Well you may disagree, but I can’t help but think that when 56% of atheists believe that the Christian living next door who believes the Bible is God’s word is just as dangerous as the terrorists living in the Middle East who believes that Allah commands him to kill all the infidels.
The poll goes on to show that the “God-gap” may be one of the largest divisions in America. Here are some of the main differences between the two groups.
The good news for atheists/agnostics: They are more likely to say they are into new technology (64% versus 52%) and to assert that they adapt easily to change (81% versus 66%). They are also significantly less likely to say they are convinced they are right about things in life (38% versus 55%). They are less likely to say they are overweight (26% versus 41%).
They earn more money and are more likely to have a college degree. The younger the demographics the higher the percentage of people who describe themselves as atheist or agnostic.
The bad news: Atheists are more likely to be motivated by acquiring wealth (10% versus 2%) and to describe themselves as feeling stressed out (37% versus 26%). They are less likely to describe themselves “at peace” (67% versus 90%), to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%), to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%), to describe themselves as “active in the community” (41% versus 68%), and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%).
One of the largest gaps is donations to charities. The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006 to charitable causes, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500).
What does this study mean, if anything?
I think that, if secularists have this perception of Christians, that it is largely your own fault. No, I don't think you guys are as great a threat as Islamist terrorist fanatics, but I do think that certain strains of Christianity are a threat to our democracy and our freedoms. Large swaths of Evangelical, fundamentalist, and conservative Christian groups routinely use fanatical and extremist language in their pursuit of political power. Just look at statements emanating from such leaders as Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson, blaming minority elements for supposed corruption of society and proposing what can only be described as a fundamentalist, theocratic government. Look at seeker's zealotry and bully-boy rhetoric: I find him scary. Throughout its history, Christianity has resorted to persecutions and suppression of free-thinking peoples in its quest for power. Why not again?
Look at seeker's zealotry and bully-boy rhetoric: I find him scary. Throughout its history, Christianity has resorted to persecutions and suppression of free-thinking peoples in its quest for power.
Not as scary as I find your poor logic and willingness to call your opponents essentially the same as fundamentalist Islamist murderers. If this type of logic and fear tactics is what rules the left, there is much to fear.
I may have over-reacted to your repetition of poor logic regarding the scriptures ("how could god condone Lot's offer of his daughters), but I guess I do that because I hear it so often from anti-religionists who (a) have no interest in changing their views, and (b) are only painting such straw men to further their contentions.
I get really tired of such poor scripture handling, because in most cases the antagonists ARE smart enough to know better, but persist in illogical handling of scripture because they are not interested in actually using hermeneutics, since they don't want to debunk the "data" they have for doubting or finding fault with xianity.
So I apologize for jumping on you, and I'll do better.
Believe it or not, most of us on the "right" are free thinkers, and not the demons that the tight circle of progressives like to make out as they re-enforce their perceptions in isolation from real conservatives.
Hi All
Here is my opinion: it is crazy to call Christian fundamentalists dangerous, except for a few kooks like that Rudolph guy who bombed the Atlanta Olympics. It is also crazy to call atheists dangerous, except for a few kooks. Islamic radicals are dangerous given that their ideology includes mass murder. The same is true for the former Cold Warriors (like VP Cheney), old KGBers (like Putin) and any other folks who believe they can calculate when it's OK to kill people for their cause. That's the belief system that threatens us.
your friend
Keith
Not as scary as I find your poor logic and willingness to call your opponents essentially the same as fundamentalist Islamist murderers. If this type of logic and fear tactics is what rules the left, there is much to fear.
I made a point of not calling you "essentially the same" as Islamist terrorists! Can't you read? I repeat,
No, I don't think you guys are as great a threat as Islamist terrorist fanatics, but I do think that certain strains of Christianity are a threat to our democracy and our freedoms.
"Certain strains" is the important part here. No, I don't think that all Christians are dangerous fanatics and terrorists. And there's no "poor logic" here at all: I was simply reporting my reaction to the rhetoric and tactics that the religious right routinely uses. You people may think you are as pure as the driven snow but that's not how you come off most of the time. We don't want to be ruled by your religion! We don't want it forced on us by you guys using the government! And we don't want your irrational views on science imposed on us either.
And, I'm not interested in apologetic readings of biblical atrocities. Though your book has some good and moral stuff, it's also burdened with much superstition and primitive drivel. Sorry.
Hi Skeptic:
You wrote: And, I'm not interested in apologetic readings of biblical atrocities. Though your book has some good and moral stuff, it's also burdened with much superstition and primitive drivel. Sorry.
I probably agree with you about a fair amount of your take on the atrocities thing, and since you are not a Christian (I am right about that, no?) you might not be interested in an abstract discussion about Bible interpretation. but I'd be interested in your response if you have one.
Let's take as a given (for the sake of discussion) that God exists and that God caused the authors of the Bible to wrote what they wrote. I personally believe that God inspired the Bible but that its inspiration was filtered through finite, fallible, even sinful human beings and thus might well contain errors, biases and claims that are limited by their cultural prejudices. But for the sake of discussion, let's assume the Bible is word for word what God wanted to be written. So here are the questions that IMO arise:
1. Could the Bible contain fiction written by God? Fiction isn't the same as error, and if the fiction communicates some important truth, it doesn't matter if the "facts" in the story really happened.
2. The Bible described God as perfectly merciful and just, and described God as having commanded certain military actions that seem pretty brutal. Given the assumptions of this discussion, the latter must be consistent with the former. Is that really impossible? Couldn't a being that is supposedly infinitely powerful and infinitely intelligent at least possibly figure out a plan that end up being perfectly merciful and just if you looked at all the details, but that seemed cruel if you don't see the whole thing? The analogy would be the doctor who gives a child a shot–the "cruelty" of the shot is only apparent from teh child's blindness to the big picture.
3. How about this possibility: part of god's merciful plan was to give humanity freedom. Given this freedom, it turns out that the Israelites would–like most peoples–sometimes resort to military actions to achieve their goals. Israel's militarism is thus part of the raw materials from which God in his providential guidance has to work with. Thus God didn't choose nor endorse committing atrocities–that was a political given for human societies at the time–he simply told then to do this instead of that, so the world would end up at the right place for him to accomplish his plan of salvation.
The point of my speculation isn't to win you for Christ; my goal is much less ambitious. My point is to show that there is no contradiction in a fairly conservative Christian theology. Superstituous drivel? I think your characterization might be based on the all to common superstituous confidence in "science".
your FRiend
Keith
"Certain strains" is the important part here. No, I don't think that all Christians are dangerous fanatics and terrorists.
I stand corrected. I should not impute to you the sins of our frequent secularist fundamentalist commenters.
And, I'm not interested in apologetic readings of biblical atrocities. Though your book has some good and moral stuff, it's also burdened with much superstition and primitive drivel. Sorry.
Fine, but I think that such conclusions are usually based on a poor survey of the bible, a lack of any rigor around studying the items listed, and the use of the word superstition is really a catch phrase which means "I don't care what archeology or history say, as long as there are miracles involved, it's all hooey because I don't believe in that." When you use such typical rhetoric, it rings of the typical UN-critical examination of the bible and history and philosophy.
I personally believe that God inspired the Bible but that its inspiration was filtered through finite, fallible, even sinful human beings and thus might well contain errors, biases and claims that are limited by their cultural prejudices.
So how can such a fallible work claim to be "inspired"? I mean, then you have reduced the bible down to the level of any other "inspiring" book, if you will.
I think I agree with Barth that the bible is not the revelation of God, but a record of the revelation of God. I also might disagree with plenary inspiration (word for word), but that the concepts and ideas AND history, though phenomenologically described, are accurate.
The problem you have with introducing the possibility of error is that you can then use this to disavow any teaching you like. Don't like the bible's condemnation of homosexuality? Well, they were obviously in error about that.
How can the bible be authoritative for the Christian if it contains errors?
The analogy would be the doctor who gives a child a shot–the "cruelty" of the shot is only apparent from teh child's blindness to the big picture.
The problem with good analogies is like that of good trucks – eventually, even the best of them break down. Where this one breaks down is, a shot is temporarily painful, but when a person is DEAD, they are dead. Correction is one thing, extermination is quite another.
But if you look at the whole of humanity rather than the individual, you might be able to use this reasoning – certain people, having given themselves over to evil so completely, are beyond help, and so, for the sake of the rest of us, they had to be exterminated.
But this principle can not be applied to their children. But there is another principle which does apply. Like it or not, our decisions affect our children. If a woman is a drug addict, it is not the child's fault that it is a crack baby. But it suffers nonetheless.
And if we, as the heads of our families, rebel against God, God's judgment and the consequences of our choices come down on us AND our children, and WE are to blame, not the judge. Is that fair? I would argue that, while it does not seem fair to the child, what is unfair is that we are so callous as to think that our sins only affect us, and then when the consequences come, we blame God for being unjust, when really, he gave us care over ourselves and our families, and WE failed to care for them.
The modern secularist might not like such logic, but I think it has some merit that needs to be explored. You can't have responsibility without authority, and if we want to be given the privilege of having children, we need to take responsibility.
Hi Seeker:
So how can such a fallible work claim to be "inspired"? I mean, then you have reduced the bible down to the level of any other "inspiring" book, if you will.
I'd not quite agree. A fallible Bible could be inspired the same way a fallible Apostle (like Paul) could be inspired. You don't think Paul was infallible, surely you agree that if you look at all the things he said in his life after the road to Damascus, some of the things he said were errors. So your justifieed belief in the Gospel he taught isn't dependent on his being infallible. Why couldn't the same thing be true for the Bible?
The problem you have with introducing the possibility of error is that you can then use this to disavow any teaching you like. Don't like the bible's condemnation of homosexuality? Well, they were obviously in error about that.
The process you describe above, a person deciding what to "believe" based on what he wants to believe is also possible for a biblical inerrantist. There are all kinds of people who believe the Bible is without error who disagree about what that inerrant bible says, so belief in inerrancy doesn't seem to help in the problem you suggest.
How can the bible be authoritative for the Christian if it contains errors?
Now an honest person might see an errant Bible like this: a pointer to the truth that he can recognize when he sees it. it seems to me that if such wasn't possible it wouldn't be possible for you to know the bible to be inerrant in the first place.
BTW, I think there might be a theological problem with reading the Bible as "authoritative" for Christians; I think such might promote a Pharisaic legalistic view of the Gospel.
The problem with good analogies is like that of good trucks – eventually, even the best of them break down. Where this one breaks down is, a shot is temporarily painful, but when a person is DEAD, they are dead. Correction is one thing, extermination is quite another.
God, of course, has the power to bring the dead back to life–thanks be to God for that.
your friend
Keith
There are all kinds of people who believe the Bible is without error who disagree about what that inerrant bible says, so belief in inerrancy doesn't seem to help in the problem you suggest.
I agree, but the errantist (if you will) view you are espousing has it's own unique problem. How do you tell what is inspired and true and what is not, if you don't trust the text?
BTW, nice analogy with Paul, I am somewhat included to agree.
I think there might be a theological problem with reading the Bible as "authoritative" for Christians; I think such might promote a Pharisaic legalistic view of the Gospel.
True, but only if you accept the clergy's interpretation as authoritative. And of course, historically speaking, Christians have three authorities in their spiritual life – the scriptures, their experience of truth, and the traditional teachings of the church.
And of course, protestants place them in that order, while the Catholics have been accused of placing Church teaching above scripture above experience.
By authoritative, I mean that the scriptures alone define what it means to be a Christian. What other authority is there?
However, I think I would agree that the scriptures, though in themselves have a living and active quality, are in some sense merely a pointer, a signpost pointing us towards experiencing God directly
hi Seeker:
We agree on some things and disagree on others. Sorry to focus so much on our disagreements, but…
1. I think the dilemma you pose–how to separate the imspired from the non-inspired parts in an errant Bible–might be a non-problem. Inerrantists had to face a similar problem when they decided that the Bible itself was inerrant, without already possessing an inerrant source how did they decide the Bible had NO errors?
2. Let me clarify my point about Biblical inerrantism and legalism. I don't believe the Bible ought to be considered an encyclopedia of moral facts, not in the sense that we can have moral knowledge that X is wrong simply because the Bible says so. if we cannot recognize the moral truth of a biblical passage, then the Bible claiming it is epistemologically worthless. Reading the Bible as the "answer book" leads to treating the Gospel legalistically, not touching our consciences at all.
your friend
keith
Inerrantists had to face a similar problem when they decided that the Bible itself was inerrant,
I see your point. However, they used some well-known measures for canonicity, and it was not what they emotionally felt was right, as you know.
Again, I think you are half right, and the half you appear to be ignoring is the problematic part for me. How do you determine which part is canonical? It sounds like the Jesus Seminar all over again.
I don't believe the Bible ought to be considered an encyclopedia of moral facts
While it is not meant to be an exhaustive list of "moral facts," I would say that the moral principles and specific moral prohibitions (as opposed to the ceremonial and dietary) it does contain are morally binding and timeless. And while the bible is in some sense not meant to be read or implemented as a list, I would not decide that it's lists of moral prohibitions are not instructive to the Christian.
if we cannot recognize the moral truth of a biblical passage, then the Bible claiming it is epistemologically worthless.
And what rule to you use to "recognize" it? For example, how do you recognize, or dismiss, say, the morality of homosexuality? I use that not to be contentious, but precisely because it is argued that this prohibition is at best out of date and archaic.
Reading the Bible as the "answer book" leads to treating the Gospel legalistically, not touching our consciences at all.
I think legalism is cause by things other than just a serious committment to the authority of the truths of scripture. Jesus said that they were such, and yet he was not a legalist. Paul claimed them to be morally binding, and arguably, he was not a legalist either (see Galatians and Romans ;). Legalism may have much to do with applying merely the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law, but if you only emphasize what feels right, you have the opposite error. As I like to say:
Experience without doctrine leads to heresy
Doctrine without experience leads to Pharisee.
If you do not hold the scriptures as authoritative in some way, and elevate personal understanding and feeling as the ultimate arbiter of truth, I think you are on one rail of a two railed track. But this matter will quickly get deeper as we talk about the relationship between faith and understanding/reason, and how we make truth our own by "knowing" it intuitively, as opposed to how we often FAIL to intuit truth because, as Paul says, our minds are darkened by this world and it's thinking.
Hi Seeker:
You mention criteria for canonicity, but canonicity isn't the same thing as inerrancy. I am somewhat familiar with the usual tests for canonicity, but I don't see any similar test for inerrancy.
your friend
keith
I'm not sure, but I think Keith is trying too hard to justify the obvious absurdities of scripture to hold on to his Christian identity. Why not just jettison the out-dated and absurd stuff and keep what you want? seeker is on firmer ground because he takes it on face value. I, myself, see not problem because I attribute no supernatural authority to what is an obviously man-made document. Thus, I take from it what I will, and discard the rest. The world's literature holds so much that is both more profound and more human that I have little trouble in disregarding most of the Bible. (Of course, this doesn't mean I can't take from it what is good.)
Hi Skeptic:
I'm not sure, but I think Keith is trying too hard to justify the obvious absurdities of scripture to hold on to his Christian identity. Why not just jettison the out-dated and absurd stuff and keep what you want?
I was hoping you'd be more willing to critically examine the issues I raised instead of playing the "it;s obvious" card. IMO it's obvious that there's more to this life than can be captured by science, but that doesn't stop me from thinking about the claims atheists make to the contrary.
Since you don't know which parts I think are true, I can't see what basis you have for evaluating my motives. I'll assume you consider things like talking snakes and bushes, and people rising from the dead, to be obvious absurdities. How are those things any more absurd than the idea that matter is BOTH a particle and a wave, or that separate events can happen simultaneously for one observer but non-simultaneously for the other? There are lots of "obvious absurdities" in the world that turn out to be true, closing your mind to such possibilities limits ones thinking.
your friend
Keith
You want obvious absurdities? The entire cosmos was created in six Earth days. Joshua stopping the sun in the sky so he could win a battle. God murdering the first-born sons (including the infants) so that His "chosen" people could escape Egypt. God murdering a bunch of children because they teased a "prophet." A lone man pulling down an entire temple. Covering the entire planet (up to and over Mt. Everest)with water because he was in a snit about the results of his artwork. Dividing mankind into tribes because some king got the big head and built a tower a few stories tall (why isn't He mad now that we're shooting rocket ships into space?). Ordering his "chosen" people to commit genocide so they could have their land. And so on.
Those are just reported incidents. What about more fundamental elements? Consider: The notion that the entire Cosmos is 6,000 years old! How about His attitude towards gays, causing thousands of years of untold misery? How about His attitude towards women, causing the same? How about raising standards so high that we can't help but fail, causing untold guilt and misery? How about everyone being condemned (from before birth) to the unbelievable fate of unending torture because we can't live up to his unattainable standards, with the only way out to force ourselves to believe the unbelievable?
It's absurd. It's crazy. Only a crazy person could believe this stuff.
I'm open to the notion that this is all the record of a primitive people's struggles with the weirdness of life and their perceived relation with the divine. And that it has some good philosophy and lessons and stories. The figure of Jesus is attractive (if you ignore his constant threats) and worthy of attention. But considering it inerrant and the final word on our relations with the divine? Sorry. The annals of history are replete with other texts and traditions that can offer as much, or more, wisdom. Why not study them and take them as seriously? Why take as inerrant, or as the last word, the records of a people who thought the Earth was flat and that the entire cosmos (such as it was) revolved around it? Who knew nothing about microbes or mental illness or sexual identity? Who thought illness was caused by "sin" and drove the "unclean" from their midst?
I can't.
I'm open to the notion that this is all the record of a primitive people's struggles with the weirdness of life and their perceived relation with the divine.
How generous of you. How about being open to the idea that your interpretations of the "absurdities" you mentioned are incorrect? If you are not open to that idea, you might as well admit that your only business here will be trying to convert us to your "skeptical" point of view.
Unlike Christians, I am not interested in converting anyone. I like to discuss things. I like to find out truths and facts. The skeptical point of view is the best way to do that.
I'd like to hear your interpretation of God's murdering Egyptian male infants.
hi Skeptic:
Thank you for adding to the list I began of possible "obvious absurdities". So I repeat my question: how is that more absurd than the idea that star A could have formed before star B for one observer, and yet the same star A formed after star B for a different observer. Absurd and yet true according to Einstein.
your friend
keith
Such conundrums are only absurd based on our incomplete, Newtonian, "common sense" view of reality. Science is giving us a wider, more profound view of things. The stories told in the Bible are of a different order entirely. The idea that the sun could stop in the sky or the planet be completely inundated are unscientific and impossible. The bible also contains what we nowadays would consider barbarities, perpetrated with the approval of God. These aren't, technically, absurdities, just atrocities. Do you think it's okay to commit genocide against other tribes because you want their land? Is it okay to murder innocent infants and children? The fact that the Bible presents these actions as righteous is absurd.
It may be that, from the perspective of a god (cf, the Greek Pantheon), these would be perfectly fine. I, however, am a humanist and stand with humanity against the gods' inscrutable actions. Why just accept this stuff without question or criticism? Why not just see it as manifestations of cultures more primitive or uninformed than our own?
I am considering what I like about Christianity and will post on it later. Once one clears away the cultural artifacts and unscientific crapola, the Pearl can be found.
Hi Skeptic:
you wrote: Such conundrums are only absurd based on our incomplete, Newtonian, "common sense" view of reality. Science is giving us a wider, more profound view of things.
What this shows is that our ability to detect the absurd is limited by our incomplete understanding. The Bible believing Christian could argue that the biblical "absurdities" are only absurd based on your incomplete, atheist, "common sense" view of reality. Other than calling him names, I don't see what you have to say to him. My counsel would be humility.
your friend
keith
your friend
keith
Hi Skeptic:
I should have commented on this as well, sorry about that.
Do you think it's okay to commit genocide against other tribes because you want their land? Is it okay to murder innocent infants and children? The fact that the Bible presents these actions as righteous is absurd.
Well, my personal opinion on this matter isn't relevant to the discussion, so I'll save it for later. But the principle you seem to be using here is that it is never OK to cause the deaths of large numbers of people, of innocent children and infants etc. I take it you are a pacifist? I take it you consider the US military actions in WW II to be unjustified atrocities? I take it you consider the Native American military resistance to the US genocide against them to be an atrocity?
I am not being combative here, I am trying to make a point. Consistent application of the principle you seem to embrace demands that you are a pacifist. Or so it seems to me.
your friend
keith
The actions I cited in the Bible were either ordered by God or committed by Him. Don't you think He should be held to a higher standard? Our actions in WWII weren't genocidal. We didn't attack Japan and Germany to steal their lands and kill or enslave them. In fact, we went to war to stop them from those very actions. Pacifism has nothing to do with it.
Actually, arguing with a bible-believing Christian is pretty much a waste of time. Still, it's fun twitting them now and again.
hi Skeptic:
You wrote: The actions I cited in the Bible were either ordered by God or committed by Him. Don't you think He should be held to a higher standard? Our actions in WWII weren't genocidal. We didn't attack Japan and Germany to steal their lands and kill or enslave them. In fact, we went to war to stop them from those very actions. Pacifism has nothing to do with it.
The common principle in WW II and the alleged God-commanded mass killings is: killing thousands of innocents can be justified depending on the circumstances. You apparently agree with this principle. So on what grounds do you claim it is unlikely God had justified reasons for (allegedly) mandating such killing?
your friend
keith
This is the problem with a theistic definition of God. You get tangled up in all kinds of conundrums trying to justify the evils he commits. Since I don't believe in such a concept, I refuse to get involved in conversations supposing it.
btw: If you can't see the moral difference between the U.S. and Japan/Germany during WWII there's no use discussing it.
Hi Skeptic:
you wrote: This is the problem with a theistic definition of God. You get tangled up in all kinds of conundrums trying to justify the evils he commits. Since I don't believe in such a concept, I refuse to get involved in conversations supposing it.
But you presupposed just that (for the sake of discussion) when you said "The actions I cited in the Bible were either ordered by God or committed by Him". And just what conundrums have I become tangled in? You accept that mass killing of innocents is sometimes OK, but you suggest that it is implausible to imagine that a being who is infinitely intelligent would be able to calculate when those situations obtained. It seems to me that your view is inconsistent.
your friend
Keith
Yes, I fell into temptation and discussed things as if a theistic god existed. I might say that your God is "infinitely intelligent," but he is also supposed to be infinitely good. I find this supposed goodness incompatible with the facts.
Given the hideous reality in which we live, it is an unfortunate fact that sometimes the death of innocents is required to forestall even greater evils (thus is tragedy born). Of course, I find all this incompatible with the notion of a good, theistic god.
Given the hideous reality in which we live, it is an unfortunate fact that sometimes the death of innocents is required to forestall even greater evils (thus is tragedy born).
So, you have admitted that in the hideous reality in which we live, sometimes such mass killing is a necessary evil. I would therefore argue that, in this same reality, God may be justified in taking the same actions.
And as I will explain in my second post in the Evaluating God's Righteousness series, sometimes innocents receive the consequences of their parents' and leaders' poor choices. And those consequences might include a nuclear bomb (Hiroshima) or God's judgement.
Secondly, as you so astutely said, "the death of innocents is required to forestall even greater evils." If God can foresee the future, perhaps the destruction of innocents who would turn out to do even more damage to mankind is a regrettable necessity. In fact, if you look at the history of Israel, you will see that every time a Jewish leader disobeyed God and failed to kill everyone, inevitably, those left alive ended up becoming exceedingly wicked, and future enemies of Israel (with a grudge, not doubt).
No one is saying that killing innocents is a good thing, but it may be a necessity to limit future suffering.
Of course, I find all this incompatible with the notion of a good, theistic god.
Well, now you are clearly articulating the most classic argument against God, known as "the problem of evil." If God is good and omnipotent, how could he let this mess happen in the first place? While there are many attempts at explaining this away, I don't find any of them really satisfying.
And yet I believe, but for other reasons which convince me DESPITE my remaining questions. The main reasons I believe despite some unanswered questions like the one you mention are:
– A better question than "do I understand it" or "do I like it" is "is it TRUE?" Sometimes the truth is initially, or continually unpalatable or incomprehensible to us, but we can still use some basic epistemological principles to answer the truth question.
– I AM convinced of many other intellectual truths about Jesus, the validity of the scriptures, myself, and about God. These convictions are enough for me to believe, and for me to question my doubts while I wait for future understanding.
– Though subjective and not authoritative in it's own right, I have an ongoing EXPERIENCE with God and the Jesus of the Bible. While I don't put all of my eggs in this basket, I do not discount my experience either.
Hi Skeptic:
You wrote:
Yes, I fell into temptation and discussed things as if a theistic god existed. I might say that your God is "infinitely intelligent," but he is also supposed to be infinitely good. I find this supposed goodness incompatible with the facts.
It was perfectly proper for you to stipulate God's existence for the sake of discussion, so that you could show a(n alleged) horrible inconsistency between the Christian claims about God's goodness and the Old testament claims about God the military leader. Thats' what the discussion was about.
Given the hideous reality in which we live, it is an unfortunate fact that sometimes the death of innocents is required to forestall even greater evils (thus is tragedy born). Of course, I find all this incompatible with the notion of a good, theistic god.
ON what grounds would the existence of tragedy be incompatible with the notion of a good, theistic God? I assume you are using something like this:
1. If God is all powerful then he could eliminate all suffering.
2. If God is loving, he would eliminate all the suffering he could.
3. Therefore, if God with the usually claimed atrributes exists then no suffering would exist.
Is that about it?
your friend
Keith
Yes, humans may be forced on occasion to resort to the killing of innocents to forestall even greater dangers. But I don't think this lets the Christian God off the hook. After all, He is supposed to be perfect, all-knowing, and perfectly good. He should be held to a higher standard, I think, than fallible, relatively ignorant humans who just have to muddle through. If someone or some group of people poses a future danger, why not just have them disappear, or, better yet, never be born at all? Why all the torment and suffering?
Of course, supposedly He is so far above us that we can't understand His motives. The only answer, as seeker admits, is to declare it all a mystery and get on with life. However, the problem just won't go away, will it? We're told by Christian authorities that a standard of conduct has been established by God and we are expected to follow it or else – all the while, God violates it whenever He pleases. It does seem to undercut the whole enterprise. What's the point, anyway? Surveying human history, it just seems a cauldron of torment and struggle, with some bright spots here and there (usually swiftly snuffed out).
I look at things from the human viewpoint (since I am human), and God seems so remote and invisible that, despite the assertions of religionists, I can't see any indication that such a being exists. It seems that believers give Him all the credit for the good things and humans all the blame for the bad. Doesn't He have any responsibility for the mess? After all, He's the creator, the prime mover, the power behind it all. From the looks of things, He's either incompetent, malicious, dead, or non-existent. Why is He hiding? It's been over 2,000 years since His last appearance (disregarding the Muslim and Mormon extravaganzas). Everyone around Jesus (including the man himself) apparently thought the end was near. What happened?
Whatever the case, I'm not convinced by the arguments of His followers. Which, of course, isn't to say that I have some concept of Ultimate Reality.
Of course, supposedly He is so far above us that we can't understand His motives. The only answer, as seeker admits, is to declare it all a mystery and get on with life.
That's not quite what I mean, but close. I'd say that we should be willing to admit that our finite and unregenerate mind may not comprehend YET. It may not be mystery in the future, but we should be willing to live with some ambiguity in light of our finite nature out of humility and acceptance that WE are not God.
We don't have to use that as a general pass for God on all things we disagree with, but I only admit that, if the answers given us are not convincing, we might do better to leave the Jury out rather than declaring God guilty.
We're told by Christian authorities that a standard of conduct has been established by God and we are expected to follow it or else – all the while, God violates it whenever He pleases.
I don't think that God has violated his own principles. Justice is part of being righteous. And your characterization of God being capricious is not backed up by the facts – that the nations judged harshly were wicked, not innocent.
God seems so remote and invisible that, despite the assertions of religionists, I can't see any indication that such a being exists.
Understood. Try reading Lamentations or Ecclesiastes, and you will find those feelings expressed rather nicely.
From the looks of things, He's either incompetent, malicious, dead, or non-existent. Why is He hiding? It's been over 2,000 years since His last appearance (disregarding the Muslim and Mormon extravaganzas). Everyone around Jesus (including the man himself) apparently thought the end was near. What happened?
All good questions. [insert standard christian answers here].
Whatever the case, I'm not convinced by the arguments of His followers. Which, of course, isn't to say that I have some concept of Ultimate Reality.
You should read Jesus' words, as the Bible records them (with felicity or not, you decide). They are more than impressive.
Hi Skeptic:
I'm not sure what you mean by "higher standard" here. You agree (I don't know that I agree BTW) that killing innocent people can sometimes be justified for the greater good. Is your claim that God being all-powerful and all-smart ought to be able to find a better way to promote the greater good than we fallible humans who because of our lack of power and lack of smart can't find that better way to promote the greater good?
I think that was the point you were making so I'll respond accordingly. Why think that we not so smart humans are in a position to second guess an infinitely smart being about how best to promote the greater good? Why assume that it'd be OBVIOUS to us that God permitting present suffering wouldn't result in something better in the end than if he prevented present suffering? Why assume that the stuff God would have to do to prevent all present suffering wouldn't preclude something much better in the future? The point is: this is a tricky philosophical issue, and it requires much thought than a dismissive "it's absurd". That's all I'm saying, which is why a little humility is in order.
your friend
keith
"Humility"? Why? To what? I don't believe in your theistic God, so why be humble before a mirage? To me, the rape, torture, and murder of just one small girl disproves the existence of your God. The thought that this will somehow result in something good down the line is repulsive.
As to seeker's contention that the "standard Christian answers" somehow make everything good: my very point is that they don't.
As to seeker's contention that the "standard Christian answers" somehow make everything good: my very point is that they don't.
You misunderstood my comical insertion. What I meant by that is that you may have already heard the pat answers, and even if you hadn't, you would probably not find them satisfying. But I am saying that your objections are common, that many use them to reject God, while many others, like myself and Keith, see past the self-righteous posturing and misjudgment of these events, and follow Jesus anyway because we believe He is who he said He is.
We don't hide from the truth behind such objections, even if they seem valid. We can doubt our doubts when we see the other convincing truths of scripture. We are not blinded by such rash judgments and superficially researched objections.
I mean, you may be right, and you may have done your homework, but I think you err in your conclusions, and it sounds more like a knee jerk than a carefully considered choice.
But we all have to accept or reject the claims of Jesus on our lives.
It's not a "knee jerk" reaction at all (in fact, I could make the same accusation about you). You err if you lump me with the superficial and ill-educated. I take Christianity seriously, so seriously that I think it should be mercilessly criticized. My main objection to it lies in its organized form. As the best parts of it can be found in all cultures and belief-systems, I reject its claims to exclusivity (as I reject theirs). One must sift the wheat from the chaff, judiciously (and sometimes it's like finding a needle in a haystack, to switch metaphors). My main objection is that its mostly based on unproven assertions and that, in its organized form, it is used by the powerful to control the weak. I do think that there is something in the human mind that demands a transcendent answer, but whether that's just a by-product of evolution or a response to some outside reality I'm not sure. Whatever the case, I prefer the stance of skepticism over credulity as the best road to the truth.
Hi Skeptic:
You wrote: "Humility"? Why? To what? I don't believe in your theistic God, so why be humble before a mirage? To me, the rape, torture, and murder of just one small girl disproves the existence of your God. The thought that this will somehow result in something good down the line is repulsive.
That wasn't the humility I was talking about. I was talking about humility in the face of your ignorance (I give the same advice to myself). IMO it is altogether irrational to imagine that we would know better than an infinitely intelligent being the full consequences of his allowing suffering to occur. You report outrage at the idea of rape, torture and murder of a single child and yet you claim that it is permissible for humanity to unleash this degree of horror on thousands for the greater good. I don't agree with that at all, I am a pacifist. But you aren't; you believe that sometimes inflicting tragedy is necessary for the greater good. If that's ever the case then presumably an infinitely intelligent being would know exactly when to allow such, certainly he'd no better than you or I. Your position depends on being able to see that there IS NO possible justification for God to allow suffering–I am suggesting you need to be a little more humble about your evaluative abilities. If you were a pure pacifist, your position would be more understandable.
your friend
keith
Hi Skeptic:
You wrote: My main objection is that its mostly based on unproven assertions and that, in its organized form, it is used by the powerful to control the weak.
The strong use whatever is handy to control the weak. The Nazis used Darwinian evolution to control the weak, and Nietzche's anti-christian ideology. The Communists used Marx' radical democratic (and misunderstood) phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" to control people. The US used atomic physics to control the Japanese and the Russians and the Chinese. The Japanese during WW II used BUDDHISM for crying out loud to control people and convince them to support their militarism. That the powerful misuse things doesn't count against those things.
The Gospel of Christ in no way gives support for the strong against the weak, the Bible gives no support for the strong against the weak. The Old testament is the story of how the powerful leaders went wrong and had to be called back by God and his prophets. A people who really followed Christianity would be IMPOSSIBLE to control since our allegience wouldn't be to any person but to the radical self-sacrficial love of Christ. The organized church has done bad things and has done good things. My own demonination (I'm a Quaker) has been since its formation active in promoting peace and justice, not power and control.
I do think that there is something in the human mind that demands a transcendent answer, but whether that's just a by-product of evolution or a response to some outside reality I'm not sure.
The idea that evolution could cause our minds to be drawn to a false notion of transcendence seems to be self-stultifying. If evolutionary forces could mislead us abuot such things, why think that ANY of our cognitions are right? If we cannot trust ANY of our cognitions then how can we trust our scientific reasoning that leads us to buy evolution?
Whatever the case, I prefer the stance of skepticism over credulity as the best road to the truth.
IMO a sensible person has the proper balance of skepticism and credulity. Total skepticism precludes you from trusting any cognitions and leads to radical solipsistic craziness. Total credulity is just gullibility. But there is no formula for determining the balance; we muddle through cognitively doing the best we can. IMO most of us who believe God do so because of our own personal experiences–the same is true for you and your skepticism. Those experiences can be intellectual examinations of evidence, experiences during reflection, meditation, prayer or worship or all kinds of things. Discussions and debates are informative, but if you ask me there's a whole lot too much hubris on all sides.
your friend
Keith
"The Japanese during WW II used BUDDHISM for crying out loud to control people and convince them to support their militarism."
I'd argue that the Japanese belief in the divinity of their Emperor had more to do with their support for militarism than did Buddhism. Japan was more like a North Korea back then.
MO a sensible person has the proper balance of skepticism and credulity. Total skepticism precludes you from trusting any cognitions and leads to radical solipsistic craziness. Total credulity is just gullibility. But there is no formula for determining the balance; we muddle through cognitively doing the best we can. IMO most of us who believe God do so because of our own personal experiences–the same is true for you and your skepticism. Those experiences can be intellectual examinations of evidence, experiences during reflection, meditation, prayer or worship or all kinds of things. Discussions and debates are informative, but if you ask me there's a whole lot too much hubris on all sides.
Very well said, Keith, I agree completely.
Trusting personal experience is hugely dangerous.
Unless, of course, you don't believe in deception or self-deception.
"I know this medicine works! I can feel it"
"I saw it with my own eyes! He actually bent the spoon using his mind."
"Peter Popoff cured that sweet little old lady of arthritris. She just threw her cane away." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
Scientific scepticism
A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation. The scientific method details the specific process by which this investigation of reality is conducted. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of scepticism. This does not mean that the scientific sceptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the sceptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking.
Common topics that scientifically-skeptical literature questions include health claims surrounding certain foods, procedures, and medicines, such as homeopathy, Reiki, Thought Field Therapy (TFT), vertebral subluxations; the plausibility of supernatural entities (such as ghosts, poltergeists, angels, and gods); as well as the existence of ESP/telekinesis, psychic powers, and telepathy (and thus the credibility of parapsychology); topics in cryptozoology, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, UFOs, crop circles, astrology, repressed memories, creationism, dowsing, conspiracy theories, and other claims the sceptic sees as unlikely to be true on scientific grounds.
Most empirical or scientific skeptics do not profess philosophical scepticism. Whereas a philosophical skeptic may deny the very existence of knowledge, an empirical sceptic merely seeks likely proof before accepting that knowledge.
Activist scepticism
This section does not cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!)
Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time.
Debunker
Activist skeptics, self-described "debunkers" are a subset of scientific skeptics who aim to expose in public what they see as the truth behind specific extraordinary claims. Debunkers may publish books, air TV programs, create websites, or use other means to advocate their message. In some cases they may challenge claimants outright or even stage elaborate hoaxes to prove their point, such as Project Alpha.
Because debunkers often challenge popular ideas, many are not strangers to controversy. Critics of debunkers sometimes accuse them of robbing others of hope. Debunkers frequently reply that it is the claimant, whom they many times accuse of exploiting public gullibility, who is guilty of abuse.
Habitual debunkers are sometimes called pseudoskeptics or pathological skeptics and accused of intentionally relying on pseudoscience masquerading as empirical skepticism.
Religious skepticism
Religious skepticism is skepticism regarding faith-based claims. Religious skeptics may focus on the core tenets of religions, such as the existence of divine beings, or reports of earthly miracles. A religious skeptic is not necessarily an atheist or agnostic.
…………………………………………..
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
For more info check out the archives of James Randi's webpage at http://www.randi.org.
People will believe anything.
They just KNOW it's true.
Hi Cin:
There is nothing you know that didn't come to you by personal experience. You see a guy in the distance and you think it's our friend Bill. That's a personal experience. Yuo aren't sure so you ask your wife next to you if that looks like Bill. You hear her tell you it does. Your hearing her confirm your initial impression is also a personal experience. Later you call Bill on the phone and he confirms to you that he was there–your hearing THAT is also a personal experience. If relying on personal experience is epistemologically dangerous then it's a danger we cannot avoid.
your friend
Keith
Hi Cin
RE: Buddhism and Japanese militarism:
I can't cite the article but I read in the Buddhist magazine Tricycle how the Zen support for the war effort. I am not suggesting that it was ONLY Buddhism.
your friend
keith
Keith,
You see your friend in the distance.
You think it is your friend Bill.
Are you correct?
Maybe yes, maybe no.
How extraordinary is it to claim that it is your friend Bill?
Well, if your friend Bill is your next door neighbour and you see 'Bill' in Bill's backyard, then that's not very extraordinary.
But what if Bill has a twin?
Or if he has a older son that has a strong family resemblance?
In this case, a telephone call or meeting would most likely clear up the matter.
You are not trusting your own personal experience, your checking your facts.
Now what if Bill died three years ago?
He had no twin, no son.
Yet you claim you saw him.
This is an extraordinary claim.
It requires extraordinary evidence.
Hi Cedric:
I think this was your bottom line point, the other stuff being details:
You are not trusting your own personal experience [when you call your friend to confirm he was where you thought he was], your checking your facts.
But your experience of the telephone call was a personal experience because you experienced it personally–if you didn't experience the phone call then you'd not have had the confirmation. That's the point: there is nothing that you know that didn't come to you by your having had some experience of some sort. you see a dim shadow in the distance? That's a personal experience. You clearly see Bill right in front of you and you hear him say "hey, Ced, I thought I'd see you here" and that's a personal experience. We cannot have a blanket distrust of personal experience, and what's more we cannot start out with a blanket skepticism toward personal experience, not if we expect to move beyond that blanket skepticism.
Moving to the thing you said about extraordinary claims: how do you define extraordinary? The claim that God exists isn't extraordinary at all–far more people claim that than claim the opposite. It seems to me that when you call a claim extraordinary you are just saying your initial evaluation of its likelihood is tiny.
your friend
Keith
I am not arguing that one should have a blanket distrust of personal experience.
Our personal experiences, however, can mislead us.
People see or hear things that are not there. Yes?
People believe things that are not true. Yes?
If I claim that I just saw Thor, are you supposed to take my word for it?
Or does that sound ordinary to you?
Scientific skepticism is not a position, it's a process.
Hi Ced:
I would not take your word for it that you saw Thor–not even if you were in Mew York City where all the Marvel Super heroes lived:-). And I don't expect you to take my personal religious experiences as reasons for you to believe. If I want to convince you that the Christian God exists, i have to give you something that would convince you, given your personal experiences and knowledge base.
You asked me if a claimed Thor citing would be extraordinary? Not if I was around a lot of Norsemen I guess; such claims might be ubiquitous. But I don't think that's quite what "extraordinary claim" means in this context. IMO a claim is "extraordinary" so long as the person receiving the claim considers the claim initially very improbable. So extraordinary-icity is receiver-relative. People who see Thor all the time wouldn't bat an eye if you said you saw him too:-)
your friend
Keith
So you would demand evidence of Thor?
Well that's something. :)
Could I trick you into believing in Thor?
I'm talking here about the fallibility of personal experience.
Please let me know what you think of this video.
It's about 10min long by a man called Derren Brown on the power of suggestion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjvTpA8Eago&mode=related&...
Hi Ced:
I found the video quite interesting. One thing though: I don't quite understand why that guy Sean fell. He wasn't looking at Brown and yet he fell on cue. That was weird.
I don't deny that people can easily fool ourselves, but that doesn't mean we ought to NOT trust our personal experiences, it just means we ought to recognize the possibility of error. My convincement wasn't much like the "instant conversion" in the video, it was more like recognizing the truth of a mathematical theorem to be honest.
A thought though: suppose those people actually were encountering God, and that Derek was able to "de-convert" then because of his persuasive powers–that Derek wasn't sincere doesn't really imply their experience wasn't an authentic encounter with God, I say only partly in jest:-)
your friend
Keith
We must use experience as one pillar of dicovering and experiencing truth. If we do not, we run the real risk of becoming divorced from our own selves, and being inauthentic, and having no integrity with what we really feel or experience.
As discussed previously, experience can not be relied upon alone, but our own intuition and conscience are vital organs of epistemology.
And don't forget the aphorism:
Experience without doctrine leads to heresy
Doctrine without experience leads to Pharisee.
Also, don't forget the hiearchy of spiritual authority in the Christian life, which are:
1. The bible
2. Personal experience
3. The church and tradition
Of course, if you are catholic, you may put church and tradition higher, and if you are a pre-reformation catholic, you would put it first.
Hi Seeker:
I am not sure what you mean by experience, but the word has a rather broad meaning. Your came to know what church tradition is because of some kind of personal experience, and yuo came to know what orthodox doctrine was because of some kind of personal experience (perhaps the experience of reading something in a book, for example). And you had what philosophers call a "doxastic experience" when you came to believe that the doctrine was in fact true.
This is an essential point here: everything you know comes to you by some kind of experience, so it is a false dichotomy to contrast personal experience with other sources of knowledge. the question is always: what makes a personal experience a reliable source? This is much trickier philosophically than is often recognized. I'd refer you to Plantinga's monumental "Warrsnted Christian Belief" for a really good study of the issue.
your friend
keith
<i8>This is an essential point here: everything you know comes to you by some kind of experience, so it is a false dichotomy to contrast personal experience with other sources of knowledge.
Well, I would separate experience from reason, which may clear this up. You see, I use reason to help me arrive at conclusions of doctrine, and whom to trust for answers. Sure, experience plays into that, but by experience I mean feelings of inner conviction, or elation, or dread, etc.
In one sense, I see your point, but I do not think it is helpful because we still need to come to terms with how we decide what is true – that is, we don't just use our feelings (experience), but our intellect, and the authority of scripture. And the value of tradition is not, in my mind, really an appeal to authority as much as an appeal to wisdom that endures outside of time and culture.
So some things from tradition may be artifacts of that time and culture, and the same with xianity in our day. But viewing xianity across time and culture can help us determine which ideas are enduring truths, not temporal opinions.
Hi Seeker:
You wrote: In one sense, I see your point, but I do not think it is helpful because we still need to come to terms with how we decide what is true – that is, we don't just use our feelings (experience), but our intellect, and the authority of scripture.
But none of those things–reasoning or interpreting scripture are independent from experience. They are in fact experiences. Your knowledge of the authority of scripture comes to you by experience. You cannot separate experience out of it–if you didn't have an experience you wouldn't know what was authoritative.
your friend
keith
And the value of tradition is not, in my mind, really an appeal to authority as much as an appeal to wisdom that endures outside of time and culture.
Nothing in the human psyche is independent. But we conceptualize them that way to help make sense out of our different faculties.
And I disagree – sometimes scripture contradicts my experience, or shapes it. As it is said,
"it is one thing to experience a phenomenon, but it is quite another to correctly understand what we have experienced."
This points to the difference between experience and intellectual comprehension. I think your point is interesting in that it seems to say that all of our truth-finding is based on how we feel or experience phenomenon or teachings, and how we feel about them.
However, I also think that this perspective is, in practical and theological terms, more confusing than helpful, and I think that thinking of experience as a separate faculty from scripture or tradition are helpful.
Hi Seeker:
It must be me; I am not making myself clear. When you say "sometimes scripture contradicts your experience", you only know what scripture says because you have had the experience of "reading a particular thing in scripture". If you never had that experience then you'd have no idea what was IN scripture. Do you disagree? Do you think the point is true but trivial? You seem to be using the word "experience" much more narrowly than I am. I think your usage hides the reason some experiences are more truth conducive than others.
your friend
Keith
Keith,
Glad you enjoyed it.
It was a real eye-opener for me when I first saw it.
Keith said "I don't deny that people can easily fool ourselves, but that doesn't mean we ought to NOT trust our personal experiences, it just means we ought to recognize the possibility of error."
No argument here.
Yet having recognised the possiblity of error, I would argue we should take logical measures to reduce such possibilities.
Especially for the important things in life.
So, I use scientific skepticism to sort out the sheep from the goats.
If more people did so, then there would be less people like Peter Popoff.
Never heard of the guy?
Oh, check him out. Please. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ3Ko0XnPRc
Sadly, there's a sequel… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ol-K8-osGU
The man's a really nasty piece of work.
James Randi did a brilliant expose on him.
Just in case you missed it, I'm a BIG fan of James Randi. He does a very important public service.
Via his site, I also found about Brown and the video.
P.S.
Why did Sean fall? Excellent question!
But being 'evil' I won't tell you the answer. :)
Besides, you'll probably enjoy hunting for the answer yourself.
Yet to help you narrow the search, I'll just repeat myself and say.. .www.randi.org.
Enjoy!