive as good could you say it dropped the ball. I wouldn’t seriously say it was a shoddy job by a creator, as it is not necessary to invoke a creator. I just use that to point out the lack of sense in invoking one.
As for responding my one example from the gospels, feel free but I’d prefer if you’d just explain why the gospels disagree between themselves on so many vitally import parts? If it was all an accurate historical record, why do they contradict?
What are my incredible claims by the way? I don’t invoke evolution as truth. I use it as the best explanation we have for the varied forms of life we see. I don’t claim that a ancient old collection of contradictory texts are the inerrant word of an unseen, unknowable, omniscent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator.
May 10th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
All that can be said with one hundred percent certainty, by anyone, is that the Bible seems to be mythical or that it seems to be factual. This is so, I believe, because it deals with matters beyond what is knowable through the physical senses; through scientific method. Therefore in order to arrive anywhere, historical evidence, however useful, is necessarily secondary to an individual’s personal spiritual quest. It is a choice that must be taken one way or the other, using the available evidence; firstly, the evidence contained within the Bible, itself which, though not exhaustive, is to me, nevertheless, sufficient; bearing in mind that the Bible is not one, but a collection of books composed by many authors, over many centuries, carefully assembled by the world’s finest theological scholars. Arguments over the reliability or unreliability of authorship, transcriptions and translations seems to me a virtual free-for-all bash.
May 10th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Hey MAPK , it seems to me that you’re more or less spot on: either you have faith or you don’t. I think that was part of your point.
Here’s a quote from B. D. Erhman, who was a christian historian trying to prove the historical accuracy of the gospels and ended up becoming agnostic. Which in my view makes his evidence a bit more compelling than someone who arrives at the point they set out to arrive at.
“The Gospels were written 35 to 65 years after Jesus’ death—35 or 65 years after
his death, not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people living later. The Gospels were
written by highly literate, trained, Greek-speaking Christians of the second and third generation.
They’re not written by Jesus’ Aramaic-speaking followers. They’re written by people living 30,
40, 50, 60 years later. Where did these people get their information from?” … “These are not eyewitness accounts. So where did they
get their stories from?” … “Stories are in circulation year after year after year, and as a result of that, the stories get changed.
How do we know that the stories got changed in the process of transmission? We know the
stories got changed because there are numerous differences in our accounts that cannot be
reconciled with one another.”
There’s plenty more at this link, it is a well done debate.
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf
It would appear most historians reject the gospels, while NT scholars who are christian accept it. Interesting….
May 11th, 2007 at 7:59 am
i am afraid that history supports the gospels, certainly there is more evidence for jesus than caesar - there are almost 30,000 historical references to Jesus outside the Bible and only 20 for caesar. it would appear unlogical fools reject the gospels, while people who know the truth accept them. Interesting….though not unexpected - “The fool says in his heart, there is no God” (Psalm 14v1)
May 11th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Mohamed,
Your claim that Mohammad never knew about the stories in the Bible is untrue unfortunately. I thought every devout Muslim knew that Muhammad traveled to Syria, where Christianity was prominent, and had contact with people there. Furthermore, Khadija took Muhammad to a her Christian cousin when revelation started to come to him. Finally, Judaism was all over the place in the region where Muhammad grew up, so he could also learn all the stories from the Jews.
I’ll quote some paragraphs from Wikipedia for your convenience:
Please read more at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
And stop spreading lies. Thanks.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Hi Brian,
I always find it refreshing when some point of agreement comes into a discussion such as this. My point above is really this: in terms of the meaning, purpose and cause of life, we all must and do choose priorities (pre-suppositions) for the basis of our faith, whether it is God, scientific theories (evolution, the Big Bang…) or what you will.
Are you familiar with a book called Who Moved The Stone?, by Frank Morrison? The author, an English journalist, set out to disprove the credability of the gospels, and through his research, came to believe it true. It can work both ways. I haven’t read that book or the one you recommended, by Erhman, but I may eventually. And I’ll have a look at the website you mentioned.
Traditional authority says the gospels were written by two of Jesus’ own disciples, Matthew and John, very likely, younger men than Jesus, himself; Luke and Mark, were both involved in Paul’s missionary journies. I see no reason to insist that they were not eye-witness accounts, later preserved in Greek. As far as I know, no hand-written manuscripts by Shakespeare exist, either. But I suppose that’s another kettle of fish.
I would venture to say that the majority of Bible historians are Christians, and that the majority of non-Christian historians don’t expressly take a stand on the Bible. Only the outspoken ones do.
May 12th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Hey Brian,
I’m swamped with work and can’t take time to rejoin the discussion right now, but I would like to ask you to give me a few of your best examples of the Gospels contradicting one another.
A few of your incredible claims:
“The universe is vast and almost completely of no use” (and how exactly have you uncovered this amazing info?)
“Most of this Earth is completely inhospitable to humans. Just try and live under water for a while (the major part of the Earth’s surface)” So this is a completely inhospitable planet where diverse life has somehow managed to flourish (including human life) despite those nasty oceans.
“The designs of everything are way less than perfect
surely god, being omnipotent could’ve designed us better, no?)” If God exists, then you are going to critique how he made you? You’re not perfect enough? If you were more perfect, would that compel you to thank God?
You didn’t explicitly claim this, so correct me if I am wrong in assuming that you believe that life came from non life. Seems incredible to me.
This last one of your quotes sums up your problem with God’s sovereignty. You said,
“He keeps an eye on us constantly, knows all we do, taking away any free will (he already knows what we’ll do, so our life is predestined). He wants to punish us for breaking rules he made up and predestined us to break. And he sent himself down (the son) to die for the rules that he predestined us to break”
I’m not sure if you were aware of it, but you echo what the apostle Paul said in Romans 9:18-23,
“So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory–”
O.k. this was longer than intended. I’ll check back tomorrow night.
Have a good night Brian.
May 13th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Hey Doug, how was your weekend? I’m back to see what’s going on.
“The universe is vast and almost completely of no use†(and how exactly have you uncovered this amazing info?)
What use do you have for the universe apart from the small portion of land and little bit of ocean that you extract sustinence from Doug? That is on this minute planet in an insignificant solar system on a spiral arm of one of innumerable galaxies. If there is a use for all the universe concerning you, me or any other human please tell us.
““Most of this Earth is completely inhospitable to humans. Just try and live under water for a while (the major part of the Earth’s surface)†So this is a completely inhospitable planet where diverse life has somehow managed to flourish (including human life) despite those nasty oceans.”
Again with the strawmen. please read the comment; mostly inhospitable for humans, who are supposed to be the point of creation, no? As I said if you find it so hospitable go live in a deep sea trench.
““The designs of everything are way less than perfect
surely god, being omnipotent could’ve designed us better, no?)†If God exists, then you are going to critique how he made you? You’re not perfect enough? If you were more perfect, would that compel you to thank God?”
So, god is deliberately crappy. I don’t believe in him, but you do and thus you presume to know that it’s part of his plan, you presume to know the mind of god.
“You didn’t explicitly claim this, so correct me if I am wrong in assuming that you believe that life came from non life.”
I didn’t and I don’t believe it. It seems a logical explanation. Quite improbable yes, but it only had to happen once in the universe, which has billions of stars with, obviously, billions of opportunites for life to coalesce from the requisite replicating chemicals. So, it may seem super improbable, but when you so many opportunities it will actually happen, simple probability. No so extraordinary after all.
““So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.”
And here’s where your argument fails. You’re putting the horse before the cart. By assuming that a god exists you are arguing that he must harden hearts. But until you show that he exists it’s all pointless pondering.
Demonstrate God exists, then we’ll discuss seriously his qualities.
Take care.
May 14th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Hi Brian and Doug,
If I may interject for a moment: This is just a suggestion, but it would seem necessary that, before anyone can attempt a demonstration of God’s existence, the demonstrator and the demonstratee (if you will) must establish a common understanding of what is being demonstrat-ed. For example, if by God, or god, one means the cause of the universe existing, then the existence of the universe is a decisive demonstration of Him/it. Can atheism admit any formal definition of the term? I mean, from an atheist’s viewpoint, are we really discussing nothing more than an imaginary, invisible friend? I don’t see any point doing in that.
May 14th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Hi MAPK, I fully concur with the need to define god.
I believe Doug subscribes to a supernatural creator who can and does intervene in the natural world. Such as Jesus being son of god, miracles, power of prayer. Please correct me if I’m wrong Doug.
Defining god as the cause of the universe assumes the answer in the question. That is, that the universe has a cause. This is not necessarily the case and you have to demonstrate that. It seems like a weak form of creationism. Remember whatever hypothesis or conjecture you propose needs evidence. You can’t just say the universe exists, it seems designed, therefore there is a designer as you’ve made many assumptions that need to be defended.
If however you define god as the laws of nature, then you are no longer religious and on the turf of Deism, I believe. If this is the case, why not just call nature what it is and don’t use a term that for 1000s of years has meant a omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent guy who gets jealous and terribly punishes those who don’t follow his arbitrary rules? Defining god as the cause of
Thoughts?
May 15th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Hi Brian,
To demonstrate the existence of a supernatural being as you’ve described would seem to me the same as providing proof of God’s existence. My thought is that there is no proof of any divine power, and so, no way to demonstrate God conslusively. But I would say the existence of anything at all can be taken as reasonable evidence for the possibility of a supernatural creator. And one’s belief or disbelief need weigh no more than by fifty-one percent. Since it is a universal urge to question how the universe came into being (even by the top astro-physisists), it seems probable even more so than that fifty-one percent, that the universe did/does have a cause.
May 15th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
No, that is pretending that the possibility of god existing is as likely as the possibility of no god. The fact is, god is as likely as a pink unicorn that we can’t see, the flying spaghetti monster or anything else the human imagination can throw up. It’s so close to impossible as not to be worth consideration. The likelyhood that an unevidenced supernatural creator doesn’t exists is overwhelming. They are not equally likely. You must provide some evidence to change this, else a supernatural creator is meaningless and pointless.
The fact we have an urge to explain things and understand them is easily explained by an evolutionary need to survive and an be better equipped against our environment than resorting to extremely improbably explanations that explain nothing.
May 15th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Hey Brian,
Sorry for the delay in response but I am in the middle of buying a house. We close tomorrow and move in on Friday, so I may not be back in for a week or so. Hope we can continue the conversation though.
Now, I’ll try to address your responses.
You said, “If there is a use for all the universe concerning you, me or any other human please tell us.”
From the National Academies web site http://www.nas.edu/
“…far from being impractical, cosmological research produces important benefits for the nation and the world. First, it has unique technical spin offs. Forefront research in cosmology drives developments in instrumentation for the collection, manipulation, and detection of radiation at radio, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, x-ray, and -ray wavelengths. The understanding and application of such types of radiation are the foundation for many important technologies, such as radar, communications, remote sensing, optics, medical radiology, and many more.
Modern astronomical instruments are usually one-of-a-kind developments pioneered by teams of specialists who set out to achieve the best possible performance from their instrumentation. Instrument teams involve astronomers, physicists, and engineers from observatories, universities, and industry. This process produces a high return in new ideas, devices, and methods in the general areas of radiation technology. Some of these projects are models for effective technology transfer.
Another technical driver in cosmology is large-scale computing. Theorists push the state of the art by demanding the largest, fastest machines to run programs that model the universe. Such computer programs, or codes, model the evolution of systems of millions of gravitationally interacting particles. Codes for following the hydrodynamics of galaxy formation are among the largest such codes in existence. Computers are severely taxed by the gigabytes of data streaming in from modern astronomical sensors. Indeed, large cosmological projects are now driving innovative hardware and software developments.
For example, a new sky survey joins university astronomers with physicists at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the latter contributing their special expertise in, and computer capability for, high-speed data processing.
A second benefit of cosmology is its unique ability to probe matter under extremes of density and temperature that can never be achieved in laboratories on Earth. The conditions in the early universe can be used to test physical theories against the measured results of nature’s highest-energy experiment the Big Bang. Pressures, temperatures, and densities in the early universe are extremes beyond our experience, but not beyond our imagination and physical theories.
A third reason to pursue cosmology is its tremendous intellectual appeal. Few areas of the human endeavor excite the human imagination as much as curiosity about the universe. How did it start? Why is it here? What is our role? How will it end? Throughout human history one finds this desire for knowledge about the heavens and human existence, and virtually all periods of enlightenment and progress have been times of rapid discovery in astronomy and physical science. Future generations will look back and evaluate our era’s contributions similarly.
Finally, our cosmology-every culture’s cosmology-serves as an ethical foundation stone, rarely acknowledged but vital to the long-term survival of our culture. Cosmological knowledge affects religious beliefs, ethical choices, and human behavior, which in turn have important long-term implications for humanity. For example, the notion of Earth as a limitless, indestructible home for humanity is vanishing as we realize that we live on a tiny spaceship of limited resources in a hostile environment. How can our species make the best of that? Cosmological time scales also offer a sobering perspective for viewing human behavior. Nature seems to be offering us millions, perhaps billions, of years of habitation on Earth. How can we increase the chances that humans can survive for a significant fraction of that time? Cosmology can turn humanity’s thoughts outward and forward, to chart the backdrop against which the possible futures of our species can be measured. This is not irrelevant knowledge; it is vital.â€
Now, I’m not a cosmologist, but I think this means that the universe and the study of it is indeed beneficial to mankind.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Doug, my statment was that the universe is largely hostile and non useful to us, the supposed purpose of creation. You don’t answer, you just put in an impressively large quote about why cosmology is interesting and how it has flow on effects that have benefited us. How is that an answer?
It’s like you’re setting up a strawman arguing that I said the science of cosmology is of no use to you, me or anybody else. I said no such thing. I think it’s very useful. I asked you what is the use of the overwhelmingly vast and nearly empty universe to you, me and anybody else if it was created for us. If you can’t answer, please say so.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Good luck with the move too! Always a pain in the butt. At least you’ll have your own castle to relax in.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Brian,
The science of cosmology is not just “interesting” it is extremely beneficial to humanity. This is a direct benefit of the universe’s existence.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Brian,
Wanna help with the move? It was around 109 here today. Felt very inhospitable indeed:^)
May 15th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Hey Doug, I’d love to help, but I’d have to find my passport and then get a plane over to the US (I assume you’re from there, apologies if you’re not), then find your location. So, please understand my not wanting to share the warmth and work with you. ;-)
I know cosmology is beneficial to humanity. Are you saying that the whole vast universe was created just so that thousands of years later, people would throw off the shackles of religious belief (poor old Gallileo), and realize that the Earth wasn’t the center of creation as the Bible states? That they’d want to know more about the universe not mentioned in the bible, with the side effect of benefits to humanity?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that really seems to be after that fact reasoning. Claiming something after it is realized it’s beneficial. Why wasn’t there a prophecy that cosmology would be undertaken in the distant future? Why did the church(es) persecute it as heretical if it’s supportive of creation? Seems a difficult argument to sustain.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
HI Brian,
Technically speaking, a fifty per-cent probability means no evidence whatsoever for or against something and does not negate the possibility of it. More than fifty per-cent probability one way or the other indicates evidence for or against it, however real or unreal it may be in one’s opinion.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
And may I say, Doug, your response is very comprehensive, eloquent and articulate.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
MARK, you’ll have to show me your how you came up with the assumption that of 50% either way. A 50% probability suggests 2 equaly likely outcomes. Like the tossing of a coin. We can examine the coin to see that this is likely. We have evidence it is 50% likely to come up either side each toss.
Now the existence of god has no evidence whatsoever to suggest any more likelihood than any other supernatural thing that can be imagined. Only a person who already assumes a god (a-priori reasoning) would say it’s equally likely.
Maybe you got your idea from Unwin’s book which I saw a reference to on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Probability_of_God
which only uses the 50%-50% split because he thinks it’s reasonable. On top of the he plugs in a lot of woolly data that he plucks from nowhere like goodness, evil, miracles.
As for Doug’s answer, yes it was comprehensive, eloquent and articulate. The national academies should be congratulated. With no disrepect to Doug for cutting and pasting it.
However, as I said above, it is only in hindsight and changing of a lot of dogma that you can twist it to say the universe was created so that cosmology would be undertaken in the distant future. That didn’t answer at all my question as to why almost all creation is useless to us here stuck on Earth.
Hey Sid, if you’re perchance reading this little conversation, I’d be interested to have your philosophical take on the different reasoning used herein. Thanks.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Sorry Brian…sorry Doug, I just overlooked the quotation marks.
Whether or not one accepts it as such, there is evidence (I don’t mean conclusive evidence) for the existence of a supreme being: the Bible, for example, the universe itself, all beauty, love, the universal human urge for eternity and perfection…. I see no evidence for the non-existence of a supreme being.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
MAPK let’s review your “evidence”
The Bible: a good read? perhaps. Not a an accurate account of anything. It it circular. It says god exists and posits that it’s proof of god. I could write a book saying the same.
The Universe: It exists. That lends no evidence to creation (which implies a creator). It may always have existed or not. We don’t know. If it began, it still doesn’t imply a creator, much less the god of Christianity.
All beauty: anything that is pleasing or valuable, or interesting to us has beauty. This doesn’t mean anything more than that. It could simply be that because these things are advantageous that we view them as beautiful. Evolutionary explanations for this are simpler than inventing a god.
Love: Love is a powerful emotion, but it doesn’t imply anything. It is obviously good to have a vested reason for caring for certain things, such as family, friends and mankind. Evolutionary explanations for having affect toward things that increase our genes survival would work here and be simpler.
The universal human urge for eternity and perfection:
What? no one told me about this. I am not particularly interested in being dead, but I know it’s part of life and accept it as such. I like doing my best (sometimes), but don’t wish to attain it as life would be mind numbingly boring. Once you’re perfect you no longer think or feel or learn, as you are no longer able to change (perfect means complete).
I honestly don’t see any of your reasons or evidence as anything more than the way you choose to frame your world view, which is inspired by and desirous to rationalize your faith in god.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Neither do I, Brian, “see any of your reasons or evidence as anything more than the way you choose to frame your world view, which is inspired by and desirous to rationalize your faith in” atheism.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Sorry MAPK, you’e made a big mistake there.
I don’t have faith in atheism. It’s not a faith. It’s lack of belief in supernatural creator(s).
It seems you’re trying to equate the pursuit of knowledge via the use of logic and accepting the simplest and most reasonable explanation with religious faith.
Religious faith holds it knows the world and has unchangeable laws handed down by a god. This seems the height of hubris.
I know I don’t know all there is to know and the explanations thrown up by science and reason are very good where there is evidence (evolution) and tentative where there isn’t (did the universe begin?).
But they will always be approximations, never truths in the religious sense. That’s enough for me, I don’t need to believe.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:53 am
Hi Brian, To put it another way, atheism is a belief in the absence of (a) supernatural creator(s). Any unprovable belief involves faith.
A question for you Brian: Do you think love and beauty are eternal, merely a result of chemical reactions or maybe originate from something else?
May 17th, 2007 at 4:19 am
And another question: Do you say truth…universal truth is objective or subjective?
May 17th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Ok Brian, I don’t want to load too much on to your plate all at once, and once Doug is settled into his new castle (as you describe it) I’ll do my best to resist the temptation to monopolize the discussion.
After a couple more-careful readings I think I can see more clearly what you mean by faith. I don’t see that all faith is religious. Pre-Copernican belief about the cosmos, so I understand, was based, untested, on the authority of Aristotle alone. As far as I can see, concrete verification of evolution is as untestable as the concept of higher, multiple dimensions. Maybe God’s dimensions are exponential, and reach even to infinity. What do you think about that?
Is not all currently unavailable knowledge tentative knowledge? Whether pink unicorns exist on a higher dimension or anywhere is of little interest to me, personally. In fact, I’ve never heard of anyone ever actually pondering the reality of their existence. But I, like the vast majority of human beings(so I suspect), do hope for first-hand knowledge of God eventually. Because I find in my being, an irresistable urge for eternity and, not infinite perfection, but truly human perfection, (how, according to the Bible, God intended us to be, and what we can be) the notion of my eventual non-existence seems to make nature into a cruel prankster. Belief in the infinite love of a divine creator, on the other hand, offers inherent significance and inherent integrity to the individual. I would like to hear what hope, if any, for the individual, and ultimately for collective humanity, is to be found in atheism?
From all you say about it, your perception of God’ sovereignty and character in the Bible is very far removed from the way I understand things. If I saw what you do in it, I would certainly reject it, too.
Finlly, I do not claim that my Christian faith is grounded in reason alone—clinical reasoning, let us say; I believe the primary purpose of our emotions is to temper reason after its forging and before its being acted upon.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Hello Brian, MAPK L, and (if he’s still reading) Doug,
I have been reading your comments. I haven’t joined in primarily because I’ve been too busy at work and at home. I just got back from vacation this week and am just now catching up at work. At home, I’m attempting my first solo remodeling job which I need to complete in one week now.
So far, the discussion has been great. I especially liked Doug’s comments about how the vast, largely inhospitable universe is still a benefit to humans. it is a perspective I have not heard before. It still doesn’t imply that the universe was created specifically for us or even with us in mind. Even if there were an intelligent creator, the universe may be primarily for a different intelligent species elsewhere and that we are a creationary by-product. There is no way to know.
Also, Brian was right on when he pointed out that the Bible does not qualify as evidence since it inevitably results in circular reasoning. One would need to first establish it’s legitimacy via external evidence and/or reasoning before I can be used.
Also, I can almost see the 50-50% chance of God’s existence if it were not applied to any particular God, like the God of the Bible. But since all religious people aim at a proving one (or a few) of all possible creators, the likelihood would be much smaller. Let’s consider some made-up probabilities for various aspects of God. I’ll even be generous with my probabilities.
God created all of existence 50%
God is all powerful 50%
God is all knowing 50% (will ignore the problems with the consistency of these last two properties for now)
God cares about humans 5%
God cares about the actions of humans 1%
God intervenes in It’s creation 50%
God sent an offspring to earth 70% (this happens a lot in mythology)
God’s sent offspring was Jesus 1%
God has a favorite people 1%
Okay, let’s stop here and ignore all the other aspects of God claimed by the Bible. Okay, now to calculate the probability of this particular God, multiply all the probabilities together and you get 0.00000021875% chance that this God exists. Compare this with the assumed chance of a Creator and we see that the more that any religion claims about God, the less chance there is that it is a correct description.
Now I’d like to put these numbers in the context of faith. MAPK L suggests that atheists have faith. I happen to agree but, when compared with any religious person, the amount of faith is negligible. The atheist claim that there is no supernatural creator is picking one side of a 50-50 guess (again, this number is arbitrary but suffices for illustration). As a deist, I take the other ‘half’ of this bet. Both require very little (but some) faith. A Christian, on the other hand, takes the unlikely side of an extremely small probability. They take on faith the belief of a very specific God which when viewed probabilistically is highly unlikely to be true. That is an act of faith that I cannot stomach.
May 17th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Hey MAPK, Doug and Sid. How are we today? Quite a bit to respond to since I last checked. My responses may not be fantastic as I didn’t get much sleep last night. Anway, here goes….
I think love and beauty are things we all understand and are not ephemeral as we can appreciate beauty of ancient art. But I don’t see how we can claim that anything is eternal. We have no way of knowing that at all time that ever has been or ever will be that an observer of something we love or find beautiful would agree with us.
Wow, how do we define truth so that we’re discussing the same thing? What may seem true to you I may disagree with. You’ll have to help me there. I’m not philosopher so I could easily trip over myself with epistemology. I do however think there are things such as gravity that seem to be universal, but then I’ve never been in a blackhole to check. So, there are probably places or moments when the universal isn’t universal…If that makes any sense.
Well, I have seen data that supports evolution. The pepper moth in England I believe is one celebrated example. Also there are plenty of fossils that show changes consistent with evolution. I take the evolutionary biologists on their word because science is self correcting. An up and coming young scientist would love nothing more than to prove someone like Richard Dawkins mistaken and become the latest “superstar” of the science world. Keeps the buggers honest.
Isn’t that the genesis (pardon the pun) of all religions? I am conscious, I feel my mind is separate to my body. Will my mind continue after my body is gone? It seems wrong to have all the thoughts and emotions I possess for this to be ephemeral…..I would say that you had no consciousness before you were born that you know of, and it didn’t hurt you. Having no conscious existence after you pass away will no hurt you either as far as I can see.
I would posit that the primary purpose of emotions is that they helped us survive and procreate. We are not the only creatures that feel, think and have consciousness. Higher primates, farm animals, etc to some degree share our mental abilities. We may have them more acutely and be able to project them into the future for example, but we are not unique in anyway. I think the fact that we can use reason, especially in science, is what makes humans unique. Reason would seem to be human. But I will agree with tempering it. After all, it’s a tool, not a master. Did that in anyway make sense? I’m pretty poor at philosophy, but I’m slowly learning.
I’m glad Sid was able to share his thoughts. Very interesting. Belief is a word I avoid, because it almost always conflated with religious belief or faith. If I say I believe the scientific method is useful. Some person who has religious faith will claim that I too have a dogma, the dogma of science. So I say I accept that science has up to this point been very useful at explaining and predicting. The latter religious faith is terrible at. I mean Jesus told his disciples that he’d be back in their life time according to the bible. That prediction flopped big time. That’s been reinterpreted to some unknown time in the future. It’s not a valid prediction, not testable.
Anyway, what do I mean by belief? I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I base this on my observation that it has done so each day of my life. I have no proof that it won’t go supernova on us when I’m sleeping tonight, but I believe I’ll see it again. That to me is belief, I have no proof of a future event so it’s a supposition based on experience. Faith is something else, it has no evidence and any reported experience is something personal that can’t be tested and shown to be divinely inspired as opposed to an easily explainable physiological brain function. So, it can’t be empirically measured and understood like science as far as I can see…..
Anyway, that’s my thoughts, not sure if that explained anything. Over to you guys…..
May 17th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
I have just been talking to one of my lodgers who, by the way, professes atheism, but nevertheless believes in spirits, including Satan, who he claims to have met. Well, I suppose that is easily explained by the fact that he has a volatile, artistic temperament and drinks lots of beer. Anyway, I explained to him that the simple reason I believe in a benevolent creator is because I cannot accept this one as the best of all possible worlds. Well, why do I say that? It’s because I’m an optimist. Why am I an optimist? Perhaps I just inherited the tendency from my mother. Anyway, if I were a pesimist, I expect I might accept whatever turns up at any given time as the best that is to be had, and so I should strive to be happy trying to make the best of a condition that, being initially imperfect, and having no definitive standard for measuring perfection, is likely to remain imperfect. And even if perfection were achieved no one would ever know it.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Hey MAPK, your lodger believes in supernatural entities, by definition he’s not atheist. But I guess you knew that.
I find it a bit frustrating that believers seem to put down people who don’t share their belief. You declare yourself and optimist because you have a need to feel there’s got to be more than what you can sense in this world. And you seem to declare that people who don’t share your ideal of life and some perfection that you only get from a book are pesimists. I’d say I’m a realist. But I get great joy out of the world. I’m an optimist too. But I don’t accept things just because a book, or 1 billion people say they know. Books can be wrong, and billions of people can be wrong. Science inspires and helps people understand the world. Religion offers false hope, because it’s quite obviously man made. Whether god exists or not, you have no idea of his “powers” or qualities. The god of the bible is a human projection, all that anger, jealousy, repression. He’s not even omnipotent, I mean he couldn’t event defeat a group of people who had iron chariots:
Anyway, peace.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:32 am
People who claim to be atheists but merely mean of not believing in a (christian) god probably make up the bulk of atheists.
Sadly that bulk is also a source of much of the misinformation regarding atheism as they are vocal, aggressive in their stance and lacking in knowledge of what they claim to be.
Just last week I met with such a oxymoron and could not have distinguish her from a religious zealot from afar.
May 18th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Perhaps ‘atheism’ is too limiting of a word to describe the beliefs of many of the people here. The type of atheists that frequent this site not only disbelieve in God, but also Satan, demons, angles, and just about anything supernatural. The label ‘naturalist’ (as opposed to a ’supernaturalist’) already has a different meaning. ‘Asupernaturalist’ and ‘nonsupernatruralist’ are too damn long. I think the term ‘brights’ has been used by some, but it seems to be failing to catch on. I often use ’skeptic’, but not all atheists are skeptics. Some still believe in alien abductions, ghosts, psychic abilities, and other unlikely phenomena.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I hope someone…everyone found at least fragmental amusement in my perhaps-too-spontaneous verbal amble. My purpose was not to put down anyone…nor any position. I only suggested what might follow if I, personally, were a pessimist. What I said was meant no more as a put-down, I trust, Brian than is meant by the term “straw man,†which you must admit crops up quite often here.
I think a true realist should consider, if only as a remote possibility, that something outside nature brought nature about. And you reverse what I actually said. I cannot accept this as the best of all possible worlds, because I am an optimist, not the other way around. Someone who does accept this world as the best one possible, it seems to me, is less optimistic than someone who believes in a real and measurable hope of human perfection.
Are you going to deny that saying, “Religion offers false hope…†presupposes no God? And I hope you recognize by now that I am not among the one billion you count who insist that others believe what they believe, just because they say so. Anyway, it would seem no less true to say that billions of people can be right as to say they can be wrong. Take, for instance, the television game show, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire; if you’ve seen the programme often, you’ll notice how seldom the majority of the audience chooses the wrong answer. I’m not associating a majority with Christians in particular, but I think it cannot be denied that the vast majority of human beings since the dawn of humanity (however one chooses to interpret the expession) have held some concept of a supreme being. How probable does it seem that so many would be wrong, and a comparatively miniscule minority right?
More than once, I’ve referred to the poetic nature of books in the old testament. As I see it, God is not a manipulator of nature or what comes to pass in people’s lives; he only oversees his plan for people. To hold absolute authority over all things does not necessarily require directly causing every specific activity of all things in the universe; it means having the power to do so or not. The analogy of the potter and the clay might relate here (though it is not in the generally understood context; it is actually kinder, in that it shows God cares for all the “potsâ€). Because we cannot see the grand picture visible only to God, we have no option but to trust his judgement, even when things look bleak. The bleakness will pass, and evntually come to an end altogether. I have known pain and suffering throughout childhood myself, incidentally, so I’m not just talking through my hat. I suspect, however, that this will raise questions about hell, to which, whether or not satisfactory to all, I can offer an explanation, but I’d rather leave that for another time.
Finally, in the name of The (as yet un-established, though I think ought to be) John Steed International School Of Decency, to spare any further frustrations in the future, I’ll try to be dilligent in not offending anyone. My apologies, Brian.
I was amused, Sid, by your comment about the compound terms. Maybe some sort of acronym would serve.
May 18th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Oh come on God - do something, anything. We’re bored.The whole argument is stagnant. For Your sake, just bloody DO SOMETHING!!! You can’t, though, can you? You’re knackered and you can’t do a damn’d thing! Got you! Honestly, though, if God had anything about Him/Her at all, He/She would have struck me dead long ago for my unbelief. Please don’t blame me for my unbelief. It’s alcohol induced. No, actually, the post is alcohol induced but the belief isn’t. Anyway - any miracles tonight? I thought not - bollocks. Anyone got a beer?
May 18th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
HELLO MIKE! BLESS YOU FOR LIVENING UP THE PARTY. I ALWAYS ENJOY A GOOD LAUGH!
May 19th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Getting back to posts 158-59 (in reverse order):
You did pretty much answer my question, Brian regarding universal truth, in asking how truth is defined. By universal truth, I mean fixed truth: “A†does not equal “non-Aâ€. God cannot exist and not exist at the same time. He cannot be non-existent for you, impersonal for Sid and personal for me all at once.
I would suggest that where reason is the vehicle, emotion is the steering.
Before my existence began, I couldn’t have cared whether I exist forever. But as I do exist now, I don’t want to cease existing. And so I have hopes-—eventually–of reaching “the undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveller returns.â€
Remember that Jesus also told his disciples that only the Father knows the day of Christ’s return, found in Mark 13:32. Is that one of the contradictions you alluded to before?
I think that, because, Jesus claimed divinity, and in light of his offer and warnings, and the impact his claim and what eye-witnesses claimed of him has had world-wide ever since, that his teachings, at least, ought to be considered potential evidence to a sceptic, in a pursuit of God and/or the meaning of life.
And, Sid, you say:â€the more that any religion claims about God, the less chance there is that it is a correct description.†This is why I take no membership in formal religious organizations; because the Bible itself, in conjunction with my own observations of reality around me, reveals…or if you prefer, seems to reveal God to me personally. I take the church and church leadership as a point of reference, not as a point of higher authority. I can take the entire Bible as truth, because I trust Jesus’ claims for himself. What doesn’t seem to make sense within a scientific framework, I trust, at some point, will be revealed to me, somehow; scientifically or otherwise, by means yet unavailable to us.
And finally, in reference to your comment, Brian, it could be said that formal religion is man-made, but I would say that the spirit of it, or if you prefer, the notion of it, is inherent in human nature. That’s what keeps the discussion on-going, and involving thinkers of all positions, including some who believe in the impossibility of knowing truth about the existence or non-existence of God, and even write books about it.
May 19th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Oops, looks like you really got me now.
May 19th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Can we please be Human Beings and not Toss Pots? I would hate to bring the whole discussion back on topic, but in my neck of the woods any sort of murder (homicide) is not a good thing. We tend to disagree with this. Even King Charles I. I know. Just don’t kill people, it’s simple. Abraham was obviously a fucking nutter. No questions. Bloody Jewish fool (Killing your son for “God”?). And that’s not racist, just a judgement on his judgement. Peace be upon me (I wish;)) Anyone, in my view, who would kill their son FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER deserves the ultimnate sanction. So there. Peace be upon everyone and Bollocks be upon religion.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:04 am
Mike, what exactly is it to be a human being? (Or a “toss pot”?)
In your “neck of the woods any sort of murder (homicide) is not a good thing.” In my neck of the woods, at least up to 150 years ago when your neck of the woods took control of it, people killed each other like they were playing football, then ate each other’s remains in the after match. They stopped that when the Christian missionaries from your neck of the woods spoilt their sport and taught them reading, writing, and right and wrong and stuff. What right did they have to be such spoil sports?
Going back a bit further, we are told that all our ancient cousins did that sort of stuff. Mothers ate their young (now its OK for mothers to snuff their young before they get young.) We are told that, going back a bit further from when our ancestors first started having blood (somewhere after the bactarial stage), that survival, bloody survival was good because life and things would thereby get better. And we are are all proof of it.
So why are you knocking a 4000 years ago semitic Ab? On what grounds are you judging his actions? How do you get to be a judge of what is good and evil?
May 20th, 2007 at 6:15 am
@Neando
Why one is not allowed to lash out, demean and ridicule Abraham from 4000 years ago? Is he a protected species? He is not around, if he ever existed even.
Judging a primitive man who heard voices and wanted to kill his son because the voices told so. Being sane, decent and good human is good enough reason to pass personal judgment on him.
Who are you to judge the legal system of countries and fellows personal view of Abrahams insanity? You cannot pass judgment without allowing others to respond in kind.
May 20th, 2007 at 6:54 am
Jagannath, none of your comments rightly apply to my post. I did little more that ask questions concerning the basis of his judgements.
I might ask you, what criteria do you use for “Being sane, decent and good human”? These are all value judgements based on what you deem normative. On what grounds?
May 20th, 2007 at 7:59 am
I do not say you cannot judge but you cannot reserve that right for only to those people you agree with. I judge people by their actions but I also expect to be judged by them. It is a two way street, you judge and thus you are judged.
I define the qualities sane, decent and good in the following manner
Sane; Someone who is mentally healthy, is able to show good judgment, one who is being rational and reasonable.
Decent; someone who shows standards of propriety, who is kind and obliging person
Good; One that is positive of nature, worthy of respect and benevolent person.
Now these are what I have learned to expect from the concepts of sane, decent and good. During life I have met people who fill the criteria and many who strive to meet them, the obliging and benevolent parts are often great tripping stones. So I base my criteria on what I have seen in people and these qualities I strive to follow but I keep falling short on them also.
I cannot base my value judgments solely on the values of other people or writings as that would be like being a Tartuffe in the play by Moliere, a hypocrite. I have to base my values on the criteria I can live with and most people agree with where I live.
You might disagree with the definitions as is your right.
So by my definition Abraham was not good, no one willing to kill his son is worthy of respect and benevolence is far from such act. He was not decent as once more killing a son is not kind act, one might argue on the propriety at that time as sacrifices were made then. Abraham was not sane as willingness to kill a son based on voices he heard is not rational.
Abraham was seriously deranged individual who is on par with Deanna Laney on the delusional scale. The glorification of his actions is one of the great travesties in the bible.
May 20th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Jags, you still have gone beyond my questions. While I MAY well agree with your definitions of “sane, decent and good” as far as they go, I was not asking what actions are right or wrong but whether there really is a right and wrong, and, if there is, how do such entities fit in the kind of universe we (perceive we)have, and how is it that they are binding on us? Do they evolve over time or are they fixed? Could Abraham’s actions have been “sane, decent and good” 4000 years ago but not today? You said “I have to base my values on the criteria I can live with and most people agree with where I live.” If you lived in Ab’s day and moral environment where child sacrifice was the norm, would your principle still apply? Your above statement indicates cultural moral relativsm. Is it rational?
May 20th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
I am unfamiliar with the cultural moral relativism.
I know cultural relativism and moral relativism but the combination is totally unfamiliar to me, sorry.
May 21st, 2007 at 12:13 am
Hi guys, hope you had a good weekend.
I’m not really up for posting much, so I’ll say this and be done with it for the moment.
There may be many worlds out there in the galaxies. But this is the one we know of. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if you judge it best or not I think. It is the one we have. I try to be optimistic with the bounds of what we can interact with or know.
Really? so the flateathers and earth centrics have got it right? Billions of people have quite clearly been wrong and still are.
That’s silly. Just because you believe he exists, doesn’t mean he anything about the reality of his existence. Or else there really are fairies at the bottom of the garden and that sort of thing…..
Anyway, have a good one.
I
May 21st, 2007 at 3:09 am
There are a variety of species of relativism. I loosely was referring to the idea that what values one holds within a particular culture and time are relative to that culture and cannot be transferred to another culture and time. What is right and wrong is determined by one’s cultural environment and thus changes as the culture changes.
Thus it could be argued that in ancient Mesopotamia it was the practice that babies were offered as sacrifices to various deities. It was thought perhaps that this would bring greater fertility to the land, etc. Thus given this belief, it was rational and morally acceptable to conform to the cultural and religious mores that were in accord with their world view.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Neando, I like your style. Devil’s advocate and all that. Maybe I should be a little more restrained in my language.
We are, I believe, concerned about Religious Freaks and their actions - which is why we frequent this esteemed forum. My point, lost as it was in a torrent of vitriolic abuse, was that belief in a God who would demand human sacrifice is in itself grotesque and certainly ‘of its time’. In the same era the Mediterranean nations were in the grip of Odin, Osiris, Woden, Thor, you name it. And there was plenty of human sacrifice, much of it self-inflicted. c/f The Golden Bough by Sir James Frasier. Personally, and for the sake of my family and friends, I would really rather not return to the ethics of the Iron Age. Abraham, by any standard of human/animal decency, was out of order. Shame on him.
May 21st, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Hi Brian,
I had a nice, fairly leisurely weekend.
And I think I want to just try to keep things short for now, too–as much as posible.
“so the flateathers and earth centrics have got it right? Billions of people have quite clearly been wrong and still are.â€
My example of the game show is only to demnostrate that majorities are usually (not always) right (I made that point in my example) particularly in matters of importance. And when it involves matters of the meaning of life, belief in a benevolent, personal God allows a means of being right. Belief in a universe, supposedly useless for the most part, and which is the best of all possible realms of existence provides no knowable possibility, nor any probability of eventual human perfection, nor any standard upon which to base it.
I can deciper no essential difference in meaning between my (so-called silly) comment: “God…cannot be non-existent for you, impersonal for Sid and personal for me all at once.†and your own: “Just because you believe he exists, doesn’t mean…anything about the reality of his existence.â€
And Mike,
I would like to point out again, that, to God, no one is a “toss-pot,” and also, that we have never moved away altogether from the main subject; it’s just been enlarged upon.
If God exists, if he is personal and benevolent, and if the story of Abraham and Isaac is true, then, without question, God had a particular purpose for commanding a demonstration of sacrifice to Abraham, not merely as a test of his faith. Knowing God’s promise, given prior to the event: “for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.†(Gen. 21:12) Abraham knew, and even assured Isaac, that a sacrifice would be provided, and so it was. Genesis 22:7-13. This does not compare with the Laney case.
On the other hand, if the Bible is only a collection of myths, then the story fulfills its symbolic meaning, in pointing to Christ’s later (accordingly would-be mythical) sacrifice, without an actual father being commanded to murder his child. The question is moot. And so, again, would not compare with the Laney claim.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:42 am
Hey MAPK, it seems to me you’re presenting a bit of a moving target with your definition of god. Can you please state what you believe god to be and not to be. What qualities such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence etc does he possess? I’ve been arguing against the god of the bible. If the god you believe in is different, please say how. Thanks.
Again you equate your belief, faith, in a being with no evidence, to me accepting that we live in a universe that all evidence demonstrates has no need of us and could only be described as cruelly indifferent to our existence. It’s not a contests of faith. You have faith, I don’t.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:36 am
Mike, I’ve lived among religious freaks most of my life and have a fair idea of how they tick and why people get freaked out at them. It could be that I am one too ;-)
Our view of Abraham is determined largely by the world view we find ourselves in. This will influence our moral, emotional and rational starting point, and even whether there can be a starting point.
Assuming that we all agree that Ab was a bad dude and a freak (which we don’t), could it be that our condemnation of his actions arises purely from within ourselves; our emotions? Or could it be that our condemnation accords with a transcendant standard that is universal and part of the “furniture of the universe?” If the former, then perhaps we are just having a rave and a vent that may or may not have some psychological or social benefits but is otherwise meaningless and trivial.
If the latter then we are absolutists. The problem is that this position is queer or rather odd in a naturalistic universe. Moral absolutes by their very nature are binding and universal, but how can they be when there is nothing higher than man and man is the final arbiter of his own destiny?
In ourselves we know that murder/infanticide is morally reprehensible and it is natural (and reasonable) for us to condemn it. But can a naturalist do this and be consistent with his world view? Or is it that there is still a hangover from our cultural heritage that yet needs to be deconstructed?
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:10 am
Hello MAPK L,
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:11 am
Ops, forgot to end my blockquote. The second quote above is my own words.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Hi Brian,
“it seems to me you’re presenting a bit of a moving target with your definition of god.â€
If this is so, I can only account for it based upon reliance on my own finite mind to describe an infinite being.
The nearest I can come to defining what I mean by God (which I think the Bible does not actually do; it only describes God) is to base my definition on Anselm’s argument. My understanding of God is: that than which nothing more perfect is logically possible; the “sum of all perfection.†I have taken this idea from a small book called “Arguments For The Existence Of God,” by John Hick.
In my opinion, such terms as omnipotent and omniscient applied to God, themselves, require defining. Omnipotent cannot mean, for example, the ability to move an immovable mountain; omniscient cannot mean knowing all that has not–nor will not–come to pass, as well as all that has come to pass. These two examples, to me, seem equally absurd. I believe God does guide human actions and events, but, in that he is omnibenevolent, he clearly does not minutely manipulate all things. For to do so would make all human love impossible.
Whether it has—or requires—any use (not forgetting the uses listed by Doug) I perceive all the universe, not only as magnificently beautiful, but even offering a virtually limitless potential for hospitability as a living environment. and not as cruelly indifferrent. I mean, Brian, I just would like to be positively sure we’re both optimists.
Once again, I want to point out that all faith is not religious. By faith, I mean nothing less than satisfactory evidence of anything not provable or yet unproven. I take the existence of anything finite as evidence that something other than itself brought it into being. Evidence of a first cause of all other things is faith. What, to offer another example, is your view on the power of intuition in women? Do you think it is on a par with superstition, and to be categorically rejected as anything real? Insight from a few women you know may help in your choice of answers to this question.
Finally, according to my understanding, only living entities, at least in a formal sense, can be said to have literal needs. Consequently, the universe could not possibly have any actual need for human beings.
Hi Sid,
I have observed that in the game show referred to, when the majority of the audiences have chosen incorrect answers, they are almost always negligible majorities, and the questions are of very little importance, even within a scope of social trivia. The more important the question, therefore, I would suggest the more people, generally, are likely to consider the possibilities and probabilities, ie.; to weigh the evidence, before making choices. And take into account that the audiences’ choices are made, for the most part, I would think, independently, not as a group.
Given your example of the over-turned cups, you, like Brian, indicate an assumption that faith involves zero evidence, while I insist that it is a form of (not anti-, but non-scientific) evidence; evidence of things that stand, temporarily or permanently, outside science.
I don’t mean to suggest that anyone should base theological decisions solely on that of a majority, but, as in the game show, a majority opinion will greatly increase the probability of acquiring the correct answer. Once the answer is given, the contestant must then also possess some additional personal insight—sometimes a mere hunch is all that is required–to estimate how likely the majority is to be correct in their answer. In any case, as a deist, you are among the majority I spoke of in my example to Brian.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Hi MAPK,
Is that the same Anselm who postulated the ontologial argument? If so, then you are on unsound ground. Just because you can imagine a being, that would be greater if it were real, doesn’t make it real. After all, I can imagine the greatest bannana split, but if it were real, it would be greater, but that doesn’t make it exist.
Are you redefining words to allow your definition of god to make sense? Omni means all, omnipotent means all powerful. It isn’t defined logically. At least not to my knowledge?
Sid would have a better explanation of the ontological argument and meanings of words.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 am
FYI: A modern revamp of the ontological argument has been done by philosopher Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame in his book The Nature of Necessity, CH.10 “God and necessity”
http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Necessity-Clarendon-Library-Philosophy/dp/0198244142
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:46 am
Ah, good old Plantinga. He’s a religious philosopher that deserves some respect. Thanks for the reference, Neando. I’ve heard him defend the cosmological argument before but not the ontological argument. I may have to pick that book up someday.
The version of the ontological argument that I am most familiar with is Descartes. Though I suggest reading his Meditation 5, the Wikipedia short-hand version of his argument is this:
1. I exist.
2. I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
3. As an imperfect being I would be unable to create such a concept through my own thoughts.
4. The concept must have come from God.
5. To be a perfect being God must exist.
6. God exists.
Like Bertrand Russell, I was briefly convinced by this argument in college. But almost as soon as I believed the argument, I saw its fundamental fallacy. Premise 3 is incorrect. Brian’s ‘greatest banana split’ is good counter example, but my thoughts took a more roundabout approach.
Implicit in this premise is that nothing can be greater than the sum of its parts. In this case, Descartes’ claim is that an infinite idea (the idea of God) cannot be caused by a finite mind. This is an understandable conclusion in his time but it turns out to be incorrect. What Descartes was unaware of is that information of the whole can be created by the relationship of the parts. A simple example would be a universe with only two particles. In addition to just having two particles, the universe also has an additional property, the distance between the two particles. The information created by the two particles, distance, makes that universe greater than, say two universes consisting of only one particle apiece.
Another example is sitting right in front of you, a computer. By arranging molecules of silicon (and other molecules) in particular patterns and running electrons through them we create highly ordered information. Clearly the programs that run your computer are greater than just a bunch of silicon and electrons. This is due to the clever relationship between the silicon molecules that give rise to a lot of information.
Our brains are similar. The cleaver arrangement of neurons create information in the form of thought and ideas. One of these ideas is God. But as my analogy points out, the cause of this idea need not be infinite.
I have other objections to the ontological argument, but this was the first and, for me, the most convincing counter-argument I thought of.
On the question of majority belief I would ask you, MAPK L, what non-scientific evidence does your faith entail? If the group does have evidence then they would be more likely to be correct on binary guesses, unless someone or is actively deceiving the group. Thus your evidence would be quite relevant to this question.
But you are right that no one should base their theology solely on consensus. Brian correctly pointed out that the majority can be, and has been, incorrect.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 am
Hi Brian…hi Sid,
I hope you will not think me egotistical in crediting myself for also pointing out that majorities are not always correct, but I think evidence shows they are rarely wrong, and almost never wrong in judging matters of the greatest importance. And so it seems highly unlikely that a mass majority would be wrong in judging whether or not God exists. And for what it’s worth, I took my definition of God directly from John Hick, a university professor. I didn’t make it up myself. It is based on the ontological argument, which I know very well is not proof of anything, but to me, evidence and proof are not the same. Requiring proof of God is altogether a lost cause—at least until he chooses to reveal himself to the world.
With zero evidence, would it seem reasonable to you to insist that there is no God, based on the opinion of a fourteen per-cent minority? Personally, I would follow the reported eighty-six per-cent, based also on my own observations of reality.
Just as a side point, what would make one banana-split greater than another? And who’s to say that a greatest one doess not exist? But regarding matters of importance, I simply cannot comprehend equating the existence of fanciful things as pink unicorns and super-banana-splits (which are of no consequence whatsoever) to the existence of a divine creator. It seems to me as if logic is being re-defined, or dynamically dumbed-down.
To elaborate on the meaning of a word is not to define, or re-define it. It is to provide clarity of meaning in a discussion of mattters of particular importance. I have already explained what I mean by omnipotent, or all-powerful, as holding absolute authority to control all actions and events or not; and omniscient; all-knowing, as knowing all there is to be known, not as knowing all that is and is not to be. Contrary to conventional authority, reason tells me it is not imposing limitations on God to say he is not outside of time. Time is a mere concept; a standard of measurement, like feet and inches; it holds no substantial existence, either physical or spiritual.
“If the group does have evidence then they would be more likely to be correct on binary guesses….â€
It’s not quite clear to me, Sid, what you mean by the term, binary guess. I assumed it meant having no evidence for or against an idea.
As non-scientific evidence for the existence of God, I include anything not scientifically discernable, pointing to the possibility or probability of a supernatural creator: all formal arguments, the fact of the existence of anything at all, a humanly-inherent urge to discover the meaning of life, the human capacity for creativity and productivity through reason, wonder and imagination, love, beauty, the ability to conceive of infinity, the unfathomable complexity of the universe and everything in it; genetic reproduction and catrepillars-to-butterflies seem particularly wondrous examples…. I expect you’ll say I’m now sounding too much like Chesterton, so to spare you possible agony, I’ll end here.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Hey MAPK L,
I should clear up what I mean by ‘binary guess’. What I mean by that is when people guess at a property that can have only one of two possible states. My overturned cup is one such example. There are only two possibilities, the marble is under cup A or under cup B. The existence of God is another example. Either a God exists or one does not.
Groups maybe very good at guessing the number of jelly beans in a large jar, or the weight of an ox since there are many possible guesses. Averaging out these guess often results in a great approximation of the truth. This is because the errors tend to be normally distributed about the mean. We have no such luxury with binary variables. Average out the guesses as to where the marble is and you’ll likely get that 1/2 the marble is under A and 1/2 is in B. This is far from the truth.
Now suppose the group trying to find the marble are predisposed to believing cup A has the marble and 90% claim that the marble is under it. Does that make it any more likely that the marble is actually under cup A? No. Similarly, if we have a predisposition to believe in a ‘higher power’, than that would explain the consensus but utterly fail to provide proof or even evidence for the existence of God.
How is that not a God-of-the-gaps? In other words, simply because we don’t currently have a scientific explanation for somethings doesn’t mean ‘God did it’. Not to mention many of the human qualities you mentioned, our urge to discover, creativity, productivity, reason, wonder, imagination, etc., all have survival value and thus have an evolutionary explanation. No God is required.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Sids, the onto arg is not a route I would take, probably because I don’t feel competant to do so. One of my old profs thougt Plantinga nailed it but very few theists think that route is very productive. Certainly, I think, pop versions and rebuttles accomplish little. Plantinga’s chapter mentioned above is ch 10 in a book on modality de re. It’s been a very long time and I have forgotten much of what I might have understood.
On a side note, you mentioned “information.” In computer talk we call it software. Do you believe software is real? If so, what do you think is the nature of of its existence? What is its origin? Hardware is a bit easier. We can easily conceive of the bits coming together and flying apart when an IT guy gets mad. We can also conceive “By arranging molecules of silicon (and other molecules) in particular patterns and running electrons through them we create highly ordered information. Clearly the programs that run your computer are greater than just a bunch of silicon and electrons.” But we talk as if this complex arrangement of little on/off switches produces another entity.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Hey Neando,
To answer your question, yes, I consider software ‘real’, but not independent of matter. Sure, the exact same program can run on entirely different sets of matter (two different computers), but programs in particular and information in general is still dependent on matter for existence. A program is a separate entity from any particular set of logic gates, but still dependent on some set of logic gates.
Did I understand what you were asking correctly?
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Hi MAPK, Sid and Neando, very productive thoughts while I was away sleeping.
So, the scriptures, miracles etc were really bunk? So much for revalations…. ;)
With not a single revelation, what have you observed? Just teasing.
That fact that you cannot comprehend the equating the existence of things that you deem fanciful to others you deem non-fanciful only betrays your prejudices towards these entities. The ancient Greeks believed in their gods, as did the Romans in theirs, the Vikings in theirs, etc. Do you not consider these gods fanciful? Do you consider them “true” gods that exist? I would venture that you consider them myth. Why? There is as much evidence to suggest these other belief systems are correct as yours. They have founding myths, holy books, priests, etc. If you hold your god to be real, in fairness you have to hold their gods to be real. Otherwise, there would seem to be a lot of intellectual dishonesty, as you’ve already stated you have no evidence of your god.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Hi Sid,
I take it, then, that my original understanding of the term “binary guess,†ie.–zero probability for or against a particular position–was correct. But any type of theist must maintain greater evidence being available for the existence of a first cause of things, than for the non-existence of it. And concerning matters involving the existence of God, a binary guess, therefore, would be the claim of the agnostic alone.
And where a group is predisposed to choosing one particular position, it entails an indication of some yet unspecified evidence for such a predisposition. Thus it is no longer a mere binary guess.
And why cannot the God-of-the-gaps argument not be alternately exchanged for a scientific-theory-of-the-gaps? It seems to me that the balance can go either way. With evolution, it may be that no God is required, but it also stands that with God, whether or not evolution actually occurs, it is not especially required. I can see no reason to assume or insist that either position specifically mandates a ruling-out of the other.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Please allow me rephrase this query: And why cannot the God-of-the-gaps argument BE alternately exchanged for…and so on?
May 24th, 2007 at 3:52 am
Hi Sid,
Would you not say that numbers also apply to immaterial objects or are merely a property of matter? Would not threeness exist even if there were never three objects to count or any persons to count them? This would also apply to logic. The law of non-contradiction is true prior to there being particular statements or propositions.
So do not these immaterial substances exist independent of the material particulars to which they apply? In our theorising we apply principles of logic and numbers to theoretical entities that do not materially exist as much as we do to material particulars.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Hi Sid and Brian,
One other point I meant to add is that, so as not to impose my view on others, when I present something as evidence for God, however I may percreive it personally, I leave it open to others to accept it as pointing to the possibility, or as a probability, trusting it will not be denied altogether, as evidence. I understand that more than one possibility exists for the existence of beauty and butterflies. Starting with no evidence, beauty could–as you say, Sid–be a factor in natural selection, or it could be a gift from God. It all depends on which side of the evidence-scale one perceives as the heavier.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Hello Everyone,
I hope all are well. I’m caught up at work but still damn busy at home prepping for Memorial Day weekend.
MAPK L,
You are right, evidence increases the chances that a group will be correct about a binary guess. Also, as you already know, I think there is enough evidence to suggest that God exists. But I can only know It as the Ultimate Cause. Extrapolating that to the God of Christianity (or any other religion) is not based on any evidence. Returning to the marble under a cup example, I believe that the marble is under cup A, but Christians go further and claim to know the exact colors, size, weight, and composition of the marble even though they’ve never seen it.
Science-of-the-gaps doesn’t even make sense. If a better and verifiable explanation for a phenomenon becomes available, it is adopted by and becomes a part of science. Scientific explanations do not claim to only explain that which other systems of thought fail to explain (or fill the gaps, if you will). In contrast, religious hypotheses have always been proffered when no natural explanation is available and retreats (usually) once one becomes available.
You are right, though. God and science can coexist. They just cannot offer two competing explanations for the same phenomenon. God-of-the-gaps refers to the explanatory power of theism. God is only used to explain real and perceived gaps in natural explanations.
I just noticed that you made a new comment while I was typing this that mentions this point. Your example of the beauty of a butterfly having two explanations is interesting. However I think there are actually two different phenomenon explained separately here. One, there is a natural explanation as to how the butterfly came to appear the way it does (evolution), but not for why we experience the sight of the butterfly as ‘beautiful’. Just a thought.
Neando,
How I do love metaphysics, despite the fact that I am bad at it. I actually flip-flop on my metaphysical views. It just involves questions that I don’t feel adequately equipped to definitively answer.
I do know that numbers and logic have no meaning without the existence of matter, but think that they are universal to every possible universe. In other words, if anything exists at all, then logic and numbers apply. I believe this is what is meant by being ‘metaphysically necessary’. Thus their existence is contingent on matter even though they are universal truths.
By the way, I happen to believe that God is one such metaphysically necessary being.
May 24th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Hi guys, how are we going?
Metaphysics, way out of my league. I have to be honest, it seems largely outside of reality. Without being dismissive or arrogant, it seems to me that I can imagine or postulate just about anything and say it exists or potentially exists because I can conceive of it or some quality of it.
To call this evidence, even if it becomes an accepted folk myth or full blown religion doesn’t seem to me to affect it’s reality. It just means that a lot of people share the same concept.
As for science, I think the thing here is does science explain something in a logical and useful way that concurs with nature? We may not understand the details, but so long as it is understood and continuously questioned by those who do and not taken as “gospel” then we can accept it as explanation, until a better one arrives. Religion just states such and such is so, in a concrete factual sense. It offers no evidence past scripture, and theological musings which all state god did it. Now, for me to accept that, you will have to convince me that there is no natural explanation, and no natural explanation is possible. This is because even a tortuous natural explanation is simpler than explaining a god. Further to explain an active, aware god like the god of the bible increases that complexity by many magnitude in my opinion.
May 25th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
To The Supreme Being!
Does anyone apart from you and me realise the futility of all this? If we lived a little closer together i’d buy you a beer. The point of atheists arguing about God? Get another round in!
May 26th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Mike, I wouldn’t travel 12000 miles to get choked on a guiness! So what is the point of atheists arguing about God if He is non existent? Might just as well argue about hobbits and elves.
Brian, if naturalism, materialism and scientism were an adequate account of reality, things would be so much easier. There would be more definite boundaries to our enclosure and we wouldn’t get our knickers in a twist about what is outside the box because there is no outside to think about.
Sid, You seem to imply that God as a “metaphysically necessary being” could not exist without the prior existence of matter. I don’t understand your thinking on this.
Could not logic, numbers, qualia, shape, virtues, etc., exist prior to their material instantiation? Also it appears that most of these can refer to other such immaterial substances.
May 26th, 2007 at 2:03 am
thanks for not reading a word I said Neando. I don’t believe in or follow science. How many times do I have to say it’s not a faith or ideology? It’s a methodology used to explain natural phenomena. I give up.
May 27th, 2007 at 4:15 am
Hello Brian,
I confess, I haven’t read everything you have said about the subject and I have only followed discussions here intermitently, so I am sorry if I have missed your point. I agree that science is not itself an ideology, but it ought to be recognised that science, its methods and practises, are founded upon philosophical presuppositions without which it would fail. Some of these presuppositions virtually all scientists would hold in common if they are to remain in the scientific community. Every scientist has a particular world view which may or may not affect their agenda, research and outcomes. some scientists use their professions to promote their particular world view (Dawkins is a prime example).
May 27th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Hello Neando,
As with many metaphysical hypothesis, they certainly could exist prior to material instantiation. We have no way of finding out. We have no way of observing a non-material universe to see if logic, etc. exist. All we have to go on is our experience and our experience is that logic, etc. apply in a materially-based universe.
May 27th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Hi Brian,
Sorry to be lagging behind a bit. Back to post 192….
By this, comment: “at least until he chooses to reveal himself to the world.,†I mean until God reveals himself to ALL the world, including to you.
“That fact that you cannot comprehend the equating the existence of things that you deem fanciful to others you deem non-fanciful only betrays your prejudices towards these entities.â€
I can hardly refrain from a prejudice against the reality of pink unicorns, but as for the mightiest banana-split…well, that sounds like something to be really hopeful for. :-)
“in fairness you have to hold their gods to be real. Otherwise, there would seem to be a lot of intellectual dishonesty, as you’ve already stated you have no evidence of your god.â€
I’m a bit puzzled as to why you say I have stated that I have no evidence for the existence of God. I repeat virtually to no end that evidence and faith are one and the same, regardless of whether it is within a religious context. Any unprovable or yet unproven belief is faith in something. Here is Bookman’s second definition of faith: a mental state of accepting something as trust-worthy.
My reason for disbelief in the ancient mythical gods is not the same as for my disbelief in pink unicorns and such. What difference could it make to anyone even if the latter actually did exist, and no one believed it or ever knew it? But the reason for my disbelief in the ancient plural gods, for a start, is that mono-theism clearly supports a first cause of all other things, and secondly mono-theism provides an absolute basis for good as a standard over evil, rather than an equally- balanced duality between the two opposing forces. The Bible describes God as the eternal source of good. On this ground, we can know, also, that love, beauty and truth are eternal. And it explains the origin and affirms the finiteness of evil. It tells us not only the origin of evil, but also that all evil will eventually come to an end.
Hi Sid,
To pick up on your over-turned cup analogy, Christians don’t claim to have exclusive or privileged information detailing the location, colour, size, weight and composition of the marble. They only claim that clear evidence is provided to everyone, through reading the Bible, observing creation, and examining one’s own heart, mind and soul.
I would agree that science-of-the-gaps would not make sense, but do not scientific theories fill in gaps, at least temporarily? Indeed, it seems as if some are taken to stand as truth itself. And to attribute some apparently inexplicable natural phenomenon to God, strictly speaking, is only to say God caused it to occur, not that it necessarily defies the physical laws.
May 27th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
HELLO AGAIN, MIKE,
MEASURED IN COSMIC MILES, I SHOULD SAY OUR GEOGRAPHICAL DISTANCE IS RELATIVELY SMALL. AND SHOULD PROVIDENCE EVER LEAD YOU INTO MY LITTLE ACRE, I’LL WHIP YOU UP A MIGHTY MIRACLE-BREW AND WE’LL STEEP OUR MINDS IN A STOUT AND FROTHY DISCOURSE.
May 27th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
The Supreme Being:
Cheers, mate, mine’s a pint of lager! Maybe if the Religious Freaks of this planet (you know who you are, Axis of Evil) all settled down for a six-pack we might be a bit better off!
Seriously, how the the hell can you live in the desert without a decent pint?
May 27th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Is it me,or are all the atheists on this site taking things a little bit too seriously? Aren’t we meant to be knocking the theists rather than ourselves? And balls to Dawkins, he’s too intelligent by far. The man frightens me. He’s squashed the God argument dead on its heels. What we now need is more Religious Freaks to laugh at. Not more arguments among ourselves. Please!? Anyway, this horse goes into a bar. The barman says “Why the long face?”….
May 28th, 2007 at 3:42 am
Mike,
“Dawkins … He’s squashed the God argument dead on its heels.” too many steinlagers, mate. He’s done no such thing. The humanist are finding him a bit of an embarassment with his negative vitriol. He should stick to science, where he is brilliant, and leave philosophy and theology to those who are good at it.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Neando:
I’m worried - if science doesn’t embrace philosophy and theology are we not in serious trouble? Science is surely just a methodology to arive at the truth. No, stop this. I’m embarrassed by my own words. What I mean to say is that I think the case for Atheism is proven beyond reasonable doubt by Dawkins. Theology and philosophy are now redundant. God is dead and has been for many years. Clever words don’t change a thing. I personally feel that Zen is the only way forward, and I’m off now to contemplate a cosmic Sardine. May as well.Brian, I have much empathy.Perhaps in the general scheme of things science really isn’t the answer. Who knows.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
“Theology and philosophy are now redundant.”
Looks like it’s time for me to change majors…
May 29th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Hello again Mike,
Well, yes and no. He did prove that the existence of any particular God, Allah, Yahweh, Apollo, and so forth, so unlikely as to be impossible, but this had already been done years ago. David Hume is an example of one such philosopher who had done so. But Dawkins failed to prove that no God exists at all.
Dawkins’ biggest success in the God Delusion was that he gave sufficient reason to doubt that any ultimate explanation of the universe need be complicated or intelligent. I also like the fact that he has somewhat popularized the notion that religions are subject to rational criticism like any other system of human thought. Many people are mistaking his plan-spoken criticism and passion for the subject as ‘negative vitriol’, as Neando put it.
Even if we non-religious (I’m not exactly an atheist) can’t agree with anything, we can still unite to point out the ridiculousness that is religion.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
It is arguable that evidence might exist for something beyond a reasonable doubt, but proof means evidence beyond any doubt whatsoever.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Sidfaiwu and MARK L both:
Since the scientific method admits that any theory is only good until proven otherwise, we should logically admit the fallibility of science and not seek to impose any of its finding on others. I think. Maybe if we can’t ultimately prove anything (since our existing hypotheses are liable to change in view of emerging evidence)we should just break out the cassocks and have a good old pray?
No, I didn’t think so either. Let’s just remember on whom the burden of proof actually falls in religious matters!
On another note, wouldn’t it be great if God existed and sent all the Atheists to heaven as a reward for using their brains. And gave us all 72 virgins. If I were clever I could turn a parable out of that, but in event I’ll just say Goodnight and God Bless!
May 30th, 2007 at 5:19 am
Sid, which particular arguments or works of Hume do you have in mind? His scepticism of religion and morals are very problematic. His Of Miracles, though still popular among sceptics, has serious flaws. Christian philosophers have long discredited his arguments.
You said:
“I do know that numbers and logic have no meaning without the existence of matter, but think that they are universal to every possible universe. In other words, if anything exists at all, then logic and numbers apply. I believe this is what is meant by being ‘metaphysically necessary’. Thus their existence is contingent on matter even though they are universal truths.”
If logic and numbers are contingent on matter, how can they be necessary? Can matter exist without them or are they prior to it? Are not logic and numbers mind dependent?
“By the way, I happen to believe that God is one such metaphysically necessary being.” On your definition, would not God be contingent on matter?
May 31st, 2007 at 3:53 am
Hey Brian and Mapk L,
I am finally in the new house! Suddenly, I am a handyman with orders from the lady of the house to install new light fixtures, ceiling fans, and an irrigation system!
I took some time to try and catch up with the discussion and I am glad to see that some new kids have come out to play.
Brian, I’ll try to remember roughly where we left off. I think that I had asked you to provide me with a few of your best examples of New Testament contradictions. I would like to see those if you can provide them please.
Also, I’m not sure if you responded to the “tornado in the junkyard” analogy. Could a functioning plane come together with an infinite amount of time + an infinite amount of plane parts + an infinite number of tornados?
Maybe Sid could speak to this one as well since he said in an earlier post referring to a computer and its programs that…”Our brains are similar. The cleaver arrangement of neurons create information in the form of thought and ideas.”
So Sid, as Bill Gates has rightly said, “Computer programs don’t write themselves”, did our brains have a programmer?
p.s. as I am still in the middle of unpacking, I may be a bit slow in my responses.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:32 am
Hello Everyone,
Neando:
Hume’s Dialogues concerning Natural Religion is one work where he put to rest many of the arguments for God’s existence. It’s been a while since I’ve ready what he considers the problem of miracles, but I remember the argument being compelling. Which critiques to either do you consider successful? I’d be interested in reading them. Unfortunately, unless they are short, I probably won’t have time to read them soon. I’ve got a stack of books that I’ve committed to reading ‘next’.
Numbers and logic are emergent properties of matter. They are like form and size. Once any matter exists at all, it has certain properties such as size, shape, number, etc. Even logic emerges. A chunk of matter cannot both be and not be, be both a cube and a sphere simultaneously, etc. (unless you’re a Buddhist). My metaphysical guess (guesses are the best we can do wrt metaphysics) is that these properties will always emerge in any possible, non-empty universe. In this sense, logic, numbers, etc necessarily exist if any thing exists at all. I hope this clarifies what I meant.
Doug:
Welcome back and congratulations on the new home.
Let’s see, let me restate ‘an infinite number of tornados’ with ‘an infinite number of random, redistributions of the parts. Also, add in a finite, non-expanding space and a functioning plane would be inevitable. If, however, space where either infinite or expanding, the parts could be redistributed an infinite number of different ways.
Infinite redistributions + finite, non-expanding space = every possible configuration of the parts; including ones with a functioning plane.
Infinite redistributions + infinite or expanding space = an infinite subset of an infinite number of configurations. The infinite subset need not contain any of the configurations that include a functioning plane.
What exactly do you mean by a ‘programmer’? There are many ways to ‘program’ something. The easiest and fastest way is to use deductive and inductive reasoning to design a program. I believe this is how you are thinking of a ‘programmer’. Another way is to have an enormous variety of ‘programs’ being generated and destroying all the ones that don’t work so well.
In the case of brains, an enormous variety is being created by genetic recombination, mutation, and other natural processes. Also, non-working or poorly functioning brains are destroyed by natural selection. So yes, our brains do have a ‘programmer’: evolution.
This is, of course, a simplistic and incomplete way of viewing the process of evolution. For anything much more in-depth, I would suggest consulting an expert on the subject.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:00 am
Hello Mike,
Surprising as it may seem that I had to ask, and although it is not my purpose to cause you alarm, my theological consultant says that the burden of proof in religious matters lies with Mister Death, The Grim Reaper.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Neando,
What I meant by a “programmer” was that our brains (and all life in fact) work the way they do because of the complex, pre-programmed instructions contained in dna which in turn can be compared to a computer program. So do you really think that blind evolution is capable of programming with intelligence?
As for as the tornado analogy, I find it impossible to believe that any amount of time would be sufficient to assemble a plane even if all of the necessary parts were laid out beforehand.
If you were walking on a beach and found a sentence written in the sand that said, “Neando enjoys reading and posting his thoughts on religiousfreaks.com.” Could that sentence have been caused by nature alone?
June 1st, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Neando,
One more question for you. Do you believe that life came from non-life and if so how?
Thanks
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:46 am
Doug,
I think you are addressing the wrong person. I don’t recall addressing these issues. For the record, I am a sceptic with regard to macro-evolution.
June 2nd, 2007 at 6:17 am
Hi Sid,
Hume’s Of Miracles has been pretty popular (and scandlous for his day.) The copy I have is edited by Flew. My impression was that his argument shows a rather sleight of hand. Critiques have been many but its been so long and many have been buried in larger works and journals.
On metaphysics, your statements seem to presuppose materialism. You said previously “By the way, I happen to believe that God is one such metaphysically necessary being.†I am curious as to how you would handle my question: “On your definition, would not God be contingent on matter?” as you have expressed a belief in some concept of God previously.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:24 am
Hello Neando,
Well, materialism paints a rather broad brush. It only states that everything that is ‘real’ is ultimately made of ’stuff’. The only alternative is to say that there are some things that are real that are made of nothing. Since we have no experiences of things made of nothing, it is safe to assume that everything is made of some ’stuff’. So materialism isn’t really a presupposition, but an inductively drawn conclusion.
Yep. If God is real, It definitely needs to be made of something. My guess is that God is a necessary emergent phenomenon of all matter. Thus It is ultimately material in nature.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:51 am
Oh, hey Doug!
I think you meant to address me with your comments. Under that assumption, please allow me to respond.
Given enough time and the correct environmental conditions, yep.
That just means that you have trouble conceptualizing random processes and deep time. A failure to understand a concept does not imply falsehood. If all truths were simple, science would be both unnecessary and fruitless.
Yes it could have been, though it is extraordinarily unlikely. Also, that would not be my first guess as the source of the sentence. This is because I have observed thousands of humans constructing English sentences and have also noticed a human fondness for the beach. Based on this evidence, it is reasonable to assume that a human wrote that sentence in the sand.
Yes, I do believe that life ultimately came from non-life. I have no idea how it happened. I’ve read some hypotheses, though, and some sound reasonable. But since I am not a chemist, I lack the expertise to fully understand and critique them.
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Neando and Sid,
Sorry about the mix up and Neando I agree with you about the macro.
Sid, I’m not buyin what you’re sellin. You are right that I do have trouble “conceptualizing random processes and deep time”. I just find it impossible to believe that you get the Declaration of Independence by throwing a stick of dynamite into a printing factory, no matter how many times you do it.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Doug, an added prob with “you get the Declaration of Independence by throwing a stick of dynamite into a printing factory, no matter how many times you do it,” is that each time you toss one in you get a rapid increase in entropy. Entropy, unless it is well managed, doesn’t seem to be very kind to the creation of information.
June 3rd, 2007 at 12:09 am
Hi Sids
“Well, materialism paints a rather broad brush. It only states that everything that is ‘real’ is ultimately made of ’stuff’. The only alternative is to say that there are some things that are real that are made of nothing. Since we have no experiences of things made of nothing, it is safe to assume that everything is made of some ’stuff’. So materialism isn’t really a presupposition, but an inductively drawn conclusion.”
This kind of empiricism seems to stem from its roots in the Eighteenth Century, particularly Hume. Hence a scepticism about immaterial substances.
“If God is real, It definitely needs to be made of something. My guess is that God is a necessary emergent phenomenon of all matter. Thus It is ultimately material in nature.”
This appears to be a pantheistic concept that calls the universe with it’s emergent properties simply by another name. A bit like the “Force” — an impersonal invisible power that has light and dark properties but is still a part of the whole.
In theistic terms, this is a form of atheism as is any variety of monism: pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, or finite-godism. If one is bounded by an ultimate commitment to Naturalism in one form or another, then of course, only naturalistic evidences for supernaturalistic realities will be accepted. Which is nonsense.
So the question that you asked elsewhere “Who made God?” is a category error. If I asked you “Who, or what, made your god?” you can easily answer that it is the product of matter, etc. But, and I’m sure you know this, the theistic concept of God is that He is self-existent: The uncaused cause of all that exists. Anything short of this requires a cause for its existence, including all matter and its emergent properties–including your god.
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:43 am
Good point Neando.
The entire creation seems to be going the way of entropy. Doesn’t that mean that things are winding down? Would you say that things in the universe were more organized yesterday than they are today and are more organized today than they will be tomorrow and so on?
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:54 am
Hello Doug,
I do love when entropy comes up since I can actually speak to it with some authority. What Neando is referring to in his comment “Entropy, unless it is well managed, doesn’t seem to be very kind to the creation of information.” is the 2nd law of thermodynamics: (simple version) in a closed system, entropy tends to increase. The earth is not a closed system: energy flows into and out of our planetary system, as it does all planetary systems. Secondly, the 2nd law is a statistical law, not an absolute one like gravity. It is possible for a closed system to spontaneously lose entropy, though unlikely.
One thing I would like to ask you, Doug, is what event are you comparing The Declaration of Independence to in your analogy? I enjoy discussions of extreme improbability, but I don’t quite understand what your original point was.
I’ve got to go now, so I’ll have to respond to Neando later.
Take care!
June 4th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Hello Neando,
Empiricism was part and parcel of the Age of Reason. Sharing philosophical ties with the rise of rational thought in England is something I am proud of. Empiricism has also proven to be extraordinarily useful as it gave rise to the scientific method. Skepticism about everything, not just immaterial substances, is part of the empirical method. What is an ‘immaterial substance’ anyway? It reads like an oxymoron.
I never claimed that God is supernatural. Actually, I think that ’supernatural’ is an ill-defined term. I understand ‘nature’ to mean all that exists. Thus, by definition, anything that is ’supernatural’ super-exists? Existence is binary. Either something exists and is part of nature or it does not. Having ’super-existence’ doesn’t make any sense.
I never asked the question “Who made God?”. In fact, I find the cosmological argument compelling. But this argument does not guarantee that God is non-material nor that this self-caused entity is God as described in the Bible, Qur’an, Bhagavad Gita, Torah, etc, or even intelligent. The cosmological argument only proves that a self-caused entity exists. The cosmological argument fails to prove any particular concept of God.
June 6th, 2007 at 6:35 am
Hello Si,
I apologise if I have misquoted you but thanks for your thoughtful reply.
“Empiricism has also proven to be extraordinarily useful as it gave rise to the scientific method. Skepticism about everything, not just immaterial substances, is part of the empirical method.”
The rise of science and scientific methodology predated empiricism and scepticism. The age of science was well under way when Locke and Hume appeared. Despite offical resistence, it was the mileu of the Judeo-Christian (dualistic) world view that gave rise to scientific investigation.
“I understand ‘nature’ to mean all that exists. Thus, by definition, anything that is ’supernatural’ super-exists? Existence is binary. Either something exists and is part of nature or it does not. Having ’super-existence’ doesn’t make any sense.”
Presupposed in the above statement is the materialist belief that all that exists is material “stuff” and is a restatement of what you said in #226. Thus existence is defined a posteriori from sense experience. The presumption is that nothing can exist that cannot be presented to human experience.
I’m wondering what version of cosmological argument you have in mind. You said: “The cosmological argument only proves that a self-caused entity exists.” But did not say self-caused but “uncaused” and “self-existent” By “self-existent” I mean existing of or by himself, independent of any other being or cause.
A self-caused entity is impossible. Causality of existence demands that a being be prior to itself in order to cause itself.
You said: “If God is real, It definitely needs to be made of something. My guess is that God is a necessary emergent phenomenon of all matter. Thus It is ultimately material in nature.”
First, it seems to me that if something is an “emergent phenomenon” of matter, it must be contingent on matter, and if contingent, then it can’t be necessary.
Second, what material entity can be an emergent phenomenon of ALL matter? If such an entity can or does exist, could it be greater than all matter? Would such an entity empirically verifiable since you say that “it is ultimately material in nature”?
Third, all our experience of the universe indicates that no part of it is uncaused. All natural entities, all the bits of the universe, are contingent and finite. Everything and every event has a cause for its existence. If everything, the whole universe, comprises the aggregate of contingent, dependent entities, then the universe as a whole requires a cause. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being.
Therefore, there must necessarily exist a first uncaused Cause of all that exists.
June 6th, 2007 at 6:38 am
“Si” ….unintended abreviation for sidfaiwu
June 6th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Hey Neando,
Wow, do we have a lot to discuss. You bring up some great points that I would love to debate. But I’m afraid that we’ve already hijacked this thread far too much to continue here. Would you be willing to continue the discussion via email? I’m sure most RF readers don’t want to read any more about a debate on metaphysics. Just let me know.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Hello Neando,
“the Judeo-Christian (dualistic) world view….”?
As I understand it, goodness, being eternally in God’s character, precedes evil, according to the Judeo-Chtistian world view.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Hello MAPK L
I think Neando was referring to the supposed mind-body (or soul-body) dualism that most Christians believe in.
June 6th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Oh, Thanks Sid, That make it clear.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:32 am
Hello MAPK,
By dualism in this context of the Judeo-CHristian world view, I mean that theism, as such, is the concept that God is essentially transcendent of the universe that He created. That is, there are two entities–God and that Universe. Monism, by contrast, is the view that the Universe is (in CS Lewis’s words) “the whole show.” This view is shared by a wide range of religions and philosophies.
Dualism, in the context of the mind/body problem, is as sids said. This involves the concept that the mind cannot be reduced to matter. I recently saw an interesting brief paper on this by the philospher Dallas Willard: http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=49
Sid, thanks for the discussion. I did once have in mind doing a defence of Abraham but never seemed to get to it. I felt that to get to some of the issues underlying, we needed to consider some of our world view assumptions. You are probably right that we are a bit far from that thread. If you wish to email me would it be possible to get my address from Gasmonso rather than for me to publish it here?
Regards
June 7th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Neando and Sid,
Thanks to you both for clearing up my puzzlement. I suppose my tendency to…or it may be a propensity for associating the term dualism specifically with good and evil derives from an enduring admiration of Francis Schaeffer. Interesting, Neando, what you mentioned about C.S. Lewis. I have read several of his works, but don’t recall coming across that expression “the whole show.†Guess I have some reading to catch up on. And thanks for the link.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Hello Neando (and all),
I have a better idea. Let’s just move the discussion over to my blog. That way, anyone can contribute to the debate and on the outside chance that other RF readers want to continue to read our debate, they can do so. Here’s a link to the post on my blog.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:27 am
Sid
OK that sounds fine. I am a bit intermitent and that would probably be more suitable.
MAPK L
I couldn’t tell you off hand which of Lewis’s many works the quote is in. Perhaps “Mere Christianity” which is one of his most popular books, or, more likely, “Miracles” which is quite a bit more difficult but worth the read.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Here’s a nifty C.S. Lewis Quote:
From this page on The Atlantic Online website.
FYI, Neando, my response is up on my website.
June 8th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Thanks again to Sid and Neando,
That’s a great quote from “Reflections On The Psalms,” once more clearly supporting a steering-away from organised religion as authority over the individual or the masses.
The other quote does seem more likely to be from “Miracles,” with which I am only remotely familiar. “Mere Christianity” is one of the best works, long or short, on apologetics I know of.
June 9th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Sid, MAPK,
That quote was not from “Reflections on the Psalms” (I’ve just read that book). I have not come across the quote in my reading of Lewis, but I’ve seen a reference to it in a quote from C.S. Lewis, “A Reply to Prof. Haldane, in On Stories and Other Essays,” pp. 75-76.
But there is a quote from Ch 3 of Reflections of interest here: “If the Divine call does not make us better, it will make us very much worse. Of all bad men, religious bad men are the worst. . . .” Another way of saying it may be that religious freaks are the the worst kind. I generally agree, but sometimes wonder. Last century was the bloodiest of all mankind has known. The freaks at the forefront: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc., could hardly be said to be religious or operating from religious motivations. That said, you might say that they were operating with “religious” fervour, from an ultimate commitment. With that I would agree.
Has anyone here defined what a freak is?
Sid, sorry to keep our discussion in limbo. I hope to get an opportunity later today (NZ time).
June 9th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
@naendo
it’s been previously explained: the reason this century was this “bloody” was simply because of superior technology. think about the times of the 100 year war, and what would have happened if they had todays weapons and tech.
and i’m glad to hear that hitler, stalin and pol pot were just missing religion… cause we all know how peaceful religious people are. they would NEVER engage in wars or conflicts of any kind. what a BS argument…
also, don’t forget american presidents… “men of god” all of them, yet somehow i don’t think there was a single presidency since WW2 without a war that was in some way initiated by the US.
June 9th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Hello Neando,
I was only reprinting straight from The Atlantic’s website. I wonder how the Atlantic managed to miss-attribute that quote. Thanks for the substitute.
Well, in one sense, you are right. The worst monsters of the 20th century were not religious, which contradicts Lewis’s quote. But despite the horrible actions of these men, the 20th century was actually the least bloody century we have on record, per capita. So in addition to what boris has pointed out, the reason we had more deaths in the 20th century in large part due to the huge number of people living in that century. Here are a few choice quotes from the linked article:
(emphasis mine)
As we all know, as the Age of Reason took hold in Europe, religious influence on government decreased. Thus I would claim that C.S. Lewis is still right, religious freaks make the worst kind.
June 10th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
The Concise OED, ninth ed., defines Freak thus: 3rd entry “(coloquial) a: an unconventional person, b: a person with a specified enthusiasm or interest.â€
To categorize Akiane or Marjo Gortner, say, or all post-WWII US presidents, or even Joan of Arc, with the religious or non-religious tyrants being discussed here, in itself, seems to me, run-away enthusiasm.
June 11th, 2007 at 9:23 am
run-away enthusiasm, I like it. It is actually a great description of people we should watch-out for.
June 16th, 2007 at 5:40 am
Hi folks,
“Freak”
“1. Any abnormal phenomenon or product or unusual object; anomaly; aberration.
2. A person or animal on exhibition as an example of a strange deviation from nature; monster. . . .”
So a freak is a person (or something) that has deviated from the norm in some way.
So is a “religious freak” A. an abnormal person who has become religious? B. Everyone who is religious must thereby be a freak? or C. A person who, unlike normal religious persons, is abnormally religious?
June 16th, 2007 at 6:14 am
Boris,
Even if last century was not the bloodiest per capita (as per Steven Pinker) my point was that, given that the great genocides mentioned were driven by secular and atheistic agendas (whether on the left or right), the claim that the removal of religion from the world would avoid such and bring peace, etc., (as in “No-religion-is-peace”)is simply false. A particular ideological or religious belief will often provide the motivation and driving force for war, but then there are many that do just the opposite.
Instead, we should look for something more universal and basic–human nature itself. Pinker was right in debunking “the noble savage” myth. He assumes the natural corruption of mankind as the base cause of violence and then looks at modern trends that tend to ameliorate that tendency.
The question that should be asked is what part does a particular ideology, religion or world view play in the justification or condemnation of violence? And, even more basic, whether our own world view provides legitimate grounds for condemning or justifying violence.
June 29th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Hi again, Neando,
I would say the defintion of the term, Freak, offered by the Concise OED, ninth ed. 3rd entry: “(coloquial): a person with a specified enthusiasm or interest,†somewhat loosely, but most nearly describes Akiane. More formally, I think, within a religious context, the term should be applied, to notorious extremists such as Rasputin, or others in his category.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I found paparazzi nude video whith Alessandra Ambrosio >>
click here Alessandra Ambrosio nude gallary sextape or just follow the link http://digg.com/celebrity/Alessandra_Ambrosio_nude_pictures_naked_video_sextape_3
You MUST SEE it, this girl really beautifull!!!
April 29th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Full sex tape video whith Tara Reid
click here Tara Reid nude gallery sextape or just follow the link http://digg.com/celebrity/Tara_Reid_nude_pictures_naked_video_sextape
You MUST SEE it, this chik really beautifull!!!
May 24th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
IndyCar Series Driver Danica Patrick talks about modeling for the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition.
Danica Patrick 20Q Playboy Interview or just follow the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZYb4m1nY4g
You MUST SEE it, this girl really HOT!!!
May 27th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
I watch this guy for year, yea he do a lot of crazy stuff, but I know he is a really good and nice person. My boyfriend got his all best fights and we probably going to pray today and watch his in ring - so sad love you Mike.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
It is a lot of talking about Michael Jackson dead, it’s a very emotional for me because I love his muskc, I still didn’t believe in his dead. Hi was a definitely Knig of music
July 6th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I wonder why reliogus freaks are not commanded by GOD to cut off their dicks, before they have children, so they would stop reproducting their shitfaced madness and stop their insane smindless suffering and useless zombie lifes.
If god really existed, he would command it instantly.
August 15th, 2009 at 4:04 am
Alessandra Ambrosio is so a nice looking. What do you think about she?
October 30th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Thanks! Its realy cool. I think you make realy hard work.