The New Oxonian
Books etc.
Comments and Moderation
Vita Brevis
..
Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient
Did Jesus Exist? Yes and No
by rjosephhoffmann
Reblogged from The New Oxonian:
Click to visit the original postClick to visit the original post
Click to visit the original post
Click to visit the original post
Click to visit the original post
Click to visit the original post
Click to visit the original post
Click to visit the original post
Click to visit the original post
Click to visit the original post
Click to visit the original post
I have come to the following conclusion: Scholarship devoted to the question of the historicity of Jesus, while not a total waste of time, could be better spent gardening.
In this essay, however, I will focus on why it is not a total waste of time.
What seemed to be an endlessly fascinating question in the nineteenth century among a few Dutch and German radical theologians (given a splash of new life by re-discoverers of the radical tradition, such as G A Wells, in the twentieth) now bears the scent and traces of Victorian wallpaper.
Read more… 2,628 more words
While equally hard on mythicism and credulity in this 2010 post, I adopted a position that some readers called :Jesus agnosticism'; a more appropriate label would have been "Jesus Fatigue". I now would argue, qua the Jesus Process, that the historical existence of Jesus is the only reasonable postulate based on the material we now possess; but for reasons I will discuss in further essays, I do not believe that this postulate has been adequately articulated by recent defenders of historicity. A recent attempt by a well-known NT scholar is exceptionally disappointing and not an adequate rejoinder to the routinely absurd ideas of the Jesus-deniers. For that reason, like it or not, I have had to abandon my indifference and get back into the fight--on the side of the son of man.
Published: June 9, 2012
Filed Under: Uncategorized
..
Leave a Reply
Enter your comment here...Enter your comment here...
Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo
Twitter picture
Facebook photo
« Previous Post
Next Post »
. .
Topics
Uncategorized
Archives
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
Blog at WordPress.com. The Manifest Theme.
Follow
Follow “The New Oxonian”
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 160 other followers
Powered by WordPress.com
The New Oxonian
Books etc.
Comments and Moderation
Vita Brevis
..
Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient
Did Jesus Exist? Yes and No
by rjosephhoffmann
I have come to the following conclusion: Scholarship devoted to the question of the historicity of Jesus, while not a total waste of time, could be better spent gardening.
In this essay, however, I will focus on why it is not a total waste of time.
What seemed to be an endlessly fascinating question in the nineteenth century among a few Dutch and German radical theologians (given a splash of new life by re-discoverers of the radical tradition, such as G A Wells, in the twentieth) now bears the scent and traces of Victorian wallpaper.
Van Eysinga
Theologians in the “mainstream academic tradition” have always been reluctant to touch the subject because, after all, seminaries do not exist, nor for that matter departments of religious studies, to teach courses in the Christ Myth. For that reason, if the topic is given syllabus space at all it is given insufficient space and treated as the opposite of where sober, objective scholarly inquiry will take you in New Testament studies.
It sometimes, but not often or generally enough, occurs to my colleagues that much of what passes for real scholarship is equally slipshod, constructed on equivalently shaky and speculative premises and serviced by theories so artificial (Q, for example) that (to quote myself in the introduction to George Wells’s The Jesus Legend) it can make the theory that Jesus never existed a welcome relief from the noise of new ideas.
I umpired what was (as far as I know) the only direct conversation between George Wells and Morton Smith (Jesus the Magician, 1978) in 1985, in Ann Arbor Michigan. On that occasion, Smith said naughtily that “the only thing Professor Wells and I have in common is that we each hold a theory that the other regards as absurd.” So much for “real templates.” Especially ones that ask us to accept that “everything we have previously learned is wrong.” Not even the Novum Organum asks us to believe in that kind of paradigm shift. As for myself, the only thing I have in common with both those who want to argue the myth theory as a provable hypothesis and those who believe the gospels provide good evidence for the life of Jesus is that we are probably all wrong.
Arthur Drews
I accept that most of what we have learned about Jesus is “wrong” in one sense or another. Almost all of what the churches have taught about him–the christology that undergirds the doctrines of the Christian traditions, for example–is wrong at a literal level. It has to be because it is based on doctrines derived from a naive supernaturalist reading of sacred texts whose critical assessment had not even been contemplated before the eighteenth century.
But so too, the critical assessment is wrong, because it has been motivated by a belief that by removing the husks of dogmatic accretion–a process initiated by Luther’s liberal scholastic predecessors, in fact–a level of actuality would eventually be reached. There would be an assured minimum of truth (often assumed by the end of the 19th century to be primarily ethical rather than Christological, as doctrines like ascension and virgin birth were sent to the attic) which some historians on both the Catholic modernist and Protestant side thought would be unassailable.
It never happened of course, and the great conclusion to the whole enterprise after notable false stops in the twentieth century was the Jesus Seminar. It was never clear to me how a methodology with its roots tangled in a kind of cloddish German academic hubris (husk, husk, husk, sort and sift) could come to a salutary end. And it didn’t, unless we can assume that giving birth to a Jesus who said nothing for certain and might have said anything at all is a “result.”
Harnack
I admit to being a bit prickly on the subject, having finally concluded that the sources we possess do not establish the conditions for a verdict on the historicity of Jesus. Some of my reasons for saying so are laid out in a series of essays included in the anthology Sources of the Jesus Tradition, coming out in August. The main argument for Jesus-agnosticism is being developed in a more ambitious study, The Jesus Prospect, for which watch this and other spaces. (The prologue on method will be ready later in 2010.)
But before all of that, let me say a few words about why I believe Christianity benefits from discussions like this, and especially from Jesus-agnosticism (as opposed to Jesus-loving and Jesus-denying scholarship)–without ever having formally to acknowledge them.
For just over four years of my academic life I have taught in predominantly Muslim universities. Both were highly selective places, the sort of institutions contrived to train “tomorrow’s leaders,” highly aware and critical of the dangers of madrasah education, more than willing to make judicious room for the comparative study of religion. But secular approaches to the Quran were not high on the agenda of either place. Even in “liberal” circles in the Islamic world there is an enclosure for religion which is to be treated respectfully, or ignored, but not questioned extensively.
American University of Beirut, Main Gate, blt 1866
The question of the historicity of Jesus does not arise naturally in Islam–or I should say among believers–any more than the “question” of Muhammad naturally arises. The status of Jesus in Islam is assured not because he is the star of the New Testament but because as Issa he is a a revered figure in Islam. He is not the unique prophet. He is not the way, truth and life. People do not “get” to Allah through him. But he is sui generis. That is, he is an indispensable rung in a ladder that leads to God through the Prophet who is unique: Muhammad.
Myth-theorists, to the extent they pay attention to other religions, tend to regard Muslim belief with the same defensive disdain one often associates with Christian fundamentalists’ view of Islam: Islam is later, derivative, probably bogus (they reason); Muslim rejection of what the prior tradition specifies about Jesus, fatally injures their own contingent tradition. –As Jesus goes, so goes Muhammad. Revelation is whole cloth, not patchwork, and it is often more annoying than interesting to Christians (and some secularists) that Islam seems to be a sequel to the Bible with a slightly revised cast of characters and substantially revised course of events.
Isa in Turkish Islamic art
Needless (I hope) to comment that western views of the sort described above are ignorant. Jesus’ “role” in Muslim teaching does not depend on any Christian beliefs about Jesus but on the Quranic incorporation of Jesus. The status of Jesus in Islam is contingent on Islam, not Christian teaching about Jesus. Muhammad ur-rasul Allah: The Prophet is the seal (guarantor) of the prophets and at the absolute center of a religious cosmos–which nevertheless includes satellites like Jesus, David, and Abraham in orbit around him.
“Say, ‘I am only a man like yourselves; (but) I have received the revelation that your God is only One God. So let him,
who hopes to meet his Lord, do good deeds, and let him join
no one in the worship of his Lord!’ [Surah Al-Kahf 18 :lll).
Interestingly, however, this apparent protest of humility actually enhances the prophet's stature. He's an earthen vessel, but all the more credible because he bears human testimony to the miraculous and to the reality of a personal encounter with the divine will. More than the scholars of Islam, the sufis and mystics would preserve this belief.
To the extent this encounter is reflected in prior religious traditions, Muhammad is more a prophet like Moses on Sinai than a water-walking miracle-worker like Jesus. Maybe this signals a continuity of desert tradition largely missing in the artifice of Christianity, but the Quran is far more Torah than Gospel. The directness of the dialogue between Allah and the Recorder, Muhammad himself, is the directness of the instructions of Yahweh to Moses. True, in Islamic tradition Muhammad is sometimes credited with miracles, like splitting the moon (a gloss of Surah 54.1-2). But "orthodox" Islam in its sectarian complexity does not tie itself to these supernatural occurrences: the final miracle of Islam is the Quran itself and the place of Muhammad in its promulgation. What he said, did, and taught (and there are plenty of hadith projects in departments of Islamic theology devoted to just that question) are of secondary consequence. It is vital that he existed because without that the divine will would never have been known in an authentic form and the correction of existing inauthentic forms, like the biblical tradition, would never have taken place.
The Annunciation in Islamic Context
Odd, then, that the historicity of Jesus should be of any concern at all in relation to a person whose humanity, in the letters of Paul and in the gospels (to a lesser extent, perhaps) is of no consequence to the core tradition. The battle of the post-New Testament period in the early Church, as Harnack recognized, was not to define the divinity of Jesus but to defend his humanity.
What’s usually missed in the discussion of the war between right and wrong believers before 325 is that both camps agreed on the essentials: whatever else Jesus was, “human” doesn’t do justice to it. The bitterness of battle, and the cheer-leading that has gone on for the victors ever since, leads us away from the fact that even the pro-humanity orthodox camp did not leave us with an historical figure but with a luminescent god-man whose finger perpetually points to his own breast as the source and explanation for his mission to earth.
Mission to earth? Yesterday’s gnosticism is today’s science fiction. It is all too easy to fall into gnosticism or science fiction when we examine such images in the writings, art, and liturgy of the church. Especially if we also see religion, more generally, as a species of superstition–resurrections and ascensions into heaven as undiagnosed instances of mass obsessional disorder.
Women at the Tomb
But to discover elements of the fantastic in religions like Christianity and Islam, vestiges of thought-processes that fail our requirements for modernity, is not the same as “demonstrating” that religion is fantasy.
Love, fear, joy, pleasure, mother-love, and compassion equally have their origins in emotion and human evolution and are nonetheless “real” in daily life–indeed, shape daily life–constantly expressing themselves in thought and action. Religion consolidates these aspects of existence in a way that simple curiosity and information does not. It roots them not in the self but in something external, like God, or incarnates them in messengers like Jesus and metaphors like sin, forgiveness and redemption. That is what is going on in the New Testament, not an episode of To Tell the Truth.
Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?
For this reason–starting with a certain lack of profundity—it is difficult not to find the musings of (many) myth-theorists frankly ridiculous. The early church found the historical Jesus all but unnecessary: that is the story. They found his humanity necessary as a theological premise, because they could not quite grasp the concept of disembodied divinity. Besides, a god without humanity could scarcely be expected to comprehend human suffering, or desire to do anything about it. History did not require Jesus; emotion did. It required as well the incredible and fantastic aspects of his personality. History required Muhammad and the non-divinity of Muhammad for other reasons. That is why the two traditions are different.
I say could not “quite grasp” the idea of a disincarnated divinity because some of the Christian fathers flirted with Neoplatonism–Clement of Alexandria, for example–and they were saved by a pragmatic hair from being gnostics themselves, as I think–if we are being honest and not pedantic–the author of the Gospel of John was.
The writer’s tortured theological prologue is our best evidence of the philosophical dilemma confronting some early christian communities.
Clement of Alexandria
But the true (non-Christian) Neoplatonists like Porphyry despised Christianity because, they said, a disembodied divinity is the only form divinity takes. To reach the far-distant god of a Plotinus you need not just a little water, a few words to a confessor and a healthy appreciation for the Eucharist but a very big invisible ladder and the annihilation of all fleshly encumbrances.
Stuck with the Bible, the gospel, a growing body of doctrine, necessitated by struggles with heretics, and the religious demands of a growing community–a lot of weight to carry–Christianity could not very easily take the turn toward disembodied and denatured divinity. If, for the pagans, the resurrection of the flesh was a nauseating idea, for the Christians it became a useful absurdity and the prelude to two millennia of “paradoxical” theology. The earliest shapers of Islamic thought were scarcely seduced by ingenious verbal strategies for mixing and mingling the human and divine: Muhammad therefore stayed vigorously human.
If, as I think, the church was largely successful in subduing the humanity of Jesus while insisting as a strictly dogmatic matter that he was both fully human and fully divine (historical and unhistorical, as in John 1.1-15?), why still bother to ask about whether he “really” existed. Shouldn’t the question really be who or what existed? It is not the same as asking whether Muhammad existed since nothing but one kind of reality has ever been claimed for him, and that is historical.
My defense of debates and discussion of the historical Jesus is not based on any confidence that something new is going to be discovered, or some persuasive “template” found that will decide for us a question that the early Christian obviously regarded as irrelevant. Still less is it based on some notion that the Church will retract the doctrine of the trinity or the hypostatic union, clearing the way for an impartial investigation into the life of Jesus. That is already possible, and as always before the journey gets us to the front door of the Church. Nothing has been more depressing than the search for the Jesus of history, and nothing more hollow than the shouts of scholars who have claimed to find him. Except the shouts of scholars who claim there is nothing to find.
Not that the shapers of the Jesus tradition, whatever their real names were, should have the final say, but they did draw the map and bury the treasure. We are the victims of their indifference to the question.
The really good news is that to the extent we don’t know who Jesus was or even whether he was, Christianity is spared the awful theological and religious certitude that drives Islam to do sometimes outrageous and violent things in defense of that certainty, the totalizing imperative that all religions in their history have struggled to keep in the cave.
The incredibility of the divine and the uncertainty of the human is a potent defense against a totalizing imperative, an inadvertent safeguard created by the extravagance of early doctrine. The vulnerability of Christianity is a vulnerability created by critical examination of its sacred writings–the legacy of its scholars, including its religious scholars, its secular scholars, and even scholars whose speculation outruns caution and evidence. It was Christian scholarship that first put Christianity at risk. Islamic scholarship has played no equivalent role in relation to Islam.
In the end, Jesus and Muhammad are more unalike than alike. If both are unique, they are unique in different ways and not because either’s claim to invulnerable authority can be treated as true or false on the basis of evidence.
Because of accidental but real historical circumstances, inquiry has invulnerated the Christian tradition in a way that has yet to happen, and may never happen, in Islam. If it does happen, it will not be because the west compels it, or because science requires it or because secularism requires it. Islam is not in retreat from the forces of reason. It will certainly not happen because some absurd theorists, mainly western, under-informed and under-equipped, and working on western assumptions, claim that (like Jesus?) Muhammad never existed.
But that is a subject for another time…
About these ads
Share this:
Facebook31
Twitter
Email
StumbleUpon
Digg
Reddit
Print
Like this:
?
Published: May 28, 2010
Filed Under: Uncategorized
Tags: agnosticism : historical jesus : Islam : Jesus : Jesus Project : Jesus Prospect : myth theory : R. Joseph Hoffmann ..
60 Responses to “Did Jesus Exist? Yes and No”
.
steph
May 29, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Once a fundamentalist, always a fundamentalist. Why are they always so full of vile hatred? I’m agnostic, always been agnostic, but I believe in lots of things, on and off. Some things just have more rational support. And then I realise I’m wrong about something, I change my mind, believe a little differently – but I’m still agnostic. Thank God…
Reply
Anders Branderud
May 29, 2010 at 10:01 pm
“Historical J…..”!?!
The persons using that contra-historical oxymoron (demonstrated by the eminent late Oxford historian, James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) exposes dependancy upon 4th-century, gentile, Hellenist sources.
While scholars debate the provenance of the original accounts upon which the earliest extant (4th century, even fragments are post-135 C.E.), Roman gentile, Hellenist-redacted versions were based, there is not one fragment, not even one letter of the NT that derives DIRECTLY from the 1st-century Pharisee Jews who followed the Pharisee Ribi Yehoshua.
Historians like Parkes, et al., have demonstrated incontestably that 4th-century Roman Christianity was the 180° polar antithesis of 1st-century Judaism of ALL Pharisee Ribis. The earliest (post-135 C.E.) true Christians were viciously antinomian (ANTI-Torah), claiming to supersede and displace Torah, Judaism and (“spiritual) Israel and Jews. In soberest terms, ORIGINAL Christianity was anti-Torah from the start while DSS (viz., 4Q MMT) and ALL other Judaic documentation PROVE that ALL 1st-century Pharisees were PRO-Torah.
There is a mountain of historical Judaic information Christians have refused to deal with, at: http://www.netzarim.co.il (see, especially, their History Museum pages beginning with “30-99 C.E.”).
Original Christianity = ANTI-Torah. Ribi Yehoshua and his Netzarim, like all other Pharisees, were PRO-Torah. Intractable contradiction.
Building a Roman image from Hellenist hearsay accounts, decades after the death of the 1st-century Pharisee Ribi, and after a forcible ouster, by Hellenist Roman gentiles, of his original Jewish followers (135 C.E., documented by Eusebius), based on writings of a Hellenist Jew excised as an apostate by the original Jewish followers (documented by Eusebius) is circular reasoning through gentile-Roman Hellenist lenses.
What the historical Pharisee Ribi taught is found not in the hearsay accounts of post-135 C.E. Hellenist Romans but, rather, in the Judaic descriptions of Pharisees and Pharisee Ribis of the period… in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT (see Prof. Elisha Qimron), inter alia.
To all Christians: The question is, now that you’ve been informed, will you follow the authentic historical Pharisee Ribi? Or continue following the post-135 C.E. Roman-redacted antithesis—an idol?
Reply
neilgodfrey
June 2, 2010 at 10:45 am
If, as you say, the sources we possess do not establish the conditions for a verdict on the historicity of Jesus, then why your prickliness or depression (if I understand you correctly) over attempts to explain Christian origins apart from a historical Jesus?
This strikes me as a bit like the agnostic who is as offended with atheism as he is with fundamentalist belief, blanketing atheism under the charge of being “just as fundamentalist” as the other. Just because some atheists may be dogmatic and irrational in their views doesn’t mean all are. Just because some Jesus mythicists may be more dogmatic than informed and reasonable doesn’t mean all are.
On the one hand you seem to me to be painting all positions except your own agnosticism in black.
But on the other hand you seem to be saying that those who assume the historicity of Jesus are tolerable (despite the impossibility of a verdict from the sources) while those who take the other side and assume nonhistoricity are not tolerable.
There seems some inconsistency here.
Another example of this inconsistency, as it appears to me, is in your finding the “musings” of myth-theorists “frankly ridiculous” — apparently on the grounds that they fail to acknowledge the nature of religion or what it is. Of course religion “consolidates” human emotions and needs in certain “religious-external” ways. But what has that to do with the “musings of myth-theorists”?
Or maybe I’m not seeing your point clearly.
You ask whether the question should be “who” or “what” existed. But do you really mean that? What if the “what” is something that is not a single “thing” at all? That is what some mythicist “musings” attempt to explore. But you don’t appear to acknowledge that and it is not clear why. Are you still committed to some romantic view of the “great man” or “great event” big-bang counterpart of Christian origins?
Do you really think scholarship has spared Christianity from “theological and religious certitude that drives Islam to do sometimes outrageous and violent things in defense of that certainty”? I seem to recall the same kinds of Christian hostility against blasphemous movies and plays in the 1960s and 70s that we see today among Muslims offended over cartoons. If the Muslims today are more dangerously heated than the Christians were then, one surely needs to factor in so many more variables such as the entire geo-political thing and relative status and histories of one-sided imperialism and wars etc etc etc. I don’t dispute the histories are different and Islam needs to have its Reformation or Enlightenment. But Christianity, being the religion of the masters, has the liberty to allow the State to enforce the violence that the Muslim religion lacks.
And your own article suggests an intolerance, even a certain ignorance, of anyone stepping to the left side of “agnosticism”, as indicated with a somewhat fatuous comparison of Jesus-mythicism with an imaginary Muhammad mythicism.
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
June 2, 2010 at 11:14 am
You use adjectivals too much, often instead of evidence and real argument. Anyway, I have no idea whether my comparison is “fatuous” but “imaginary Muhammad Mythicism” shows your own ignorance of some rather serious work being done in Germany by Gerd Puin & co on the work of Christoph Luxenberg. A conference at UC Davis a few years ago brought the leading lights of this movement together. I suggest you broaden your range to see beyond the Christ myth boundaries of your inquiry..
Reply
neilgodfrey
June 2, 2010 at 11:26 am
Evidence and real argument? I was attempting to understand and to draw you out on your Jesus “agnosticism”. I’m hardly interested in arguing a Jesus mythicist position in response to your post.
Yes, I do admit I am ignorant of Moslem scholarship. So what is your point, then? You spoke of “absurd theorists” in this connection, but here you seem to be saying that is some “serious work” being done in Muhammad mythicism? So I’m confused about the point you were and are making here.
But the Moslem religion is not my background so I don’t have the same personal interest in it as I do in the exploration of Christian origins. So I will pass up your suggestion, if you don’t mind.
I’m sorry you seem to think my query to draw you out on what you mean by Jesus agnosticism deserves such a cold response.
Muhammad mythicism and the fallacy of Jesus agnosticism « Vridar says:
June 2, 2010 at 4:12 pm
[...] and my reply to it and Hoffmann’s rejoinder, that prompted this post, can be found at Did Jesus Exist? Yes and No on Hoffmann’s New Oxonian [...]
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
June 2, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Neil, surely you are interested in the origins of any religion for which a “mythical” origin has been postulated; I am not sure I comprehend an indifference to Islam. Perhaps you’d find the following instructive:http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/19589/sec_id/19589 I would also be happy to say more on the components of Jesus-agnosticism, but would prefer to lay it out as a full deck when the book appears in August.
Reply
neilgodfrey
June 3, 2010 at 1:12 am
I have never thought of myself as a “mythicist” of any kind. I don’t see the point. What interests me is understanding origins and nature of our culture, specifically Christianity. My interest in the Moslem religion has been in activist work working with Moslem leaders to promote cultural understanding.
The whole notion of taking a position of whether or not Jesus existed seems as pointless to me as taking one on whether Socrates existed or not. What matters is the explanation for and undestanding the bigger historical development. By taking an a priori position on that, at any level, is not the way to approach it.
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
June 3, 2010 at 2:23 am
We agree, and I have certainly never taken an apriorist position.
Reply
neilgodfrey
June 3, 2010 at 7:47 am
That’s not how I understand your position when I read: “Shouldn’t the question really be who or what existed?”
That sounds to me very a priori. The question only arises as the result of a certain (a priori) model through which you are working.
Simply removing the name or concept “Jesus” and replacing it with a “blank entity ['who' or 'what']” is still working within the same basic model.
Reply
Dwight Jones
June 6, 2010 at 7:26 pm
As a Humanist I view Christ as one too, a philosopher who was instructing our species (a word not in sufficient use these days to describe the human ‘race”).
Christ was making plain that the incipient urbanization of the Med brought with it the need for a non-intrusive code of conduct.
His teachings were buffered by the hyperbole that characterizes people like the Egyptians to this day, that was marketing then. Much like the Dawkins/Hitchens cults today, for young acolytes first learning an entry level ‘philosophy’ like atheism.
rey
June 3, 2010 at 3:27 am
“It was Christian scholarship that first put Christianity at risk. Islamic scholarship has played no equivalent role in relation to Islam.”
Because Christianity began as Chrestianity, a religion of freedom (freedom from the unjust demiurge) and therefore even though it was changed into Christianity (a tyrannical imperial religion) that seed of freedom remained and fueled scholars to look for the truth (because they knew that Christianity was Imperial and thus an altered form of something earlier). Islam on the other hand, meaning “submission” began as and will ever remain a religion of tyranny. Christianity can be redeemed by getting back to its Chrestian (i.e. Marcionite) roots, but Islam simply has no better past to go back to.
Reply
Ed Jones
July 21, 2010 at 2:02 pm
See the 12 Comments to the essay The Importance of the Historical Jesus for a take on origins based largely on quotes from the works of three of our top longest standing critical historical NT scholars.
Reply
Ed Jones
July 31, 2010 at 2:52 am
rey, I believe you are touching on to something which with a few clarifing historical details is quite significant to Origins.
First, nomenclature. The term Christian is anachronistic -it was first used of Paul and Barnabus’ mission in Antioch just before 70 CE, and was never applied to the Jewish Jerusalem Jesus Movemet. The significant period of origins is 30 CE – 65 CE, the apostolic period, before the Gospels and before Christianity. For this period there were two movements: The Jerusalem Jewish Jesus Movement with the Q material, soon followed by the Christ Movement with its Pauline Christ kerygma. For more enter: The Importance of the Historical Jesus. See the folowing comment.
Reply
Steven Carr
June 3, 2010 at 6:29 am
‘I admit to being a bit prickly on the subject, having finally concluded that the sources we possess do not establish the conditions for a verdict on the historicity of Jesus.’
Is it not astonishing that we can look at the earliest Christian sources and conclude that the early Christian sources do not establish the conditions for a verdict on the historicity of Jesus?
Is this because very early Christians would write entire books without any reference to what their Lord and Saviour had taught them?
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
June 5, 2010 at 12:58 am
If I accepted that the texts evolved in the way you suggest it would be astonishing indeed. Nice try.
Reply
How Jesus has been re-imaged through the ages to fit different historical needs « Vridar says:
June 13, 2010 at 6:49 am
[...] Filed under: HISTORIOGRAPHY — neilgodfrey @ 2:48 pm Tags: historial Jesus There’s a comment by humanist Dwight Jones in response to Hoffmann’s post titled Did Jesus Exist? Yes and No [...]
Reply
Did Jesus Exist? Yes and No (via The New Oxonian) « The New Oxonian says:
December 18, 2010 at 9:25 pm
[...] Did Jesus Exist? Yes and No (via The New Oxonian) By rjosephhoffmann I have come to the following conclusion: Scholarship devoted to the question of the historicity of Jesus, while not a total waste of time, could be better spent gardening. In this essay, however, I will focus on why it is not a total waste of time. What seemed to be an endlessly fascinating question in the nineteenth century among a few Dutch and German radical theologians (given a splash of new life by re-discoverers of the radical tradition, su … Read More [...]
Reply
Herb Van_Fleet
December 19, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Many years ago, as a student at a Presbyterian liberal arts college, I was required to take at least one course in religion. I choose “Old Testament History.” It’s been so long now that I can only remember two things about the course. The first was that our instructor (a Presbyterian minister) required us to source our papers with a least one Jewish Scholar, one Christian Scholar, and one archeologist. Hey, fair and balanced before that was even fashionable!
But, more heavily embedded in my memory, is my recollection of sitting in that class on a Friday afternoon in late November, The girl sitting next to me put down her spiffy new Japanese transistor radio to announce that president Kennedy had been shot in Dallas and was dead. Upon hearing this news, Dr. whatever-his-name-was, allowed as how we would first finish the class and then worry about the recently departed leader of the free world afterwards. There are priorities after all.
As to this Jesus guy/myth, it would be difficult these days to structure a single class or two for “New Testament History,” given the massive amount of scholarship that has emerged over the last 50 years. Indeed, there are colleges that are devoted entirely to that subject. On the other hand, a course such as “The Jesus Meme,” or “Jesus and Other Sun Gods,” might be doable.
In any case, the man and woman in the pew could probably care less. The church is like a parallel universe where belief is transformed into reality and where ghosts have a felt presence. Critical thinking and intellectual curiosity are supposed to be checked at the door.
Reply
dwightjones
December 21, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Herb writ: “In any case, the man and woman in the pew could probably care less. The church is like a parallel universe where belief is transformed into reality and where ghosts have a felt presence. Critical thinking and intellectual curiosity are supposed to be checked at the door.”
All true, so what then is happening? Why are they doing that? Does our species have some drive to integrate itself with the Cosmos, no matter how distant that goal?
I accept that this abnegation is the attitude of atheists – fair enough – but they are representing themselves as Humanists, which is not tolerable.
A true Humanist feels that religious belief is private, like your sexual orientation or finances. A Humanist has an inclusive sensibility for our species, planet and lives. That carries with it both opportunity and responsibility, these are steered at the personal level by his/her education, training and courage.
Classical Greek Humanism that needs no modern allele.
It serves no purpose to set any of these categories against each other, just for the sake of intellectual social climbing, esp. atheists claiming Humanism.
Reply
Herb Van_Fleet
December 22, 2010 at 3:32 pm
dwightjones says, “A true Humanist feels that religious belief is private, like your sexual orientation or finances. A Humanist has an inclusive sensibility for our species, planet and lives. That carries with it both opportunity and responsibility, these are steered at the personal level by his/her education, training and courage.”
This strikes me as one of those damnable Humeian is/ought problems. As I’ve said many times before, the Humanists have been taken over by the “new” atheists such that the are now little more than atheists in a cheap tuxedo wearing a pair of brown shoes. Their ill-conceived and intellectually dishonest (to me anyway) “Consider Humanism” campaign is an embarrassment to those of us who all ourselves Humanists. I could go on but the host of this blog has already done a masterful job of giving the Atheists/Humanists a well deserved lashing in his recent “Cleopas the Atheist” piece of December 21st.
The point being, I don’t know what a “true Humanist” is or ought to be. Their use of ridicule, insult, condescension, and self-righteousness as the weapons of choice in the battle for the hearts and minds of the religionists is as offensive as it is unnecessary.
That said, there are times when we need to speak out. For example, according to a new Gallop poll released Tuesday, December 21st, asking about human evolution, Gallop reports that, “Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God’s involvement.” That 16% is consistent with related polls showing that 16% of American adults are not religious. But, then, there’s that pesky damn 84%!
And that makes my point. I won’t go as far as agreeing with Christopher Hitchens that religion poisons everything, but after 150 years of Darwinism, the Scoops trial, the Dover case, and the protestations of biology teachers, the fact that more than 8 out of 10 Americans still believe humans are impelled by a supernatural force is a formidable testament to the power of wishful thinking. I don’t blame the schools; blind faith that promises a happy ending trumps the impersonal outcomes of reason every time.
But such rampant ignorance and its impact on society needs to be confronted. I think it was Steven Jay Gould who said, “without evolution there is no biology.” The creationists and the intelligent designers are dangerously wrong. Therefore, as a Humanist, I am compelled to interrupt the churchgoers privacy, and announce that such dogma is damaging to their mental health and intellectual growth. When denial and uncritical belief results in a separation from reality, then, yes, there seems to be some kind of phase transition into a world not unlike the Wonderland of Alice. Call it a parallel universe. Call it that.
But, I have no ax to grind, no tolerance meter; I fancy myself a simple observer. While you seem to be comfortable in your understanding of what a “true Humanist” is, I’m still not there. And my protests, like yours, have gone nowhere.
Anyway, I may just curl up with a good read by George Orwell. I’m thinking, “Animal Farm.”
rjosephhoffmann
December 28, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Brilliant; you should expand it into a blog and let me put it up.
mikelioso
December 20, 2010 at 11:48 pm
A golden oldie, Dr. Hoffmann. Over the past few months I’ve looked into the positions of various Christ Myths and I think now I can move on. I don’t think it offers a better alternative to the idea of Jesus being a guy who inspired the Christian movement
Ironically the main thing against the Jesus myth is a lack of evidence. This is ironic because the main evidence promoted for the idea is that there is no evidence for Jesus’ existence, and there are no “facts” to support the idea of a real historical Jesus. But there is even less for a mythical Jesus. In all the gospels uncovered and condemned in the works of early heresy hunters, none conforms to a Jesus Myth. Am I missing something? If it were the foundational idea of Christianity, doesn’t it seem likely that it would have survived longer? There is simply no solid evidence that anyone ever held a Jesus Myth like idea until modern times.
I don’t buy into the idea that a myth is the default position for people thought to have existed in antiquity. It isn’t like Jesus was crucified by King Midas in the fabled City of Brass. There is no reason to assume a mythic origin for this person, so I don’t find it logical at all that we should think there is an elaborate myth behind Paul’s preaching just because there is no proof of Jesus’ existence. Given the circumstance, I don’t expect proof. It would be different of the gospels claimed Jesus came leading an army of Persians to destroy Jerusalem. Should we also assume a myth to explain any one whose historical existence cannot be proven? that’s a lot of myths.
There are anomalies that are difficult for many theories of the origin of Christianity (the lack, though not a total lack, of gospel material in the epistles has been frequently mentioned by myth supporters) and could be used as evidence for a Christ myth, but that is a small bit of evidence and far to little to justify the confidence Jesus myth supporters have in their hypothesis. Are any scholars you know of really afraid the whole façade of Historical Jesus Studies going to collapse once people take a rational look at the claims of Jesus Myth supporters? I think instead, it is your position that is scarier. The we know very little about the early days of Christianity. We certainly don’t know of a Jesus myth, nor much of anything else. The creed like blurb Josephus gives could pretty much sum up our sure historical knowledge of Jesus. A man from Galilee, crucified by Pilate, believed to be resurrected by his followers.
Reply
dwightjones
December 22, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Herb writ” I don’t blame the schools; blind faith that promises a happy ending trumps the impersonal outcomes of reason every time.”
I blame the philosophers. What have the Philosophy departments produced since the Wittgenstein farce? The British analytic tradition brought sherry and recorder parties to Universities in lieu of ideas, for the past century. Such gross effeteness has resulted in:
“…such rampant ignorance and its impact on society needs to be confronted…The creationists and the intelligent designers are dangerously wrong. Therefore, as a Humanist, I am compelled to interrupt the churchgoers privacy, and announce that such dogma is damaging to their mental health and intellectual growth.”
Must you? As a Humanist you are fully entitled to ignore the US as of no import anymore compared to Indian Humanists or emerging Chinese thought. Same for the BHA hijackers, whoa are brownshirts for the NSS.
As I maintain, there are no ideas there, their day has passed, they are dangerous to themselves only and self-punishing; and if you persist in giving them a sounding board, you become part of the problem.
Boycott atheism as beneath you…find a vision for our own kind.
Reply
rey
December 22, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Why couldn’t a humanist believe that there is intelligent design? Obviously a humanist wouldn’t be out there fighting tooth and nail to convince people of it or trying to twist science to support it. But if it was a personal belief, would that disqualify him from being a humanist? What if one believed that God had indeed made mankind and had put within him the common sense that ought to eventually lead him to understand that he should live morally and treat his fellow man respectfully? Must a humanist of necessity be an atheist? It certainly is not the case historically. Wasn’t Erasmus of Rotterdam one of the first humanists?
rey
December 22, 2010 at 9:19 pm
“Boycott atheism as beneath you…find a vision for our own kind.”
I missed that comment before. Nevermind what I said above then I guess.
Herb Van_Fleet
December 23, 2010 at 5:06 pm
dwightjones says, “Boycott atheism as beneath you…find a vision for our own kind.”
That comment triggered a memory of something I read once in one of the Hindu Upanishads, specifically, the Chandogya Upanishad, which was supposedly written between the eighth and seventh centuries BCE. There is a dialogue where the master Sanatkumara instructs a student named Narada about how to find bliss, starting with the infinite:
Sanatkumara: “The infinite is bliss. There is no bliss in anything finite. Only the Infinite is bliss. One must desire to understand the Infinite.”
Narada: “Venerable Sir, I desire to understand the Infinite.”
Sanatkumara: “Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else—that is the Infinite. Where one sees something else, hears something else, understands something else—that is the finite. The Infinite is immortal, the finite mortal.”
Narada: “Venerable Sir, in what does the Infinite find Its support?”
Sanatkumara: “In its own greatness—or not even in greatness. Here on earth people describe cows and horses, elephants and gold, slaves and wives, fields and houses, as ‘greatness.’ I do not mean this, for in such cases one thing finds its support in another. But what I say is:
That infinite, indeed, is below. It is above. It is behind. It is before. It is to the south. It is to the north. The Infinite, indeed, is all this.”
Narada: “[And] the Infinite with reference to the Self?:
Sanatkumara: “The Self indeed, is below. It is above. It is behind. It is before. It is to the south. It is to the north. The Self, indeed, is all this.
“Verily, he who sees this, reflects on this and understands this delights in the Self, sports with the Self, rejoices in the Self, revels in the Self. Even while living in the body he becomes a self-ruler. He wields unlimited freedom in all the worlds.
‘‘But those who think differently from this have others for their rulers. They live in perishable worlds. They have no freedom in all the worlds.”
Dwight Jones
December 28, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Here is my assessment of Humanism via my Wikipedia contribution:
Inclusive Humanism
Humanism increasingly designates an inclusive sensibility for our species, planet and lives. While retaining the definition of the IHEU with regard to the life stance of the individual, inclusive Humanism enlarges its constituency within homo sapiens to consider Man’s broadening powers and obligations.
This accepting viewpoint recalls Renaissance Humanism in that it presumes an advocacy role for Humanists towards species governance, and this proactive stance is charged with a commensurate responsibility surpassing that of individual Humanism. It identifies pollution, militarism, nationalism, sexism, poverty and corruption as being persistent and addressable human character issues incompatible with the interests of our species. It asserts that human governance must be unified and is inclusionary in that it does not exclude any person by reason of their collateral beliefs or personal religion alone. As such it can be said to be a container for undeclared Humanism, instilling a species credo to complement the personal tenets of individuals.
It contrasts with contemporary American and British Humanism, which tend to be centered on religion to the extent that “Humanism” in these societies is too often being equated with simple atheism, especially by novitiates. This over-identification with a singular non-belief is now seen to be an unwarranted truncation of one of Humanity’s most valuable and promising intellectual traditions, possibly damping out Humanism’s wider and deserving adoption.
Reply
Herb Van_Fleet
December 29, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Responding to my comment of December 22, rjosephhoffmann says, “Brilliant; you should expand it into a blog and let me put it up.”
First, thanks so much for the compliment. Coming from you, I feel truly honored.
Second, as to your offer to set me up with a blog, I nervously accept. However, I’m clueless as to finding my way around the blogosphere, so I await further instructions.
Reply
demonax
December 31, 2010 at 7:16 am
@mikelioso
“The creed like blurb Josephus gives could pretty much sum up our sure historical knowledge of Jesus. A man from Galilee, crucified by Pilate, believed to be resurrected by his followers.”
Have you considered the notion of interpellation?
Reply
Mike Wilson
January 2, 2011 at 2:22 pm
@Demonax,
Yes I have. My reason for making the statement wasn’t to say that the passage is what assures us of those facts about Jesus but that is sums up what is sure about Jesus.
My personal thought is any passage in any manuscript may be a an interpolation or scribal error. I don’t find it very fruitful to speculate on what might have been written. I can only deal with what has been. With that in mind I have to hold a modicum of doubt for any particular word or phrase in an ancient work. I don’t like to drop material though unless I have good reason.
There is good reason to believe it has been modified. that is partly due to the implausibility of Josephus believing Jesus is Christ, and evidence that at this point there are known textual variants. I don’t have an issue with there being some sort of mention of Jesus at that point, what it is though, can’t be said for sure. Either way the passage is no silver bullet ensuring Jesus existed, only that people at the time of Josephus believed this and he thought it worthwhile to pass it along, perhaps to explain the origin of an odd cult.
Reply
Did Jesus Exist? Yes and No (via The New Oxonian) « The New Oxonian says:
February 3, 2011 at 9:35 pm
[...] I have come to the following conclusion: Scholarship devoted to the question of the historicity of Jesus, while not a total waste of time, could be better spent gardening. In this essay, however, I will focus on why it is not a total waste of time. What seemed to be an endlessly fascinating question in the nineteenth century among a few Dutch and German radical theologians (given a splash of new life by re-discoverers of the radical tradition, su … Read More [...]
Reply
Rich Griese
February 3, 2011 at 10:39 pm
The religion industry’s purpose is to promote an interest in Christianity. Demonstrating that the myth that a Jesus existed was fiction, would pretty much close them down. So, you generally see the religion industry not only wanting to avoid discussions that the myth of Jesus is not historical, but to crush anyone from spreading that scuttle butt.
BTW… My interest is the study of early Christianity, especially the now moving into the patristics period. If that is something that anyone else is interested in, I would be happy to hear from you by email.
Cheers! RichGriese@gmail.com
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
June 9, 2012 at 10:28 am
Reblogged this on The New Oxonian and commented:
While equally hard on mythicism and credulity in this 2010 post, I adopted a position that some readers called :Jesus agnosticism’; a more appropriate label would have been “Jesus Fatigue”. I now would argue, qua the Jesus Process, that the historical existence of Jesus is the only reasonable postulate based on the material we now possess; but for reasons I will discuss in further essays, I do not believe that this postulate has been adequately articulated by recent defenders of historicity. A recent attempt by a well-known NT scholar is exceptionally disappointing and not an adequate rejoinder to the routinely absurd ideas of the Jesus-deniers. For that reason, like it or not, I have had to abandon my indifference and get back into the fight–on the side of the son of man.
Reply
steph
June 9, 2012 at 1:16 pm
I agree. On the side of the son of man. I think I have a little mythtic fatigue though. It’s that boredom from repetition and regurgitation that is perpetually dished up and dumped on the mythtic plate. And for goodness sake leave Schweitzer alone to rest in peace. I have no Jesus fatigue. I just want to get back into positive research and clearer articulation… a fresh start. I also need to spend a little extra time soon in my new garden beside the sea, perhaps Wairoa, not to far from the lake shores of Waikaremoana. I have fruvegies to sew.
Reply
reyjacobs
June 9, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Perhaps this fatigue is the result of you fighting an uphill battle against the evidence.
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
June 10, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Oh dear: @ Reycacobs: No, The fatigue comes from fighting against people (like you?) who don’t know evidence if it bit them but would prefer to believe in their private mythologies. You seem to belong to the Debunking School of Christian Origins. Nothing is easier: call all evidence tainted, late, irrelevant, interpolated or extraneous. Good grief mate: we can deny the legitimacy of Barack Obama that way: some are trying!
Herb Van Fleet
June 11, 2012 at 2:43 pm
I see I have make comments re this post after it was first published in 2010. Given the more recent comments, however, I feel compelled to throw in another 2 cents; one or both of which you may or may not want to throw back at me.
Now, I am not a biblical scholar, a seminary professor, a Christian preacher, a Middle Eastern archeologist, or a Jesus freak. In point of fact, I am a non-theist. In other words, I don’t have a horse in this race; e.g., a minimal bias.
As I understand it, the effort to understand Jesus as man or myth is about separating the messenger from the message. Further, it has apparently fallen to the historicists to confirm or deny the existence of the messenger. Trouble is, history may have been altered – by outright fraud, or by wishful thinking, or by mistranslations, or by other means. But human nature being what it is, no historicist worth his or her Roman calendar is going to throw his or her research under the bus very easily. Ergo, the big debate.
I also think it unlikely that any general agreement will ever be reached over this issue. Too much disputable evidence, too many egos. To me, though, it’s the message and not the messenger that’s important. We don’t really need to know if there was a real guy named Homer, or King Arthur, or Robin Hood, or even, believe it or not, Shakespeare, to appreciate their greater or lesser influence on Western Civilization.
So, whether the attributions go to Jesus of Nazareth or Apollonius of Tyana, the evidence would never be admissible in court, and no jury worth their free parking spaces could ever reach a fair verdict due to the overwhelming doubt surrounding this case. Indeed, this case is more about psychology than historicity, IMHO.
Dwight Jones
June 11, 2012 at 6:52 pm
I have to concur with you, Herb.
Because I view Christ as a humanist teacher instructing the species on the new urban morality – regardless of whether or not he held a heavenly bus pass – I simply ask atheist people if they agree with that.
It’s fun to watch atheists then consider, even defend him, each a Pontius Pilate within their ambivalence.
steph
June 11, 2012 at 10:29 pm
This is all why I believe that it is essential for the Jesus Process to examine material and methods afresh, and articulate with greater clarity arguments and evidence for historicity.
reyjacobs
June 12, 2012 at 7:55 am
“Because I view Christ as a humanist teacher instructing the species on the new urban morality” (Dwight Jones)
The problem is of course that although you are right, then historicists will come back with something cheesy like “well, then you’re not considering all the evidence! The gospel of John says Jesus claimed to be God! The gospel of Luke says he claimed he wants everyone who will not make him their heavenly king put to death!” These guys wouldn’t know relevant evidence versus obvious made up crap if it hit them upside the head and knocked them out. If there was a real Jesus, clearly he was as you put it “a humanist teacher instructing the species on the new urban morality” — but the church threw in all this “I am God and you will believe in me or burn crap” to make a monopolistic religion out of the guy. And the historicists because they are tied to defending his historicity they are tied ultimately to defending also every dumb little addition the church made to the gospels.
That is, I’ve yet to find a historicists who didn’t credit some oddball saying clearly made up by the church as being authentic. They always end up claiming that Jesus really called himself “Son of Man” for example. Reading through Schweitzer’s “The Quest of the Historical Jesus” and then though the modern works you find that everyone makes too big of a deal of this idea that Jesus called himself “Son of Man.” The key to understanding the historical Jesus, they will say, is his identifying himself with the Son of Man from the prophecy in Daniel.
Uh, hello! The church made up the “Son of Man” crap on the basis of a misinterpretation of Daniel that turns “I saw one LIKE A son of man” into “I saw THE Son of Man”, turning that into an ecclesiastical messianic title, and putting it in Jesus’ mouth. In every saying where the gospels have Jesus say “The Son of Man…” I GUARANTEE he just said “I” expect after “Man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath was made for man” for after that when he says “Therefore even the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath” he is using the phrase as in Ezekiel to mean a human being, i.e. “therefore any and every human being is Lord of the Sabbath.”
Orthr
rjosephhoffmann
June 12, 2012 at 8:30 am
@reyjacobs: For pure eloquence, finality and depth of insight, I think it would be impossible to improve on your comment:
Uh, hello! The church made up the “Son of Man” crap on the basis of a misinterpretation of Daniel that turns “I saw one LIKE A son of man” into “I saw THE Son of Man”, turning that into an ecclesiastical messianic title, and putting it in Jesus’ mouth.
reyjacobs
June 13, 2012 at 10:05 pm
Thank you. Coming from a scholar such as yourself its quite a complement.
Ken Scaletta
June 10, 2012 at 12:44 pm
If there was actually any smoking gun for historicity, there would be no fatigue.
I would characterize myself as agnostic leaning towards historicity myself, but it just isn’t possible to make a dispositive case. Even the best evidence is tenuous (Tacitus, Josephus), or uninformative (Paul), or subjective and inferential (criteria of dissimilarity, “reconstructed” Aramaic, Crossan-cultural anthropology, application of the general to the specific [i.e. inferring that an individual had specific beliefs or characteristics based on broad cultural context, for instance, assuming that if X is from New York, X must be a Yankees fan. Such assumptions are made about Jesus based on a variety of factors such as his being Jewish, being Galilean being poor, etc. The assumption is that "a typical X does Y," but no one is perfectly typical, and idiosyncrasies occur in every context]).
In all honesty, the best we can really day is that some sort of Jesus more likely existed than not, but we can’t say anything for sure about him, and we can’t really even nail down 100% that he existed at all, or that he isn’t a composite of some sort.
The fatigue, at the end of the day, is because the data does not exist to really resolve the question to a degree of reasonable satisfaction. Some of the evidence really is pretty questionable (especially Josephus), no single piece seems rock solid, yet a completely invented Jesus has its own host of problems as a hypothesis, and lacks a strong theory.
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
June 10, 2012 at 4:56 pm
There is a smoking gun for historicity, called the New Testament; and it is signally important until you can show good cause why these documents should be set aside as forgeries or are so hopelessly irrelevant to the case that we can ignore them. The mythtics have failed to make their case except through poor analogy, assertion, and silence. That is not the way serious critical scholarship works, but then they are not serious critical scholars so the approach, reeking of amateurism and wishful thinking on the order of other conspiracy theories, is perhaps predictable. Certainly the evidence of doctrine and the existence of the church are not probative in the same way, but it is quite ludicrous to say that ancient papyrus evidence and an unbroken literary tradiiton extending from the very century in which the events are supposed to have happened can be treated this brusquely. We would pay a king’s ransom to have anything quite as detailed about Socrates beyond a few scattered references and Plato’s dialogues lionizing his teaching. Have I missed something? When did the mythics make their case?
Reply
reyjacobs
June 10, 2012 at 5:14 pm
“There is a smoking gun for historicity, called the New Testament;”
Biased writings written by guys who worship someone (who may or may not have existed) as a God don’t prove his existence. If it did, then Homer’s writings would prove that Zeus and Poseidon existed. There is too much myth in the gospels to believe even 75% of them. What will you believe? The healings? the casting out of demons that speak and say “I know who you are; you are the Son of God!!!”? the conversations with Satan in the wilderness? the raisings of the dead?
Even the most down-to-earth moments in the gospels, like Jesus denying the importance of the Sabbath tend to not work without the mythology. Jesus makes his statements against the Sabbath by miraculously healing on the Sabbath not by saying “I don’t believe in the Sabbath.” In the end, all we can be left with is some Jewish guy who taught something the priests didn’t like and got whacked for it. That could be historical, but it doesn’t have to be. And it could be historical with a mythical name put to it. Was his name really Jesus (i.e. savior?) or was it Simon? This Gnostic Simon character who goes around saying in one place he is the Father, in another he is the Son, and in another the Holy Ghost, whom the church fathers complain about, could he just be an older version of “Jesus” that they now reject? They are upset with Simon for teaching against the Law of Moses — but if Jesus really existed and got put to death by the priests, isn’t that precisely what he must have done? So perhaps Jesus was the first Gnostic and his name was Simon, perhaps not. We have no solid information on this guy, so the best we can say is maybe he existed maybe he didn’t, maybe his name was really Jesus and maybe not. Maybe he was crucified by Pontus Pilate as the gospels say, and maybe he was stoned to death like the Talmud says! We don’t know jack squat.
rjosephhoffmann
June 10, 2012 at 6:36 pm
@rejjacobs: I am approving this, though it is hopelessly confused. Hopelessly.
Ken Scaletta
June 10, 2012 at 6:14 pm
Well, first, I do not think the mythers have made their case and I think there was more likely somebody rather than nobody at the genesis of the Jerusalem Jesus sect (which I would distinguish from “Christianity,” as such), but it’s somebody that’s all but impossible to say anything definitive about him, or point to any one thing (with the arguable exception of the crucifixion) which is certain to be true. Like Jack the Ripper or the inventer of the wheel, Jesus can be inferred, but not identified. That creates space for mythers to make negative arguments against specific identifications or claims. The Gospels are akin to police sketches made not even from witnesses, but from a guy who heard from another guy what the suspect looked like.
My personal opinion is that Jesus most likely matches the conventional, consensus outline of a Galilean preacher/healer, probably self-identified “prophet,” who was first associated with John the Baptist, attracted a following of his own, said at least some of the things attributed to him and was crucified for being involved in some kind of disturbance at the Temple.
I can’t really prove a single one of those things, though.
reyjacobs
June 10, 2012 at 5:07 pm
“In all honesty, the best we can really [s]ay is that some sort of Jesus more likely existed than not, but we can’t say anything for sure about him, and we can’t really even nail down 100% that he existed at all, or that he isn’t a composite of some sort.”
I’d agree with that. Pure mythicism that he didn’t exist at all seems hard to swallow. But the reality is that our sources for proof of his existence are so tainted with mythology that about all we can say is there was a Jewish guy whose name probably was Jesus (although even that might be mythological, perhaps his name was Simon?) and he apparently taught something that got him killed, but what that was isn’t even certain.
Reply
Andrew
June 24, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Reyjacobs,
There’s a difference between a source being “tainted with mythology” and a source simply being mythology. We have absolutely no reason to assume that theologians imitating Jewish prophetical books like Daniel must have started out with historical interests. Ancient people had imaginations, and one of the advantages of living in that time was that a theologian’s imagination could be imprinted upon reality with far less effort than it takes today. One generation’s myth becomes the next generation’s tradition, and by the time of the gospels, tradition is struggling hard to become a secret history decoded and deciphered.
Ken Scaletta
June 12, 2012 at 9:29 am
@Dwight Jones
“Because I view Christ as a humanist teacher instructing the species on the new urban morality – regardless of whether or not he held a heavenly bus pass – I simply ask atheist people if they agree with that.
It’s fun to watch atheists then consider, even defend him, each a Pontius Pilate within their ambivalence.”
I don’t agree with that, no, I don’t think he is presented as humanistic in the Gospels, he’s presented as an apocalypticist preaching only to Jews and does not envision a long germ new morality, but the advent of a new “reign of God” which would not be humanistic at all, but a massive slaughter of Gentiles entered in a rule by an absolute, theocratic monarch (which he may or may not have envisioned as himself).
Whether or not “atheists” like what he taught has no bearing on whether he existed or not, so I don’t see how that should make any difference.
Sometimes I’ve seen progressive, “liberal,” Christian pastors talking about what a great, egalitarian, pro-gay, enlightened, progressive ethicist he was in an attempt to make him more palatable to the unconverted, but this presupposes that a lack of religious belief has anything to do with finding the message personally appealing or not. It’s a kind of special pleading.
Reply
Ken Scaletta
June 12, 2012 at 9:36 am
Sorry about the terrible typing and syntax above. “…entered in a rule by an absolute, theocratic monarch,” should have been “entering into a rule,” and “long germ new morality” should have been “long term new morality.”
Reply
Morning musings | The Heretical Philosopher says:
June 12, 2012 at 10:34 am
[...] Hoffman did not just come to this conclusion. He was reblogging his own post from two years earlier. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]
Reply
spin
June 12, 2012 at 12:08 pm
There is a smoking gun for historicity, called the New Testament; and it is signally important until you can show good cause why these documents should be set aside as forgeries or are so hopelessly irrelevant to the case that we can ignore them.
There is a smoking gun for the historicity of Ebion as well, called the church fathers, and it is signally important until you can show good cause why these documents should be set aside as forgeries or are so hopelessly irrelevant to the case that we can ignore them.
Of course these arguments are not logical. Ebion almost certainly didn’t exist but it is ridiculous to call the church fathers who thought he was real forgeries. Jesus may have been real, but you need substantive evidence to establish his historicity.
Take a tradition source such as the gospels and let’s arbitrarily discount all the outrageous material contained in them, so that we are left with plausible material, in discounting say half the text with its devils and mountains from which you can see all the world, walking on water, healing by spitting on eyes and ears, raising of the dead, and so on. There is a precedent of untrustworthy material, so let’s look at the plausible material what’s left. How can you distinguish a veracious datum from a plausible but non-veracious one when you only have the tradition from which to evaluate them? Once plausible data are absorbed into a tradition they become indistinguishable from the other plausible data in the tradition. This leaves those with ontological commitments in the quandary of having no epistemology. There is no real difference between the mythicist and the historicist other than the flavor of their ontological commitment. Both lack the ability to support themselves. We just happen to be used to the inherited ontological commitment. It’s popularity is not a sufficient criterion for its validity.
The film Hugo has a character called George Melies, who was in fact a real human being. However, in the film he is just a character. Without external evidence for Melies, that’s all he would be. The claim that the New Testament is sufficient evidence for the historicity of Jesus is simply bankrupt. Qualitatively there is no difference between such a claim and that of the mythicist that the bible is evidence that Jesus didn’t exist.
I can show you evidence for very many people of the era you have never heard of whose historicity can be established with little doubt at all. Consider the named monuments along the Via Appia. Each one that preserves the name of the occupant attests to the historicity of that occupant. The lists of fire fighters at Ostia Antica provide a few hundred historically attested people. All have what Jesus doesn’t have. A fairly firm historicity. And RJH offers a tradition text from which there is no epistemological support for his ontological commitment to a historical Jesus. Worrying about mythicism is ultimately a red herring. The task is to establish historicity for Jesus, not just to show that mythicists are wrong or working with insufficient means to justify their claims. I agree that they are. But it is also the case for the historicist. You have to stop wasting your time complaining about others and make a substantive case for your position. Best explanations need evidence.
Figures we inherit from very old traditions may not be able to be shown to have existed. We can happily continue living despite not being able to say if Robin Hood or King Arthur was real or not. While I can see a wave of special pleading welling up, given–contra RJH–the lack of substantive evidence for Jesus, he doesn’t warrant the adjective “historical”, even though he may have lived. (And to be clear, by “historical”, I mean “able to be supported by substantive evidence from the past”.)
(Let’s have no more mischief about me being Jacob. If you don’t have access to IP, use your stylistic skills.)
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
June 24, 2012 at 12:53 pm
@spin: Surely you can do better than trying to compare Jesus to “Ebion”: Origen in de Princ.4.22 on the proliferation of “Christian” sects: “Being taught, then, by him that there is one Israel according to the flesh, and another according to the Spirit, when the Saviour says, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, we do not understand these words as those do who savour of earthly things, i.e., the Ebionites, who derive the appellation of poor from their very name (for Ebion means poor in Hebrew ); but we understand that there exists a race of souls which is termed Israel, as is indicated by the interpretation of the name itself: for Israel is interpreted to mean a mind, or man seeing God. The apostle, again, makes a similar revelation respecting Jerusalem, saying, The Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” Etc. As opposed to “Other writers, such as Tertullian (De Praescr., xxxiii; De Carne Chr., xiv, 18), Hippolytus (cfr. Pseudo-Tert., Adv. Haer., III, as reflecting Hippolytus’s lost “Syntagma”), and Epiphanius (Haeres., xxx) derive the name of the sect from a certain Ebion, its supposed founder. …But these passages are not likely to be genuine, and Ebion, otherwise unknown to history, is probably only an invention to account for the name Ebionites.” – Catholic Encyclopaedia art. “Ebionites”. The little matter of the identity of Ebion not having been settled in antiquity is not exactly apposite to the identity of Jesus having been settled before the end of the first century and the comparatively prolific sources that you continue to say are useless, though they will not disappear and your inept analogy does not explain them at all. Of course, these weak analogies used as proof are exactly what makes mythicism risible.
Reply
reyjacobs
June 25, 2012 at 8:18 pm
If Ebion isn’t good enough, how about Simon Magus? Are the book of Acts and the church father’s a “smoking gun” for his existence?
rjosephhoffmann
June 25, 2012 at 8:42 pm
@Rey: sure, why not: and Santa Claus and anything else you want to allude to after you make your categorical error: one myth is as good as any other. What you do not tell me is how you are able to get around the gospels on the basis of these inept, anachronistic analogies, which like all mythtics you simply want to multiply.
reyjacobs
June 25, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Obviously your analogy (Santa Claus) is the anachronistic one. Those who wrote of Simon Magus are from the same period as those who wrote of Jesus, AND they are same individuals who determined what gospels would be kept and what gospels destroyed. So if there is any analogy that is good, it is this one. What you should have said, was, sure Simon Magus existed–he was Paul.
rjosephhoffmann
June 25, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Nup: a category error is a category error–you are lumping all dubious legends together as though they are the same genus and then trying to stretch your category to encompass the gospels. Simon Magus is probably from the second century if he begins with Luke, but he thrives only in the time of Irenaeus. But that is irrelevant. Let’s try a different tack: Why do you think most critical scholars who think the gospels have a historical basis are perfectly happy to acknowledge the legendary accretions in Luke, including Simon? Less to lose, or something–else?
David Mills
July 2, 2012 at 5:57 am
Really great article. Jesus may have existed and he may not. I lean ever so slightly towards the former, with the gap between ‘undecided’ and ‘ever so slightly favouring historicity’ being more to do with pragmatism and personal preference not to be too closely associated with mythicism, a lot of which seems to me to necessitate more going out on a limb than the alternative.
So, the question, ‘why does it matter whether he did or didn’t?’ or ‘why does it matter whether we decide?’ become far more interesting than the bare question of ‘actual historicity’, which any sensible and intelligent person will probably realize will always have to have inverted commas around it, bar some startling new evidence emerging.
Regards,
David (‘New atheist’ and proud of it) :)
Reply
.
Leave a Reply
Enter your comment here...Enter your comment here...
Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo
Twitter picture
Facebook photo
« Previous Post
Next Post »
. .
Topics
Uncategorized
Archives
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
Blog at WordPress.com. The Manifest Theme.
Follow
Follow “The New Oxonian”
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 160 other followers
Powered by WordPress.com
loading
The New Oxonian
Books etc.
Comments and Moderation
Vita Brevis
..
Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient
Atheism and Evidence: Where the Conflict Really Lies
by rjosephhoffmann
The Conflict Really Lies within New Atheism
[Reprinted from Public Discourse, by Christopher Tollefsen]
In his new book “Where the Conflict Really Lies,” Alvin Plantinga levels a devastating critique against the “new atheism” espoused by thinkers such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens, collectively known as the “new atheists,” embody one of the most aggressive recent manifestations of both “scientism” and ”naturalism.” This new atheism is characterized by extreme forms of both scientism, a view about knowledge that holds that only what can be demonstrated scientifically deserves to be considered knowledge, and naturalism, a view about reality that holds that only the material world is real. Hence it is hostile to religion in all forms, viewing it as merely a kind of superstition; it is likewise hostile to much “folk” understanding, including traditional claims about the nature and source of morality.
It is thus good news for everyone that Alvin Plantinga, one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, has addressed and, I should say, systematically dismantled, the claims of the new atheists in his recently published book, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Plantinga’s book, generally written at a level accessible to any educated person, is essential reading for anyone concerned not only with the claims of the new atheists and what can be said contrary to those claims, but also, as I shall discuss below, with their way of making those claims, for they have adopted a style hostile to the very idea of public discourse, a style that now threatens almost every area of contested moral and political discourse in our country.
Plantinga defends two claims throughout his book. One is that there is “a superficial conflict but deep concord between theistic religion and science;” the other is that there is “a superficial concord and deep conflict between naturalism and science.” The bulk of the book is devoted to the first claim. Plantinga begins by discussing the conflict between theism’s claims that God acts in the world as a creator, sustainer, and guide (claims common to at least the three Abrahamic religions), and Darwin’s claim to have discovered the means—random mutation plus natural selection—by which later species, including human beings, have evolved from earlier species.
The claim of the new atheists is that Darwin’s “dangerous idea,” as Dennett calls it, proves that there is no divine agency responsible for the world. As Dennett explains, “an impersonal, unreflective, robotic, mindless little scrap of molecular machinery is the ultimate basis of all the agency, and hence meaning, and hence consciousness, in the universe.” But the claims of Darwin show no such thing: even if Darwinism accurately identifies the mechanism by which evolution has occurred, Plantinga notes, “it is perfectly possible that the process of natural selection has been guided and superintended by God, and that it could not have produced our world without that guidance.”
Moreover, there is a very good reason for thinking that the world as it is would not have been possible but for God’s agency, and that is the existence of creatures with minds. Theists believe, as Locke put it, that it is “impossible to conceive that ever pure incogitative Matter should produce a thinking intelligent Being.” Mind, theists believe, can only come from mind (or Mind). So, on the basis of this argument and several others, Plantinga concludes Part I of his book by claiming that the conflict between Darwin and theism is only apparent.
The conflict is somewhat greater as regards other scientific claims; in particular, many claims coming from evolutionary psychology and historical biblical criticism are, as far as they go, incompatible with some or all aspects of, for example, Christian belief. That all human action is a result of mechanisms selected because they enhance the power of one’s genes to reproduce is clearly incompatible with Christian normative demands to love one’s neighbor: one is not doing that if one’s actions are really undertaken for the propagation of one’s genes. And to varying degrees, the claims of historical biblical scholarship are either in conflict with revealed religion, if those claims deny straightforwardly the possibility of supernatural action in the world, or fall far short of the claims of religion, if they methodologically abstain from using any but naturalistic assumptions.
Yet none of these claims, argues Plantinga, provides defeaters for religious belief; and the reason for this is that the evidence base against which a Christian, for example, assesses the claims of evolutionary biology or biblical scholarship, includes claims that cannot be known only by science’s methodological naturalism.
Most prominently, Christians hold that some truths are known by faith, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; faith, like knowledge, is thus aimed at the truth. Plantinga writes, “My evidence base contains the belief that God has created human beings in his image. I now learn that, given an evidence base that doesn’t contain that belief, the right thing to believe is that those mechanisms [of faith] are not truth-aimed; but of course that doesn’t give me any reason at all to amend or reject my belief that in fact they are truth-aimed.”
In other words, if we take evidence gathered only from one source of truth, we will fail to have a defeater for a claim that appears true on the basis of all of the possible sources of truth: so even though the witnesses say they saw me slash a colleague’s tires (perceptual evidence), if I remember being out of town that day (memorial evidence), then the witness claims do not defeat my belief that I did not slash the tires.
But can’t the new atheists simply help themselves to the premise that science is the only source of knowledge? We might wonder on what basis they could: surely it is not a claim of science that science is the only source of knowledge. But this, as we will see, is only one way in which extreme naturalism threatens to be its own worst enemy.
In the third part of the book, Plantinga turns to the question of whether in fact theism might be in concord with contemporary science, rather than in conflict. After looking at, and giving a fairly weak endorsement to, some arguments in support of intelligent design and fine-tuning, Plantinga argues that in fact the theistic worldview is as a whole deeply consonant with the goals and successes of contemporary science.
This is because theism holds, as atheistic naturalism denies, that God has created us in his image, as rational beings. But as rational, yet finite, beings, we are truth-seekers, and for the theist it makes perfectly good sense to think that God has also created a world that is available to us to know: “God created both us and our world in such a way that there is a certain fit or match between the world and our cognitive faculties.”
Plantinga then identifies a number of features of our world, and our cognitive relationship to that world, that are much more likely, and make much more sense, on a theistic than on an atheistic picture: the reliability and regularity of nature, and its working in accordance with law; the role of mathematics in the understanding of nature; the possibility of induction; the appropriateness of theoretical virtues such as simplicity; and even the empirical nature of science, which Plantinga argues is underwritten by the contingency of divine creation. In all these respects modern science is deeply compatible with theism, a fact that renders unsurprising the further fact that all the great founders of modern science were theists, working from a deeply Christian background.
So the conflict between science and religion is, Plantinga shows, largely bogus (and I have only scratched the surface of his arguments here). But things are even worse from the standpoint of naturalism, for on the naturalist account, there is no good reason to think that our cognitive faculties are truth-tracking. After all, it is not because those faculties contribute to true beliefs that they are selected for in the Darwinian account; it is because they are likely to contribute to survival.
Can the naturalist expect, as the theist clearly can, that her cognitive faculties are reliable, i.e., that they lead to true beliefs? Since natural selection does not select for truth, or truth-tracking faculties, but for other unrelated properties, we have no reason to expect so given naturalism. Of course, we have very good reason to think our beliefs are reliable; so this claim should not bother most people. And non-naturalistic theists will believe that even if evolution is true, God has overseen evolution with a view to the reliability of our cognitive faculties. The naturalist cannot rely on any such claim.
But since the inability to rely on cognitive faculties as reliably truth-tracking is a defeater for any belief whatsoever, it is a defeater also for naturalism; accordingly naturalism turns out, on Plantinga’s argument, to be self-defeating, and cannot be rationally accepted.
So Plantinga gives a wealth of argument for the theist to use against the claims of atheism. And in this, it must be said, he exercises considerably more intellectual virtue than his opponents. Plantinga’s early chapters are devastating in revealing that the prime architects of the new atheism almost inevitably gravitate toward straw-man characterizations of their opponents’ views, attribute venal motives to their opponents, and fail to investigate the intellectual sources of Christianity, giving no weight, for example, to the classical arguments of Aquinas and Locke, or the arguments of contemporary theists such as Swinburne and van Inwagen. Their rhetoric is inevitably condescending, as the development of the recent cult of the “flying spaghetti monster” makes clear.
But what is worse, some of the new atheists seem to have adopted this strategy deliberately. Plantinga quotes from a blog post of Dawkins in which he says that those unconvinced by the new atheists “are likely to be swayed by a display of naked contempt. Nobody likes to be laughed at. Nobody wants to be the butt of contempt.”
Plantinga speaks of the “melancholy” with which one should view this spectacle; yet it seems increasingly characteristic of an important strand of intellectual, if the word is appropriate, approach to the most contentious issues of the day. Those who dissent from academically “respectable” views about religion, evolution, global warming, sexual ethics, the nature of marriage, and the value of unborn human life are increasingly addressed with scorn and public shaming rather than intellectual argument and reasoned discourse; and their opponents are often unwilling even to acknowledge their good will and good faith. This is not a strategy compatible with a love of truth or a love of neighbors, and those on its receiving end should not, of course, respond in kind. The wealth of argument in Where the Conflict Really Lies points to an altogether better path.
About these ads
Share this:
Facebook2
Twitter
Email
StumbleUpon
Digg
Reddit
Print
Like this:
?
Published: June 12, 2012
Filed Under: Uncategorized
..
99 Responses to “Atheism and Evidence: Where the Conflict Really Lies”
.
SocraticGadfly
June 12, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Dennett has another unsupported claim, too: the idea that evolution is algorithmic. I’m not even sure how it’s testable; I do know it’s not close to being testable right now. And, I don’t think it is algorithmic, anyway.
Reply
Ken Scaletta
June 12, 2012 at 4:18 pm
He says Natural Selection is an algorithmic sorting process, not that “evolution is algorithmic.”
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
June 12, 2012 at 4:33 pm
@Ken: As You can imagine, I posted the review of Plantinga because it is a good discussion piece–not because I especially like Plantinga. If you ask me, he is getting around to this late in the game.
Reply
Ken Scaletta
June 12, 2012 at 7:57 pm
I made a lazy mistake and thought it was your own review. I thought it sounded out of character for you.
Ken Scaletta
June 12, 2012 at 2:46 pm
“The claim of the new atheists* is that Darwin’s “dangerous idea,” as Dennett calls it, proves that there is no divine agency responsible for the world.”
Not a single one of the so-called “new atheists” makes this claim. That is, they do not say that evolution proves the non-existence of God, nor do that say that ANYTHING proves the non-existence of God. Dawkins is careful to say that it’s not even possible to disprove the existence of God. If this is Plantinga’s angle, then he’s just building strawman, and your review makes it sound like the bulk of his argument is a gigantic appeal to absence.
This is my standard test for anti-atheist apologia – would the argument be substantially changed if “God” was changed to “Smurfs.” If the arguments would all be just as valid when applied to smurfs as to God, then they are of no real utility except as comfort to believers. “You can’t prove it DIDN’T happen” is technically true, but it’s technically true for just about ANY supernatural claim.
I also don’t like the word “materialist,” as if an absence of magical thinking and unfounded assumptions is some kind of philosophical bias from the outset.
If we can’t assume that the impossible is impossible, then we can’t do any empirical research at all, including history.
Is Plantinga willing to entertain the idea that Jesus rose from the dead because he was a vampire? What makes that any less of a viable scientific/historical possibility than a Canaanite mountain god doing it.
*A ridiculous phrase if ever there was one since atheism is an absence of belief, not a set of beliefs or an ideologywhich can somehow be “updated” or changed. It’s like saying the holes in donuts can change or become modified.
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
June 12, 2012 at 6:15 pm
*A ridiculous phrase if ever there was one since atheism is an absence of belief, not a set of beliefs or an ideologywhich can somehow be “updated” or changed. It’s like saying the holes in donuts can change or become modified.
Surely they can–donut holes I mean; poor analogy. Ex nihilo nihil fit: I wonder if it is possible to postulate an absence of belief as a something? I should have thought that atheism is the belief that there is no god or supernatural explanation for the universe. Is it the word “belief” you object to? Why?
Reply
steph
June 12, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Ken, I disagree. They do make this claim. Claiming that evolution proves there is no divine agency responsible for the world is not synonymous with evolution proves the non existence of God. It is implying a divine agency isn’t necessary. God’s intervention is no longer necessary because what God was supposed to have done has been explained by evolution. The implication is that ‘God’ who is inactive (God knows what they mean by God), does not exist.
Atheism believes religious ideas of God are wrong. If atheism views of meaning and life don’t evolve like religious beliefs and ideologies, atheism sounds like a conviction absent of argument and evidence.
Thank you for posting the review by Tollefsen. I’d be interested to read this one by Plattinga although as you say he’s a bit late joining the conversation and I’m not sure he will say anything new. However he might frame it differently perhaps.
Ken Scaletta
June 12, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Technically atheism is the entire set of people who lack theistic belief. Whoever does not have a theistic belief is atheistic, by strict definition.
Atheists are generally subdivided into “strong” and “weak,” atheism,
with strong atheism being a positive belief in non-existence and weak atheism being simply a lack of theistic belief without an assertion of the negative. Weak atheism tends to get popularly conflated with agnosticism, which is not a position on the existence of gods, or as (is commonly thought) a neutral position between theism and hard atheism, but a position on the EVIDENCE for God (i.e. the position that we do not have the ability to discern the answer to the question. Agnosticism does not preclude either atheism or theism. The late, noted skeptic Martin Gardner, for instance, said there was no evidence for God but that he believed it anyway.
If there is anything “new” about these “new atheists,” it’s only that they are more frank and aggressive (particularly Hitchens) than has been previously conventional, but there isn’t any new [i]content[/i] to it. No new or modified beliefs, no new facts or claims.
They seem to strike a lot of people as rude, but aside from Christopher Hitchens (who was rude to everybody indiscriminately), they aren’t really as rude as all that. Dawkins, in particular, is actually fairly bland and polite.
Are they really any more rude than C.S. Lewis, though, who was as smug and supercilious (not to mention methodologically incompetent) as anybody, yet his apologetic works are warmly regarded, for the most part.
steph
June 12, 2012 at 8:13 pm
I’m aware of the various degrees and flavours of atheism and theism and that makes both more distinctive as philosophical positions. Most self critical theists and atheists, on reflection, seem also to be agnostic to degrees. And these diverse and broad ranging individual ideas, are philosophical positions prone to evolve and change.
With Hitchens, I think sometimes he was right, sometimes wrong, generally always played the cynic and always brilliantly clever and funny. He was ‘terribly bad’ and ‘wickedly naughty’ but he wasn’t rude in the raw sense of the word I don’t think.
C.S. Lewis is ‘warmly regarded for the most part’ by evangelical Christians. Personally I think he was quite good at children’s fantasy writing and wish he’d written more of that.
Neil Godfrey
June 12, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Does Tollefsen address whether or not the same logic applies to other ways of “knowing truth”, such as LSD, calling on the Muses, bodily deprivation to induce a trance in order to communicate with a spirit world, seances, clairvoyance, channelling, astrology, teachings of Masters and gurus . . . ?
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
June 12, 2012 at 6:02 pm
Or good sex.
Reply
Neil Godfrey
June 12, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Your reply would seem to me to put you in the category of those who think those you argue against “are likely to be swayed by a display of naked contempt. Nobody likes to be laughed at. Nobody wants to be the butt of contempt.”
Your own words come back to bite you: “it seems increasingly characteristic of an important strand of intellectual, if the word is appropriate, approach to the most contentious issues of the day. Those who dissent from academically “respectable” views about religion, evolution, global warming, sexual ethics, the nature of marriage, and the value of unborn human life are increasingly addressed with scorn and public shaming rather than intellectual argument and reasoned discourse;”
You appear to be “unwilling even to acknowledge [your opponents’ good will and good faith.”
As you say, “This is not a strategy compatible with a love of truth or a love of neighbors, and those on its receiving end should not, of course, respond in kind.”
steph
June 12, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Yes or course he does. It’s all there in the review (where else would it be addressed?), including good sex.
steph
June 13, 2012 at 1:02 pm
When analytical critque is applied to atheists or mythtics, why is it that pariticular ones inevitably respond by deflecting that same critique, verbatim, upon those who have made it? Here, once again, is one reflecting an inability to be self critical, a deficiency of originality, overt psychological projection and a lack of sense.
Neil Godfrey
June 13, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Sorry, Steph, but there was nothing “deflecting” or “incapable of self-criticism” or any “overt psychological projection” in my question.
It was, true, a simple question, but written in good faith. The deflection etc only came with RJT’s dismissive non sequiture “Or good sex”.
The things I listed are all examples of means by which people do indeed seek non-scientific approaches to serious knowledge.
The way it appears to me is that the original discussion is elitist — privileging only a certain type of religious thought vis a vis the scientific side of the debate.
It is entirely valid to ask a question that seeks to explore the underlying logic of one side of that debate and ask if and how it can be applied more univerisally.
There’s nothing hostile or negative about asking such a question.
It’s a bit like taking a few words of Schweitzer from chapter 23 of a certain book that were explicitly applied to theoretical methodology of his day and asking if the same theory or logic applies to today, too.
One can do such things with complete sincerity.
I am sure no-one here wants to be guilty of being “unwilling even to acknowledge [your opponents’] good will and good faith.”
rjosephhoffmann
June 13, 2012 at 5:52 pm
I was not being flippant; just adding to your list of peak experiences.
Neil Godfrey
June 13, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Oh dear — a typo — do forgive my non sequiture and understand that it was entirely accidental and that I do recognize it should not be spelled with that final ‘e’.
Neil Godfrey
June 13, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Well why not add bungee jumping? It’s a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the point of the list — methods sincerely entertained by various people as ways to serious truth.
rjosephhoffmann
June 13, 2012 at 5:59 pm
I take your point: peak experiences are peak experiences; they do not convey “knowledge”; I think Plantinga is manipulating the word.
Steersman
June 13, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Neil Godfrey,
… methods sincerely entertained by various people as ways to serious truth.
Well, it seems that tantric sex might qualify as such …
steph
June 13, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Godfrey: I was referring to your response to Joe’s addition. Your response to it reflects your responses to critiques elsewhere, ie, deflecting previous critique upon those who made it. Your response made no suitable sense in view of Joe’s comment and seemed to demonstrate to an observer, nothing more than a released emotional rage. I did not mention your question. Obviously your original question was not a ‘response’. Why is it that you always interpret things so literally. (Rhetorical question).
Analogies are always false and this one is particularly irrelevant. The point of Schweitzer is that you took Schweitzer’s words out of context and applied them to a contemporary context.. You did not ask if they were applicable now, or in what way, until a couple of days ago on a thread here.
Ken Scaletta
June 12, 2012 at 7:53 pm
@Steph
“Ken, I disagree. They do make this claim. Claiming that evolution proves there is no divine agency responsible for the world is not synonymous with evolution proves the non existence of God.”
Who claims evolution proves there is no divine agency in the world? certainly not Dawkins or Hitchens or Harris or Dennett or any of the other “new atheists” that I’m aware of.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or “the world,” or even the origin of life anyway, it just explains what happened AFTER life got started on Earth, so it would be ludicrous for an evolutionary scientist to say evolution shows anything at all about gods except a lack of necessity to explain the origin of species, and in fact, they don’t do it.
In point of fact, Dawkins does not even say gods don’t exist, only that they “almost certainly don’t exist.”
Can you provide a quotation for any prominent “new atheist” claiming that evolution proves “there is no divine agency in the world” or anything to that effect?
Reply
steph
June 12, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Ken. I did NOT say that anybody claims that evolution proves there is no divine agency in the world. Claiming evolution proves that God is not responsible/necessary for the things that God was supposed to have done which are now explained by evolution is not the same as saying there is no God at all. You must be able to see the difference. Even theists believe evolution explains things God was once believed to have done. But this doesn’t mean they no longer believe in a divine being, merely a less active one in the world.
Reply
Ken Scaletta
June 12, 2012 at 11:45 pm
I’m afraid I don’t see your point at all. Firstly, you did say they make that claim. Following the chain:
I first quoted from this from the review:
“The claim of the new atheists is that Darwin’s “dangerous idea,” as Dennett calls it, proves that there is no divine agency responsible for the world.”
To which I said:
“Not a single one of the so-called “new atheists” makes this claim.
That is, they do not say that evolution proves the non-existence of God, nor do that say that ANYTHING proves the non-existence of
God.”
Then you said:
““Ken, I disagree. They do make this claim. Claiming that evolution
proves there is no divine agency responsible for the world is not synonymous with evolution proves the non existence of God.”
Then me again:
“Who claims evolution proves there is no divine agency in the world? certainly not Dawkins or Hitchens or Harris or Dennett or any of the other “new atheists” that I’m aware of?”
Then Steph:
“Ken. I did NOT say that anybody claims that evolution proves there is no divine agency in the world.”
Perhaps you are parsing a distinction between an agency “responsible for the world,” as it was stated in Tollefson’s review, and “in” the world (as I sloppily paraphrased it)?
Now you seem to be clarifying that you only meant that evolution shows that God is not necessary to explain the things that are explained by evolution (true), but that this does not mean that God does not exist. Also true, but since none of the New Atheists would disagree with that, then what is the problem.
Tollefson’s claim that ““The claim of the new atheists* is that Darwin’s “dangerous idea,” as Dennett calls it, proves that there is no divine
agency responsible for the world.” is patently untrue. This is not a calim made by New Atheists, and now you seem to agree with that.
Evolution is not “the world.” Evolution does not explain the world. Evolution is not “responsible for the world.” Evolution is a non-sequitur with regards to “responsibility for the world.” The atheists know this. It only ever seems to be the religious apologists who don’t.
steph
June 13, 2012 at 10:42 am
Ken:
1. Evolution proves that there is no divine agency responsible for the world.
is a simple way of saying
2. Evolution proves that there is no divine agency responsible/necessary for the things evolution explains which God was previously believed to have done.
‘The world’ is used metaphorically, Ken.
1. Evolution proves that there is no divine agency responsible for ‘the world’.
is not the same thing as
2. Evolution proves God does not exist at all.
You keep repeating the two claims together as if they are synonymous. They are not. You have sloppily rephrased “Evolution proves that there is no divine agency responsible for the world”.
Atheists and theists can both agree that ‘evolution proves that there is no divine agency responsible for the world’, ie evolution has explained the things God was believed to have done before. It does not ‘prove’ God does not exist at all.
Now as to the ‘for the world’, which is used metaphorically as a simplification of ‘the things evolution explains which God was previously believed to have done.’…. The problem is that atheist apologists tend to take everything so literally.
Franklin Percival
June 12, 2012 at 9:00 pm
I still see no necessity for postulating any god in the first place.
Reply
steph
June 12, 2012 at 9:08 pm
There was. “To be an atheist is to maintain God. His existence or his nonexistence, it amounts to much the same, on the plane of proof. Thus proof is a word not often used among the Handdarata, who have chosen not to treat God as a fact, subject either to proof or to belief: and they have broken the circle, and go free.” (Ursula Le Guin, Left Hand of Darkness)… To oppose something is to maintain it.
Reply
scotteus
June 12, 2012 at 9:14 pm
The Handdarata, then, seem to take the Agnostic position and thereby break the circle and go free?
steph
June 12, 2012 at 9:47 pm
It reminds me of an Anglican priest friend of mine who says “the question of the existence, or non-existence, of a ‘god’ idea, is irrelevant in contemporary intelligent conversation”. He doesn’t identify as a theist, an atheist or an agnostic. Whereas another friend, a Methodist Minister, identifies as a Christian by faith and agnostic by definition.
Steersman
June 13, 2012 at 12:51 pm
There was. “To be an atheist is to maintain God. …”
Probably at least some justification for that argument. Although one might also argue that at least the atheist is only “maintaining” god in a state of non-existence – to emphasize the difference between a symbol, a representation, for an object and the object itself: “the map is not the territory”.
(Ursula Le Guin, Left Hand of Darkness)…
One of those books I’ve kept but haven’t ever found the time to re-read – should at least skim through it again; thanks for the memory … :-)
steph
June 13, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Existence or non existence is irrelevant – ‘God’, whatever that means, as a concept, is ‘maintained’. To ‘maintain God’ is not to say that God exists or God doesn’t exist… so effectively that which ‘some might argue’, is unnecessary.
While fantasy, and particularly science fiction, don’t generally appeal to me, I still find Ursula Le Guin one of the most profound, eclectic and evocative, drama weaving literary artists I have ever read.
Steersman
June 13, 2012 at 5:06 pm
Existence or non existence is irrelevant
I don’t know about for you and your situation, but to me my own existence is of more than passing relevance – at least for the moment.
As for God’s, that also seems of more than passing relevance to a great many people and is the crux, if not the stumbling block, in a great many social issues and problems. More particularly, it is the basis for some decidedly spurious and specious if not actually fraudulent claims, primarily by religious fundamentalists, to have surpassing credibility – if God (or E.F. Hutton) talks then everyone listens – for their views on “religion, evolution, global warming, sexual ethics, the nature of marriage, and the value of unborn human life” that, in the absence of evidence – of which they really have absolutely none, should be heavily discounted and deprecated if not actively ridiculed.
… one of the most profound, eclectic and evocative, drama weaving literary artists I have ever read.
Probably worth re-reading then …
steph
June 13, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Obviously existence or non existence applies to God’s existence or non existence. I regret not being more literal.
The idea I was trying to clarify was the idea penned by Ursula Le Guin which was about ‘maintaining’ the idea of God, without appealing to proof of existence or non-existence because neither are relevant primarily, to maintaining the idea. I don’t think anyone would dispute that existence or non existence of ‘God’ (whatever they mean by that) is relevant for most atheists and theists. However I was discussing an idea in a science fiction novel.
And yup, I reckon. She’s also one of those authors I never pass over in a second hand book shop (so I have double ups)…
Steersman
June 14, 2012 at 2:41 am
However I was discussing an idea in a science fiction novel.
True. Although you concluded with “To oppose something is to maintain it.” Which, in context, looked rather like a categorical statement and a conclusion along with a deprecation of the idea that opposing – either theism or atheism – is a “good thing”.
While I agree with scotteus’ comment about agnosticism, that position, and the one of the Handdarata, suggests an unwise “turning a blind eye” to the very real depredations that theism, in particular although not exclusively, has proven itself capable of. Seems that an effective way of opposing both, without maintaining either, is to point out – assiduously – that neither of them have any proof or evidence at all for their positions (although I think atheism has quite a bit of circumstantial evidence for its case): Zen and the Art of Undercutting.
steph
June 14, 2012 at 11:31 am
“True. Although you concluded with “To oppose something is to maintain it.” Which, in context, looked rather like a categorical statement and a conclusion along with a deprecation of the idea that opposing – either theism or atheism – is a “good thing”.”
That is an extraordinary assumption, Steersman. I said nothing about good or bad. I did not make a judgement. I was merely summarising the idea in Ursula Le Guin’s novel. I think you’re missing the point. Other people’s religious beliefs or not, their degrees towards fundamentalism, or not, are not central to the lives of the Handdarata or in fact a lot of people in the real world with real priorities of existence. Why should it be everybody’s duty to fight the war against fundamentalisms (and that includes the atheist variety). Atheism has quite a bit of evidence on its side insofar as human culturally created stories of ‘God’ but not for disproving the broader spectrum of theism completely. I think while alot of people identify as atheist or theist (in faith without proof), the honest critical thinkers among them seem often to concede degrees of agnosticism when questioned (if not by self definition as is the case with a few of my friends).
Steersman
June 14, 2012 at 6:45 pm
That is an extraordinary assumption, Steersman. I said nothing about good or bad. I did not make a judgement.
My mistake; mea culpa. I sort of figured, since the book review was about a “devastating critique” of “new atheism” and that the post you responded to with the quote from Le Guin referenced, if somewhat obliquely, that topic, that your quote actually had some relevance to both.
I think you’re missing the point.
Maybe. The benefits of dialog …
Other people’s religious beliefs … are not central to the lives of … a lot of people in the real world with real priorities of existence.
That might be quite true, at least for some. Although Tollefsen’s comment about “those who dissent from academically ‘respectable’ views about religion, evolution, global warming, sexual ethics, the nature of marriage, and the value of unborn human life” would seem to point to some “real priorities of existence” for a great many others.
Why should it be everybody’s duty to fight the war against fundamentalisms (and that includes the atheist variety)?
The most succinct answer I can think of is simply 9/11. And Butterflies and Wheels, among other sites, has daily additions to the litany of horrors perpetrated by fundamentalists of one sort or another – mostly, although not exclusively, the religious variety; curious how believing that one has “Gawd” in one’s back pocket seems to give people extra scope, extra headroom, for being nasty to one’s fellow humans. And I’ve always found this quote from Sir Martin Gilbert’s Israel to be particularly telling as far as your question is concerned:
Herzog spoke angrily of the religious fanatics. “If the murder of such a man [Rabin], of a Prime Minister, does not set the very fibres of our national being atremble, if it does not shock us to our very foundations; if we have not vomited out the curse, and uprooted the cancer, and not done away with that group of insane zealots – that badge of dishonour for our people – we are, God forbid, in danger of seeing this nightmare recur. …. The fires of destruction are burning at the edge of the camp. If we do not together, hasten to extinguish them, they will destroy our entire house. [p599].
Considering that, at least in America, well over 50% of the population disbelieve in evolution and think that Jehovah created the whole shootn’ match some 6000 years ago it seems quite reasonable to argue that the cancer has developed to a rather alarming degree. On which Philip Wylie [Generation of Vipers] has, I think, the most succinct and cogent view:
At least I am alarmed by it. And I hold that any man, these days, who does not live every hour in a condition of alarm – however detached or icy – is either a traitor or an idiot. [pg 14]
Maybe time to rein-in the fundamentalists and literalists [over 50% of the population] and disabuse them of the notion that their perceptions are anything more than cognitive illusions at best and outright delusions at worst – the responsibility of everyone else, even if only on the basis of self-preservation.
Atheism has quite a bit of evidence … but not for disproving the broader spectrum of theism completely.
No argument there. Part of the reason why I tend to self-identify, to a first approximation, as a skeptical agnostic metaphorical panentheist …
steph
June 14, 2012 at 8:16 pm
“That might be quite true, at least for some.” If you step outside into the wild and wonderful real world, I think you’ll find it’s true for the majority of people who don’t spend 24 hours a day on the internet. One of the many disadvantages of internet ‘dialogue’ is that it can continue for monotonous days and become so tangential it becomes increasingly irrelevant to the original topic. Another disadvantage is that non human interaction often leads to ‘conversation’ and ‘ideas’ being interpreted literally, particularly in view of many of the mindsets of those who frequent the internet so often. I have no reason to follow B&W so you completely lost my interest by posting a link. Happy rereading.
Steersman
June 16, 2012 at 1:01 am
steph,
Another disadvantage is that non human interaction often leads to ‘conversation’ and ‘ideas’ being interpreted literally …
True; it does have its limitations, some of which might be attenuated by developing technology and some of which are no worse, actually quite a bit better, than those faced by letter writers of recent and ancient history. And I expect it may contribute to, has already contributed to, the development of a global democracy of one sort or another.
I have no reason to follow B&W so you completely lost my interest by posting a link.
Sorry about that Chief. I know there have been some cheap-shots from that quarter, but I figured that the messenger, warts and all, might have been less important than the message – i.e., that the depredations by the fundamentalists, mostly the religious variety but not exclusively, are, I think, a serious social problem.
Although maybe less so where you are than in North America. But then again if it is the UK – as your recent article(s) on this site would suggest – then Islamic fundamentalism there, at least, might be a case in point.
steph
June 16, 2012 at 11:09 am
Steersman: There are much more reliable, sober and more accurate and articulate sources of information than B&W. But my point remains: internet ‘dialogue’ can continue for dull days and become so tangential it becomes increasingly irrelevant to the original topic. I’m not sure why you feel compelled to lecture me on the evils of fundamentalism or assume I don’t know about them. Life goes on…
Remember to re-read Ursula Le Guin’s confession in the introduction to LHD: “I talk about the gods, I am an atheist. But I am an artist too, and therefore a liar. Distrust everything I say. I am telling the truth.”
(Don’t call me ‘Chief’ – I’m an aotearoan egalitarian)
Steersman
June 16, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Steph,
I’m not sure why you feel compelled to lecture me on the evils of fundamentalism or assume I don’t know about them.
Having found a brand new soapbox and a couple of somewhat unwitting or unwilling foils I figured it was a chance to read some stuff into the record, a way of calling out the gendarmes, a great opportunity to cry “The fundamentalists are coming! The fundamentalists are coming!” And a way of pointing out, to all and sundry, to all those who might be traipsing through this neck of the woods, that a great many of the religious variety are simply crazier than shit-house rats (excuse my French) – decidedly delusional as you pointed out elsewhere.
Life goes on…
Considering the rather apocalyptic visions of far too many of our brethren one might reasonably feel a little apprehensive about the future of that …
Don’t call me ‘Chief’ – I’m an aotearoan egalitarian.
Sorry; it was an attempt to inject a bit of humor that the situation seemed to call for – it was a catch-phrase from the sit-com Get Smart. I would have provided a link but it was late and it had been quite a popular hit “in over 100 countries” – although more than a few years ago ….
steph
June 16, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Flipping heck – like a leaky tap he never stops. Drip.
Steersman
June 13, 2012 at 12:29 pm
“… if God didn’t exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” [Voltaire]
And, of course, many would argue, with more than a little justification, that that is precisely what humanity has done. Although that doesn’t detract from the argument since there does seem some necessity for that invention – even if there can be too much of a good thing as seems the case in far too many people and as the annals of drug and alcohol addiction adequately attest.
Reply
scotteus
June 12, 2012 at 9:07 pm
I’m still stuck on answering the question as to why it took Plantinga so long to get around to this topic? He’s considered, in many circles, to be the heaviest hitter in the Theist camp(at least he is from my experience of his prose). Was je waiting till Hitchens was gone? Inquiring minds want to know.
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
June 12, 2012 at 9:12 pm
It’s a fair question but he’s more used to debating other philosophers like mackie. I suspect this kind of warfare struck him as a bit dirty. And so it is.
Reply
scotteus
June 12, 2012 at 9:15 pm
I’ve found it not just dirty, but rather dogmatic and as a result useless.
howardma
June 12, 2012 at 9:36 pm
While Neil Godfrey’s list of things which he questions whether they can be considered “knowing truth” was meant to be one of those condescending statements that Tollefsen talked about, it turns out that they can in fact impart knowledge of truth. Simply put, if someone gains knowledge or some insight that they did not already possess, because they were under any of the states that Godfrey mentions, and if that knowledge turns out to be true or factual, would this not be the meaning of coming to know truth? I don’t know why Godfrey scoffs at the idea that belief in God can bring with it knowledge of truth. I think the problem is that those who do not believe in God use backward logic. For example, they will say, since miracles are impossible, they could not be historical events. That in and of itself implies that God must not exist. They do not attempt to, nor could they, prove that God does not exist. So they must work backwards from the available evidence. But this is completely useless because if the God as described in the Bible does in fact exist, he could have easily performed these miracles that are considered impossible from a scientific or humanistic standpoint. So it should be pretty clear that if God does exist, and if he related things to man through the Judeo/Christian Bible, this would in fact be true knowledge.
So what makes something impossible? I bet if you asked a scientist from the 15th century if it was possible for a man to fly 20,000 feet high in a metal vehicle, he would say it was impossible. It’s probably a good thing that some people through history had an open mind and were willing to investigate this impossibility, until it was made a reality. So what makes an airplane fly or any of the other things we have today that would have been considered impossible just a few hundred years ago? It comes from having knowledge of the physical laws and how to manipulate them to our advantage. Again, if there is a God, who would ultimately have a much greater knowledge of the physical laws and how to manipulate them, why can’t his impossibilities (miracles) be considered reality the same way that man’s past impossibilities were turned into future realities? Is it merely because man has placed himself on such a pedestal that it is egregious to think that some entity is vastly superior to him?
But this review of Tollefsen’s book is absolutely right, no one wants to have a serious discussion on these issues. They have made their minds up already, they are not willing to be open minded, or listen to other peoples opinions. It’s just condescending ridicule, which I will probably get here as well. And those who argue for the scientific method are being hypocritical. Yes, believing in God as the creator of life and so on, has not been proven by any means, but those who do accept it, are holding onto an idea that has been neither proven or disproven. How is this any different then say string theory for example? That too has not been proven or disproven, but physicists still hold on to the idea hoping one day to prove or disprove the idea. How is this okay for one and not the other?
Finally, another problem with having serious discussions about these issues is all the contradictory beliefs Christians have and their violent history and other bad behavior. People blame religion and the Bible for this. However, this is nonsense, if I give someone a cook book and they really screw up the recipes and make lousy food, was that the fault of the cook book or the cook? Just because people do horrible things in the name of religion, does not mean the source of the religion is horrible, only the twisted interpretation was.
Reply
Ken Scaletta
June 13, 2012 at 12:07 am
What is the correct, non-horrible interpretation of 1 Samuel 15:3?
Personally, I find arguments from the alleged atrocities committed in the name of religion to be irrelevant to the question, and I think religion is a product of culture rather than culture being a product religion (that is, religion doesn’t make people good or bad, it just mirrors whatever they already are – it’s an effect, not a cause), but don’t pretend the Bible is not filled with some almost unfathomably archaic tribal attitudes and ancient worldviews which are flatly indefensible now. They were already recognized as embarrassing even in the Talmud.
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
June 13, 2012 at 8:36 am
@Ken: I agree that these attitudes if they are what is being defended are indefensible.
howardma
June 13, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Ken,
I was referring to what Christians have done in later centuries, not what is written in the Bible that some people consider horrible, that is a completely different issue. Unless you are implying that some of the horrible things Christians have done was based on 1 Sam 15:3. But I also agree with you when you say that religion doesn’t cause people to do bad things, it just gives them an excuse to do what they already wanted to do. That was the point I was making in my original comment.
Also, are you implying that events like 1 Sam 15:3 are indefensible? If so, can you explain why?
Ken Scaletta
June 13, 2012 at 7:06 pm
@howardma
You seemed to be analogizing the Bible to a cookbook:
“People blame religion and the Bible for this. However, this is nonsense, if I give someone a cook book and they really screw up the recipes and make lousy food, was that the fault of the cook book or the cook? Just because people do horrible things in the name of religion, does not mean the source of the religion is horrible, only the twisted interpretation was.”
So I was asking for the correct way to read that particular “recipe.”
As to what’s indefensible about it – you really need an explanation as to why total racial genocide (including mass infanticide) is indefensible?
howardma
June 13, 2012 at 7:46 pm
@Ken,
Obviously you are approaching the issue as an atheist, and if your view is correct, then you are right and these things are indefensible. However, when having a discussion with someone who holds a different view, shouldn’t you at least try to answer as if you are taking my view into consideration? Not merely assuming that you are right and I am wrong and therefore my views do not need to be considered. So I ask again, if you can at least postulate the idea that the Jewish God is real, and that he commanded that the actions at 1 Samuel 15:3 be fulfilled, would this God be under the same moral laws as man?
Franklin Percival
June 13, 2012 at 8:35 pm
… all calls for too much imagination to dredge up something to suspend belief in.
howardma
June 13, 2012 at 8:52 pm
@Franklin, that’s a shame that you have no imagination…
steph
June 13, 2012 at 9:04 pm
Howardma:
Critical thinkers including modern Christians, approach ancient texts with hermeneutics of suspicion. If you are dismissing the tools of critical historical method as invalid, you are repeating the mistakes of some recent atheist mythicists (one in particular) who have also pronounced critical historical method as fundamentally flawed, invalid and various other more vulgar things, in a fundamentalist fashion.
On the other hand sometimes it’s sometimes best to reflect on Proverbs 26.4 with a tendency towards 26.5.
Franklin: Amen.
howardma
June 13, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Steph,
I’m not dismissing anything, although it would be helpful to know exactly what comment of mine you are referring to. If you are talking about the last one to Ken, I was merely asking for his opinion as to what set of moral laws the God of the Jews, if real, was bound by. It’s a hypothetical or maybe a philosophical question. Are those considered stupid on this blog? Also, in my experience, a critical thinker is someone who rejects much of the Bible as historical. Which is fine by me, I don’t have a problem with anyone else’s beliefs or worldview. However, if any of these critical thinkers say they are a Christian, they are fooling themselves. I think it is a bit funny how these mythicists, atheist, and critical thinkers reject the Bible in whole or in part when they do not even know what the Bible is really saying, and if they do, I sure don’t see any of them talking about it.
Ken Scaletta
June 13, 2012 at 9:58 pm
@Howardma –
“Morality” is an aesthetic, not an external “law.” Morality (speaking conceptually here, not in terms of legal codes) is a descriptor for a set of evolutionarily derived emotional responses to external stimuli. We are a social species evolved to survive in populations, not as individuals. This means (like many other animals) we have evolved emotional and chemical responses to the behavior and welfare of those close to us – “nurturing” instincts for young, pair bonding, defensive bonding and other survival bonds (we can even bond with animals) empathic responses (the feeling of distress at seeing one of our own kind suffer), altruism – all that stuff is “morality.” Morality is not what you do, it’s how you FEEL about what you do, and what you see being done to others. There is no objective test for “validity,” immoral is whatever you feel it is.
That’s all a long-winded way of saying that 1 Samuel, “kill all the babies” God (I won’t say “Jewish God” because we’re only talking about one author’s conception of God, and other Jewish writings, including authors in the Hebrew Bible, have different conceptions of God) is exactly as “moral” as you feel like he is. Nobody is “subject”
to any “moral law,” but his own.
Or to put it another way, yes, all gods are subject to MY moral
judgement, and while this judgement is constantly subject to revision, racial genocide and mass slaughters of infants based on nothing but their race (this was an order for a literal and absolute genocide – kill ALL the Amelekites, don’t leave a single one alive, not even the
infants) is something that is pretty well set in stone as being on my “immoral” list.
steph
June 13, 2012 at 10:34 pm
This comment in particular Howardma. “And those who argue for the scientific method are being hypocritical.”
It grieves me slightly that you claim that all of my Christian colleagues and friends, who examine texts in their historical and cultural social contexts, are fooling themselves. Only you are privileged to special knowledge of the meaning of the Bible Howardma. I suggest your question is anachronistic. Haere ra.
Steersman
June 14, 2012 at 12:15 am
howardma,
I was merely asking for his opinion as to what set of moral laws the God of the Jews, if real, was bound by.
You don’t, maybe, find that question somewhat akin to the one that supposedly exercised the “intellects” of theologians of yore (and, apparently, of today), i.e., “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin”?
Seems far more reasonable, in my opinion, to simply cut to the chase and ask what real factual tangible evidence is there to begin with (zero) for that entity or for any of the others in the same zoo. I really find it very difficult to understand, and quite risible to observe, how anyone can say, at least with a straight face, that their concept of god is the only really and truly, honest-to-gosh, real-McCoy when there have been and are literally thousands of such over the history of humanity’s evolution – most of which have, thankfully, bitten the dust [RIP] or followed Puff-the-Magic-Dragon into never-never-land.
One would think that even a rudimentary understanding or awareness or application of an old saw – “if it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck then it is, most probably, in fact, a duck” (actually an application of inductive reasoning) – would lead most people to have the same jaundiced view of their own “god” as they apparently have of every other one. I guess worshipping one “tree” tends to preclude much awareness of the thousands of others surrounding it, much less the forest …
howardma
June 14, 2012 at 6:31 pm
@Ken,
I have a couple problems with your comment. Just because you do not agree with what I am saying does not give you the right to re-define words and concepts to fit your own view. Here is how Dictionary.com defines morality.
1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4. a doctrine or system of morals.
5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.
I don’t see anything related to “aesthetics” or that morality is “evolutionarily derived.” I also looked up “moral” and it did not contain them either. Not to mention that your “long-winded” response was pretty pointless as I do not believe in evolution. But I do have an advantage over you, I can at least imagine that evolution might be true, so I could have a discussion with someone.
However, you did get around to answering the question somewhat. But I really can’t tell if you are just humoring me, or you really think that a vastly superior being would be judged immoral in your eyes if he commanded the killing of babies. According to you, you feel this way because what you think is moral or immoral is the result of your own personal emotional response to external stimuli based on your experiences of life thus far. But what of it, who cares what you feel? The only reason people care is when enough people feel the same way, it creates a social convention, or even a law. So morality has nothing to do with truth, it has to do with the number of votes the event receives. Because if it were really true that killing a living helpless being was immoral, then we would have to include animals, fish, and insects to the list along with babies. However, these things do not get enough votes to make it universally immoral.
Now I will explain how I feel about 1 Samuel without taking your view into consideration. The God of the Bible is a vastly superior being. His moral values are based on righteousness and truth, not on the majority consensus. God is the source and creator of all life, it is entirely within his right to take any action he wishes with the life he created. And most important, he can bring back to life anyone he wants. Can man do that when he takes the life of lower forms of life?
@Steph,
Well, I’m not sure how you define Christian, but to me it is someone who follows or believes in the Christ and what he did and what it stands for in relation to us. Using just one point, many critical thinkers can be eliminated as being Christian. Any who believe in evolution have to reject a literal Adam. That’s a problem, because one of the main things that Christ did was to sacrifice himself to free mankind from sin, Adam’s sin. But how does that happen? Because the man Jesus was the second Adam, a perfect man who remained perfect until death. His perfect human life was used to replace Adam’s failed life, and by doing that he inherited the human race as his offspring from Adam. So if there was no Adam, then the Christ did nothing, and the claim to be a Christian is nothing. No, I am not privileged at all, it is available to all, if they want it.
@Steersman
Proverbs 9:7-9
Franklin Percival
June 15, 2012 at 8:50 am
I have uk english as a mother tongue, reasonable french, moderate latin and greek, zilch anything else, particularly finnish and icelandic. The question, seems to me is, was whatever in samuel:1 actually written?
It is not for me to judge it if it was or wasn’t. I don’t stand an earthly of reading the original. Religion is only protopolitics, anyway, seems to me.
Steersman
June 14, 2012 at 8:02 pm
howardma,
@Steersman Proverbs 9:7-9
So painting your interlocutor’s arguments as scorn is the fundamentalist’s way of putting their fingers in their ears and chanting “Nyah, nyah, can’t hear you”? I guess that saves the messy details, not to mention the wear and tear on their “critical faculties” – such as they are, of actually having to deal with those arguments.
howardma
June 14, 2012 at 8:26 pm
Steersman,
And just what argument might that be? I seen nothing but your own conclusions. Not only that, they are conclusions to arguments of someone else’s ideas, not mine. Provide a real specific argument and I will respond to it, if that is what you want.
Steersman
June 15, 2012 at 5:07 am
Howardma,
Steersman, And just what argument might that be? I’ve seen nothing but your own conclusions. Provide a real specific argument and I will respond to it …
I would have thought my previous post to you would have been sufficient to fashion a response. But since that seems not to be the case, I’ll try and spell out a few of the questions (as arguments) that were there:
1) Don’t you think that your question (“moral laws” and “the God of the Jews”) was pretty much the same as the ancient “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”? Particularly since, as I indicated, there is as much evidence – i.e. absolutely zero – for the divine square-dancing team as there is for the entity you styled “the God of the Jews”. Isn’t it rather pointless – unless of course one only wants to hear oneself blather – to be talking of consequences that might follow IF something is true when there isn’t the slightest bit of evidence to suggest that it is, in fact, true? Virtually the same as the proverbial: “IF my grandmother had four wheels and a diesel engine she would be a bus”; would you spend much time seriously and earnestly and learnedly discussing the question of which laws she would be bound by? Maybe print up a few schedules?
While science also starts from such hypotheses it at least has a whole bunch of brute facts to begin with and actually attempts to corroborate the hypothesis by seeking currently unknown facts that would follow if the hypothesis is true. Religion? The only hypothesis that I know of that anyone tried to prove was on the efficacy of prayer – if God then prayer works, at least that’s the dogma, that’s what the charlatans have been promising the gullible for ages. And the results? No better than random if not actually likely to put the patients who were the subjects in a worse position. Ergo – a complete waste of time, money, effort and people’s lives. Unless you think that misleading people into believing lies is a human use of human beings.
2) Since you claimed my comments were not related to your ideas and since you have indicated that you don’t believe in evolution and that, apparently, because it conflicts with a “literal Adam”, that justifies concluding, provisionally, that you are a Christian fundamentalist and likewise justifies asking you these questions (as I did, indirectly, in my previous post): How can you say, at least with a straight face, that your concept of god is the only really and truly, honest-to-gosh, real-McCoy when there are and have been literally thousands of such gods over the history of humanity’s evolution – most of which have, thankfully, bitten the dust [RIP] or followed Puff-the-Magic-Dragon into never-never-land? Have you never heard of the aphorism to the effect that “If if walks like a duck and squawks like a duck then it probably is a duck”? Do you not think that it has some applicability to all of the gods – all of the ducks – that humanity has worshipped over the tens of millennia of its evolution? Do you not think it reasonable that if all of those gods, including yours, show a great many similarities – as they do, including that they have all largely been rejected as figments of the imagination – then yours can also likewise be rejected as the same type of figment?
Steersman
June 15, 2012 at 5:25 am
Howardma,
And further to your request for “real specific arguments” and more directly related to your ideas, though of an earlier post, you said:
Again, if there is a God … why can’t his impossibilities (miracles) be considered reality the same way that man’s past impossibilities were turned into future realities?
3) Because you apparently don’t understand the meaning and implications of the word IF: i.e., granting that, assuming that. It means that “God”, in that case, is “that which is to be proven” and most emphatically not that which is already a proven fact: no QED until you have actually demonstrated it is true. You only get to assert that the miracles should “be considered reality” if you have proven that what such a state is contingent upon is, in fact, true, i.e., that God actually exists. You can’t make a hypothesis and then conveniently and immediately “forget” that it is only a conjecture – frequently a justification for some serious scorn if not ridicule; putting the cart before the horse does tend to produce that response.
And, finally, you said:
… believing in God … has not been proven by any means…. How is this any different than say string theory for example?
4) How are apples different from whales? A world of difference, a veritable universe of difference. For one thing, string theory starts from literally mountains of facts, i.e., most of the phenomena that are real, solid, tangible and repeatable and that are already explainable by other theories, notably quantum mechanics and relativity. Then, apparently as my knowledge of it is decidedly sketchy and very limited, it makes a number of hypotheses and conjectures based both on known facts and on new mathematics and old mathematics – which has already proven itself many times over – to make a number of predictions. And some of those predictions are merely consistent with what is already known and so is not conclusive: “it has passed many non-trivial checks of its internal consistency”. And others require test equipment which is probably beyond our technology – might always be beyond our technology – so that many are dubious whether it even deserves to be called a theory. In spite of which some few physicists believe in it “with a certainty that seems emotional rather than rational” [Lee Smolin; The Trouble with Physics; pg xx]. Some similarities there with most fundamentalists.
But the point is that it is a vast edifice of largely interconnected facts and mathematical structures most of which have a great deal of utility in our modern civilization – from nuclear reactors to the Internet to electrical power generation to all of our medical technology.
As for “believing in god”, what, pray tell, has religion in general got to put on the opposite side of the balance scale? It is to laugh even if only not to cry. If the religious ever manage to get their acts together and agree on a particular conception then it might actually have some solid utility and value. But, as it is, it seems to have been mostly a hindrance, a set of stumbling blocks, a cause for disunity and the shedding of much blood. Definitely a few differences there, I would say.
howardma
June 15, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Steersman,
Like many people do, you have covered a great deal of issues in your comments. Too much in fact to answer in one comment. For now I will respond to the things that really stand out to me.
Your number 3 question.
You really don’t think this way do you? This is called reasoning through logic. I was attempting to bring out a point, not provide any sort of evidence for some claim of mine. So if I said, “if the sun blew up, we would not see it happen until about 8 or 9 minutes after it actually happened,” this would be wrong because I would have to prove first that the sun actually blew up before I can make this statement? That is ridiculous! This type of reasoning is used all the time, it is exploring what the most logical results might be under a postulated event.
If you try to pet my dog, you will get bitten.
If the president dies, the vice president takes over.
If God exists, the miracles most likely happened.
And unlike your example with your grandmother in question 1, these are future events, not past. For example, if it rains tomorrow, I won’t have to go to work. Here are some ways that the existence of God would be proven in the future. One, if you die, and find yourself resurrected, that should be a clue that God is real. Two, if the Apocalypse happens next week, that also might prove God’s existence. However, my original question had nothing to do with proving God’s existence, it was merely a question of what would logically follow concerning the miracles attributed to him. In other words, if God came down to earth today and revealed himself to you as the God of the Bible, would you still question the miracles?
The point I was trying to make is the one you criticized me for, I am simply saying, from your perspective, would it be true that the miracles could be accepted, if God’s existence can be shown to be fact. Or do you have no doubts whatsoever that God does not exist? Actually, the original question was to learn about the person I was talking to.
Lets try a science experiment. I quoted you below and changed a couple words, who are you now criticizing?
“Because you apparently don’t understand the meaning and implications of the word IF: i.e., granting that, assuming that. It means that “God”, in that case, is “that which is to be proven” and most emphatically not that which is already a proven fact: no QED until you have actually demonstrated it is true. You only get to assert that the miracles should “not be considered reality” if you have proven that what such a state is contingent upon is, in fact, true, i.e., that God does not exists. You can’t make a hypothesis and then conveniently and immediately “forget” that it is only a conjecture – frequently a justification for some serious scorn if not ridicule; putting the cart before the horse does tend to produce that response.”
howardma
June 15, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Steersman,
“1) Don’t you think that your question (“moral laws” and “the God of the Jews”) was pretty much the same as the ancient “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”?
No I do not think they were the same at all. First, the angel question is pretty stupid, and if any “theologian” couldn’t answer this question in the blink of an eye, he wasn’t much of a theologian. The answer is all of them, if God wanted it done. “all things are possible with God.”
What I don’t understand, is why you criticize me for doing the exact same thing you do. No, I can not prove that God does exist, but you have proven beyond all doubt that God does not exist?
I know you have a list of so called evidence for your position, such as evolution, the history of world religions, and so on. And I have counter proposals for all of them, not that you would give them any consideration, so it is probably not worth mentioning them. And contrary to your assumptions, there is evidence of God’s existence.
As far as the string theory analogy, as usual you completely missed the point. You are too busy making everything so complicated you missed the simple analogy. It doesn’t matter at all how many scientific facts go into the string theory, if it is proven wrong, none of that mattered did it? It would just prove that scientist can take “mountains of facts” and devise an incorrect theory from it, the way they do with evolution. However my point was simply that if all physicists were like the people on this blog, they should have disposed of the string theory long ago because it was not proven YET. That goes along with the thinking around here, if you can not prove something right now, it is not worth investigating.
howardma
June 15, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Steersman,
“since you have indicated that you don’t believe in evolution and that, apparently, because it conflicts with a “literal Adam”, that justifies concluding, provisionally, that you are a Christian fundamentalist and likewise justifies asking you these questions”
I’m starting to see a pattern here, are you purposely misinterpreting my words and taking them out of context to suit your needs? I mentioned Adam in the context of critical thinkers claiming to be Christians. I said if evolution is true, then there was no literal Adam, and by extension no useful Christian religion. Unless these critical thinkers are followers of a normal human man from Israel that was called Christ and who believed he was the agent of an imaginary deity, and if he was crucified, it was to no purpose. So what does Christian mean to these people? But back to the point, you turned this around and claimed that I don’t believe in evolution because I think Adam was literal. The two have nothing to do with each other. I don’t believe in evolution for many reasons, none of which have to do with Adam. Oh and by the way, I am not a fundamentalist. Just for a primer, I do not believe in the trinity, a young earth, hell, the usual idea of prayer, the usual idea of the soul, and many more. These things are not supported by the Bible, these are ideas that were formulated later, and should not be a basis for discrediting the Bible, false religion yes, but not the Bible. That is what makes some of your comments look so amateurish, because anyone with an ounce of interest in the truth, would have investigated these doctrines and would come to see that there is a sharp distinction between what some Christians say and what the Bible says.
“How can you say, at least with a straight face, that your concept of god is the only really and truly, honest-to-gosh, real-McCoy when there are and have been literally thousands of such gods over the history of humanity’s evolution.”
You would think that someone who throws around all these big words would be smart enough to understand simple phrases. Where did I ever say my “concept of god” in my comment? I didn’t, I said “what the Bible is really saying” and these are not the same ideas. I was talking about the Bible, not God. I was talking about the main themes of the Bible that deal with people and conditions, not God. Anyway, I assume you are talking about the gods of the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Canaanites, etc. Who ever said that these were not real gods? There are two reasons I say this.
1. In reality, many of these gods were passed down to other cultures, as the Greek and Roman gods are very similar, they just altered the names and stories a little. What if we were able to trace all these different gods back to the cradle of civilization, That would mean that most of these gods were originally based on god/gods of the initial ideas of a god. So to me, it is most probable that many of these gods through mans history are distortions from oral traditions passed down through the centuries of YHWH and his actions, and maybe even some of the people, that were later recorded in the book of Genesis.
2. These were also real gods because they fit one of the definitions of the word god/elohim/theos. Which is object of devotion. Anything can be a god if you pledge your total allegiance to it. That’s why your belly can be a god.
“As for “believing in god”, what, pray tell, has religion in general got to put on the opposite side of the balance scale? It is to laugh even if only not to cry. If the religious ever manage to get their acts together and agree on a particular conception then it might actually have some solid utility and value. But, as it is, it seems to have been mostly a hindrance, a set of stumbling blocks, a cause for disunity and the shedding of much blood. Definitely a few differences there, I would say.”
The problem here is that you believe the lie.
(Titus 1:16) “They publicly declare they know God, but they disown him by their works, because they are detestable and disobedient and not approved for good work of any sort.”
In other words, they are not Christians.
Steersman
June 16, 2012 at 12:30 am
Howardma,
So if I said, “if the sun blew up, we would not see it happen until about 8 or 9 minutes after it actually happened,” this would be wrong because I would have to prove first that the sun actually blew up before I can make this statement? That is ridiculous!
Yes, of course it is ridiculous. But I wasn’t saying that and it wasn’t my point. Which is that the sense of your argument, the analogy to a time-traveller from the 15th century viewing a modern plane, is quite a bit different from the analogy you offered above. You said:
.. why can’t his impossibilities (miracles) be considered reality …
Not “couldn’t” but “can’t”. Now maybe that was an inadvertent slip-of-the-tongue, but the sense I get there is the difference between a hypothetical and an actuality – which is doubly underlined by your analogy: equating the reality of the plane to the (argued) reality of the miracle – ergo God.
Your apparent argument would then be equivalent, referring again to the first one above, to you stating that because the sky has just now immediately gone totally black it is therefore true that the sun blew up (8 or 9 minutes ago). When, of course, a more likely cause is simply an eclipse – which tends to happen more frequently than novas. Likewise your entirely hypothetical miracles could have had any number of possible explanations and are therefore no proof of God’s existence.
I was attempting to bring out a point, not provide any sort of evidence for some claim of mine.
It didn’t look that way to me – as indicated above; more like a rather disingenuous attempt to get people to concede the reality of a supposed miracle and therefore Jehovah – in all his rather tarnished and fading glory.
Steersman
June 16, 2012 at 5:42 am
Howardma,
I quoted you below and changed a couple words, who are you now criticizing?
Hmmm, didn’t someone here say something recently about the “ones [who] inevitably respond by deflecting that same critique, verbatim, upon those who have made it”?
But that only works if there isn’t any asymmetry in the two positions; tends to backfire otherwise.
In any case, your deflected and reflected statement was this:
You only get to assert that the miracles should “not be considered reality” if you have proven that what such a state is contingent upon is, in fact, true, i.e., that God does not exists.
But my hypothesis is not that “god does not exist”, only that there is no conclusive evidence – “that which determines or demonstrates the truth of an assertion” – and no proof that it does – the first asymmetry. So, to answer your question, I’m certainly not criticizing myself. But you have already, I believe, conceded that about the proof so I don’t see the argument on that point.
As for the “miracles” that should or should not be “considered reality”, it seems some clarification is required. And since you were the one who introduced the term and from your context and perspective, I would presume that you are talking about things like Jesus’ supposed walking on water, turning water into wine, and resurrection. And if you’re not then it still seems an appropriate stand-in and should do for the sake of argument. But before those can even be given any consideration it seems you have to provide evidence that they actually happened as described. Particularly since there seems to be quite a number of very similar if not identical events claimed for various other individuals throughout history – and well before Jesus. “Extraordinary claims” and all of that.
And, in the absence of that evidence and in light of the fact that there is any number of possible explanations – a series of hypothetical causes and effects – for the supposed events, none of which rely on any supernatural causes and for which you’ve agreed there is no proof, it is most probable – “walks like a duck” – that the supposed events – the “miracle” – cannot be considered any part of objective reality – most likely just another one of those very ubiquitous “extraordinary popular delusions and madness of crowds”.
howardma
June 16, 2012 at 8:25 am
Steersman,
You are probably right that I should have used “couldn’t” in my argument. But you still have my logic backwards. I am in no way trying to say that unverifiable miracles are evidence of God’s existence, that is illogical. I am saying that many people think the miracles did not happen because miracles in general are considered impossible. I then demonstrated that what constitutes something as impossible is often simply the lack of knowledge of physical laws and how to manipulate them. So there were actually two points in my comment. One, it is not logically sound to discount biblical miracles simply on the argument that they appear impossible in relation to our current knowledge of the physical laws. Two, It seems that people often feel that because the miracles are considered impossible, that provides more evidence that God does not exist. I was merely reversing that logic and saying, logically, if it can be shown that God does exist, the miracles most likely happened. And by conceding to that hypothesis, it shows that the argument that God doesn’t exist because the Bible talks about impossible miracles is an illogical argument. It was a question in logic, not theology. But apparently, the idea of even hypothesizing God’s existence to answer a logic question is so distasteful to you, you went on some rant about everything else except the question.
Steersman
June 16, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Howardma,
I am in no way trying to say that unverifiable miracles are evidence of God’s existence; that is illogical.
You say that you are not saying that. But it seems to me that a close reading of your arguments strongly suggests, if not proves, that that is exactly what you are saying. For one example of several, you say:
… it is not logically sound to discount biblical miracles simply on the argument that they appear impossible in relation to our current knowledge of the physical laws.
But that is, at the very best, a rather egregious case of the logical fallacy known as “begging the question”; it “loads in at the front end” that which is to be proven, i.e., that the events described are in fact “miracles”: i.e., “events that appear inexplicable by the laws of nature and so are held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God”. You simply cannot call the events in question “miracles” until after you have proven the existence of the god on which their status as such crucially depends – it tends to qualify as the proverbial “putting the cart before the horse”, obstinate repetitions of which tends to produce at least understandable responses of scorn and ridicule.
Further, while it is true, as you argue or suggest, that “our current knowledge of physical laws” is a work in progress which may have some problematic ramifications and implications, that “current knowledge” also seems to encompass the concept of acausal, non-deterministic, random or “non-lawful” events, i.e., that “God” – in the sense of an abstraction, not a real entity – does, in effect or to some extent, “play dice with the universe”. In which case it seems quite reasonable to argue that there could well be events that are, simply by definition, “inexplicable by the laws of nature”, but that are entirely and totally “natural” – i.e., no god need apply; “inexplicable” is most definitely not proof of god.
But apparently, the idea of even hypothesizing God’s existence to answer a logic question is so distasteful to you, [that] you went on some rant about everything else except the question.
I have no objection to “hypothesizing God’s existence” as I think it can be a useful abstraction or paradigm for our “ultimate concerns”. But when it becomes an assertion – as your hypothesis appears to be and a somewhat disingenuous one to boot, at best – as to the existence of some literal anthropomorphic entity – particularly one that condones or instigates genocide – then I question its veracity and the credibility of the individuals advancing it.
howardma
June 16, 2012 at 8:00 pm
Steersman,
This is getting a little tiresome having to explain myself repeatedly. I think the problem is that you think you know where I am coming from, I guarantee that you do not know where I am coming from.
When I said: “… it is not logically sound to discount biblical miracles simply on the argument that they appear impossible in relation to our current knowledge of the physical laws.”
I was not creating a dichotomy by my statement, this should have been plain by my use of “simply on the (singular) argument…” and it was to imply that it is unsound to use this ONE argument, other arguments may apply. But what I was really trying to get across was, as I said before, it is illogical to use the miracles as evidence for God, and the reverse should also be true, that you can not use the impossible nature of miracles as evidence of no God. So at best, if someone was trying to investigate the probable reality of God, they should not be used either way, they should be set aside as you look for other evidence. Your criticism of the word “miracles” is unwarranted. This is the English word many translators used when translating the Bible. You may want to look elsewhere for the source of these events, but you can not criticize me for using the terminology that is within the scope of the genre.
“Miracles are occurrences that excite wonder or astonishment; effects in the physical world that surpass all known human or natural powers and are therefore attributed to supernatural agency. In the Hebrew Scriptures the word mohpheth', sometimes translated “miracle,” also means “portent,” “wonder,” and “token.” (De 28:46; 1Ch 16:12, ftn) It is often used in conjunction with the Hebrew word 'ohth, meaning “sign.” (De 4:34) In the Greek Scriptures the word dynamis, “power,” is rendered “powerful works,” “ability,” “miracle.”—Mt 25:15; Lu 6:19; 1Co 12:10, AT, KJ, NW, RS.”
Steersman
June 17, 2012 at 1:12 am
Howardma,
I think the problem is that you think you know where I am coming from, I guarantee that you do not know where I am coming from.
Well in that case why don’t you stop being so coy and tell me exactly where you’re coming from. You said, as a primer, that you did not “believe in the trinity, a young earth, hell, the usual idea of prayer, the usual idea of the soul, and many more”. But you seem to self-identify as a Christian as you were throwing stones – in quoting Titus – at those who were “not Christians”. Although that seems somewhat inconsistent as I’m somewhat at a loss as to how one can be a Christian and not believe in the trinity. But then again Eastern Orthodox has a different view on that, although Filioque seems a complete and total muddle, and Newton was an Antitrinitarian as well, a grouping that seems to include Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. So, which of the 38,000-odd sects – a rather ridiculous state of affairs in itself – within Christianity do you belong to – if any?
Your criticism of the word “miracles” is unwarranted. This is the English word many translators used when translating the Bible.
And, as a point of reference, why don’t you provide a few precise examples of what you mean by “miracles” so I don’t have to guess and so we’re at least on the same page there. But, relative to that quote, it seems to me that Roo Bookaro touched upon that problem in the Jesus Process thread, i.e., that the language of the Bible carries a whole slew – more fetid than not, pun intended – of premises and presumptions that predispose to a particular set of interpretations and responses. Much like the feminist arguments, generally quite reasonable, that words like “chairman” instantiate a problematic bias.
And, in particular, “miracles” seem to carry a connotation in your mind that those events happened exactly as described. Which would be entirely consistent with your apparent support for a literal interpretation of 1 Samuel 15:3 and justifies concluding that, as Steph suggested, you are simply a fundamentalist, in spite of protestations to the contrary, and view most if not all of the descriptions of supernatural events in the Bible as literally true. Is that the case or not?
And if it is then all of your arguments about trying to deal in “logic, not theology” is just so much window dressing as you would then simply be unable to conceive of, much less entertain and still less accept, the idea that those descriptions could have been fantasies, fables and figments of the imagination – anything but the real-meal-deal. And if such disparities in starting positions actually exist then it is not at all surprising that you would think that I am “purposely misinterpreting [your] words”.
howardma
June 17, 2012 at 1:22 pm
“I’m somewhat at a loss as to how one can be a Christian and not believe in the trinity.”
This is part of our problem. Your understanding of Christianity has not moved past unsubstantiated dogma such as this. If you were up to date on the subject, you would know that many biblical scholars such as Larry Hurtado, who focuses on the origins of Christianity, is in agreement that the early texts themselves do not support an idea of the trinity, much less that Jesus was God. Jesus became God gradually through the first few centuries of Christianity through speculation, interpretation, and argumentation. Jesus was a man, no less, no more. So it is no wonder many people reject and ridicule the Bible and religion when they believe it supports such nonsensical ideas, and there are many more of them.
The reason I am here is to try and show that once you remove all this nonsense and come to a better understanding of what the Bible is really saying, it doesn’t seem so ridiculous. But you do not seem like you can get over the biggest hurdle, which is accepting the possibility of a supernatural being. So I can safely assume you have the same feelings about whether there is life elsewhere in the universe? Or for that matter, if there are other universes and other planes of existence. If you can do that, then there is room for the possibility of a supernatural (as compared to earthlings) being.
But yes I know, you want evidence, you want it proven beyond doubt that there is a God, before you will accept it as fact. Well I’m sorry to tell you that that is not going to happen, aside from the current evidence. Which is that life, intelligence, and information comes from life, intelligence, and knowledge. You see, the problem is that God doesn’t want us to have undisputed evidence. Who would not be a follower of God if they KNEW for a fact that he existed. Probably everyone would, but would they believe and obey him for the right motives? Probably not, some would be obeying so they did not suffer in some fashion. The right motivation is to obey God because it pleases God regardless of what happens to us. That is called love by the way. It is similar to the distinction between two groups of people who do not steal from others. One group is afraid to go to jail, the other group cares about other people and does not wish to hurt them. The first group’s actions are based on a fact, if caught, they WILL go to jail or at least be punished in some fashion (a logical decision). The second group’s actions are based on a belief, they do not believe in hurting other people (an emotional decision). Even though both these groups performed the same action (not stealing) they did it for different reasons. Would a parent want their children to obey them because the children love them and they realize that their parents are trying to help them, or would it be okay if they didn’t love them, but just obeyed out of fear of punishment? That is why there will never be direct undisputed evidence of God’s existence until the appointed time for it to be revealed. Yes, I know you will say this is some copout, but I don’t know what to tell you, this is the reason you have not found the evidence you are looking for in regards to God’s existence.
Actually, there is no reason to get into specific miracles, I was only using that as an example to make a point. The truth is I don’t really care what you believe and I am not trying to convince you otherwise. In my view, belief in God is a personal matter, and the ignorant condemnation of others should not be plastered over billboards and protest signs. I do believe however that a consensual one on one conversation is the way to go. Being on this blog might not exactly fit that criteria, so sue me. I also believe the written word is another way to go, because if you think you are going to be offended, don’t pick it up and read it then.
But as far as me, no, I do not belong to any religion, In fact, by my own standards, I am not even a Christian. I do not always do what I know to be right. But that in no way affects what I do know about the Bible and God. And that is from many years of investigating the Bible and other’s opinions of it, including false Christian doctrine, atheist ideas, and so on for over 20 years.
So lets put this whole thing into perspective. You want to know what evidence there is for God’s existence, right? Well as I said, there is none, and there won’t be any undisputed evidence for God’s existence. The next logical question is, then why would anyone believe in something without any evidence? There a number of reasons for this, but I think the two main answers are, one, people who were raised to be religious have these ideas indoctrinated into their heads, no matter if they are the wild crazy and unsubstantiated beliefs. This is very hard to change even when confronted with how ridiculous their ideas are. It’s like the person who believes they are ugly, and someone compliments them on their looks, and they say to themselves “maybe I’m not so ugly after all” and two seconds later go back to thinking they are ugly. This type of indoctrination needs actual therapy, and that might not even work. And these are the types of people that you keep talking about, those who have almost no knowledge of the Bible or logic, and their actions cause a lot of problems in the world.
The second group are people who do think, and may have not been raised in a religious home like me. When these people wish to explore this religious thing, they go into it from a secular background and they evaluate the available evidence. Was it creation or was it evolution, etc., etc. Then the problem is compounded by the lies. Does the person have an accurate view of evolution? Do they have an accurate view of creation to compare? So it depends on what combination of lies and truths are being compared that will result in a decision one way or the other. And since there is no direct evidence of God, a person is swayed by the preponderance of the evidence by the way they interpret it. So anyone who believes in God is doing so by circumstantial evidence. Therefore, if someone else wants to question a person’s faith in God, they must re-examine this circumstantial evidence with them to see how they came to this conclusion. And when you have two people who derived their opposing beliefs through the preponderance of the evidence (lies and truth) by the way they interpret it, you have a religious debate that usually goes nowhere because both are arguing from the vantage point of the different conclusion they reached from the same evidence. And it may not even be the same evidence as one might be arguing from true evidence and one from false evidence. And for me I am confident that I have more true evidence of both sides then many others. But again, no one is perfect. Also, do not forget that when someone reaches a conclusion by the preponderance of the evidence, it is never a 0% to 100% result. Its more like a 40% to 60% result which does not mean a total rejection of other possibilities. It’s called an open mind. But I have also committed to my decision until the preponderance changes for me. I understand the same applies to you as well.
Steersman
June 19, 2012 at 3:48 am
Howardma,
This is part of our problem. Your understanding of Christianity has not moved past unsubstantiated dogma such as this.
I understand that there are essentially over 38,000 different Christian religions along with those of “Gawd” knows how many different Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and folk deities that are running about, if not running amok, in the craniums of a very large percentage of the world’s population. What, pray tell, makes you think that I think that any one of them has “substantiated” anything? Except maybe humanity’s general gullibility.
If you were up to date on the subject, you would know that many biblical scholars …
Life is too short for me, or for most, to do that on any more than one or two subjects – if that. You – and others – will have to give me the “executive summary”.
Jesus was a man, no less, no more.
I expect that that is the most likely case – and by a very large margin, although I’m curious as to how much correspondence there is between the reality and the fictions described by the Gospels – I sort of doubt we’ll ever really know for sure.
The reason I am here is to try and show that once you remove all this nonsense and come to a better understanding of what the Bible is really saying, it doesn’t seem so ridiculous.
Curious that you consider fraction X of the Bible to be nonsense while all of those 38,000 sects each have their own ideas of which fractions A1 through Z38000 are likewise; seems not at all improbable that every part of it is considered nonsense by one or more of those sects – a reasonable conclusion to which might be to agree with them all and say therefore the whole thing is nonsense.
Although I should emphasize that that pertains to the literal descriptions, particularly to the “supernatural” events; as the American moralist Philip Wylie put it, there’s much in it that is at least “profound psychology and exquisite logic”.
But what, precisely, do you mean by “it”? Since you’ve rejected Jesus’ claims to divinity, precisely which parts of the Bible do you think are not nonsense? More particularly, which parts do you think were the supernatural miracles you referred to? Moses? Jericho? Adam and Eve as real individuals?
But you do not seem like you can get over the biggest hurdle, which is accepting the possibility of a supernatural being.
I can’t help but get the feeling that “supernatural” is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms – a view that has some support in philosophy. But it really has as much sense to it as talking about square circles – if something exists that might be a reasonable facsimile to that supposed entity then I would think that should probably be construed as the most natural thing in the universe. No evidence for that of course so I don’t waste much time contemplating it.
So I can safely assume you have the same feelings about whether there is life elsewhere in the universe?
Not at all. There is at least one known location where the latter has taken place – fairly solid and durable if not incontrovertible evidence – along with some suggestion that some of the precursor chemicals are floating about in space. Hence there is some possibility that it could well happen or has happened elsewhere in the universe. Whereas there is absolutely zero evidence that a supernatural entity is even logically possible much less physically so.
You see, the problem is that God doesn’t want us to have undisputed evidence. …. That is why there will never be direct undisputed evidence of God’s existence ….
Nice story, but yes, a “cop-out”; really qualifies as a just-so story, one that fits a few of the facts but is more fanciful than not.
In my view, belief in God is a personal matter, and the ignorant condemnation of others should not be plastered over billboards and protest signs.
I’m not sure what would be a more egregiously “ignorant condemnation of others” than the lurid, barbaric and decidedly pathological visions of hell that many if not most of the faithful have for the “unbelievers” amongst us.
But yes I know, you want evidence, you want it proven beyond doubt that there is a God, before you will accept it as fact.
Yes, well that is sort of the meaning of the word:
Fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences; Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed; A real occurrence; an event:
“God” really can’t be considered a fact until it is demonstrated to exist; until then it is, at best, only a hypothesis. Asserting that something is a fact in the absence of that demonstration tends to be characterized as delusional.
howardma
June 19, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Steersman,
I think I have had about enough of your double-talk and complete unwillingness to stay on focus. Now listen, so you can maybe learn something today.
“What, pray tell, makes you think that I think that any one of them has “substantiated” anything?”
Now your trying to deceptively imply that I am saying something was substantiated by secular or scientific standards. Did you conveniently forget the context that YOU yourself brought up? It was about Christians believing in the trinity, so the context and focus of the conversation is what different Christians derive from the same written word, the Bible. Are you still paying attention? So it is completely possible to substantiate or not, a Christian doctrine by examining the pertinent text in question. The doctrine of Hell, for example, can be demonstrated to be a biblically unsubstantiated doctrine. Now get the shit out of your ears.
“Life is too short for me, or for most, to do that on any more than one or two subjects – if that.”
It has become pretty obvious to me that you don’t like to learn anything… :)
“Curious that you consider fraction X of the Bible to be nonsense…”
It’s like talking to a rock, PLEASE pay attention! The Bible is not nonsense, the various interpretations of the words and events in the Bible are nonsense. Do you know what an interpretation is?
“But what, precisely, do you mean by “it”? Since you’ve rejected Jesus’ claims to divinity, precisely which parts of the Bible do you think are not nonsense?”
Boy, you’re no better than a fundamentalist, you have no qualms about parroting the false doctrine I just told you is not in the texts. It is Christian dogma that says Jesus was God, not the Bible.
“I can’t help but get the feeling that “supernatural” is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.”
And I can’t help but get the feeling that Steersman is a moron, because you don’t know the definition of the words I use. Supernatural refers to something that is beyond the KNOWN laws of nature. Therefore, if and when these laws become known, it is no longer considered supernatural now is it?
The rest is just more nonsense gibberish that I don’t have time to deal with…
Steersman
June 20, 2012 at 3:18 am
Howardma,
Now your [sic] trying to deceptively imply that I am saying something was substantiated by secular or scientific standards. Did you conveniently forget the context that YOU yourself brought up?
Not in the slightest – on either account. I said, explicitly referencing the subject you think I had forgotten, that: “I’m somewhat at a loss as to how one can be a Christian and not believe in the trinity” – and to which I had added a number of qualifications and elaborations. And you had then said: “Your understanding of Christianity has not moved past unsubstantiated dogma such as this.” And I had then said, in essence, that not only had I moved past realizing that that was unsubstantiated – i.e., not supported with proof or evidence, the Bible itself counting for diddly squat in that regard – but that I had understood that none of the dogmata – the “supernatural” claims and “hypotheses” – of a dog’s breakfast of religions had been substantiated.
It really is immaterial whether any particular dogma is “supported” by any particular text or not if you’re talking about it being “substantiated” which has a very specific meaning related to its veracity, not its putative consistency. Fairy tales can be consistent but they are certainly not true – nothing can “substantiate” them.
The doctrine of Hell, for example, can be demonstrated to be a biblically unsubstantiated doctrine.
You really seem to think that if it’s in the Bible then it must be true, although you are remarkably selective and extremely – and annoyingly – coy about which parts so qualify; no courage in your convictions? But that you might be able to “substantiate” something “because the Bible tells you so” in absolutely no way qualifies as “proof or evidence”, particularly for “supernatural” events and causations – at least for those who have any credible claim to being sane. To even suggest otherwise really puts you into the “fundamentalist” and “Biblical literalist” classification.
In addition, you must completely reject the New Testament as it, I would say, quite clearly describes many assertions by Jesus that “substantiates”, by your apparent interpretation of the word, the literal existence and nature of a place or state that, for want of a better rubric, is commonly called “hell” (although I figure The House of Schadenfreude would be a good second choice):
According to Terry Watkins at Dial-the-Truth Ministries:
There are over 162 references in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) that warn of Hell.
Over 70 of these references are attributed to Jesus. [for example]:
Matthew 13:42: [Jesus, the Man Hisself says] “And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
Just to be clear since you seem to be totally unfamiliar with the concept, that something is in the Bible is, in no way, any freaking proof for, or any evidence of, [aka “substantiation of”] the actual literal truth of what is claimed in the statements made. Some justification for asserting that they are the basis for, or the expression of, the beliefs themselves, but there is – surprise, surprise – some difference between those beliefs and whether they are actually and factually and literally true or not.
Now get the shit out of your ears.
Tsk, tsk, tsk; I think you’re losing it there Howardma – and in a number of other places. Somewhat nonplussed at seeing so many “No sale” signs? That I’m not buying the rather hateful, barbaric and ignorant schlock that you’re peddling?
… you have no qualms about parroting the false doctrine I just told you is not in the texts.
“Gawd”, but you’re obtuse: I wasn’t claiming that it was either false or true doctrine, only mentioning it as a point of reference and to acknowledge that you had rejected it – I think you’re unable to read a complete sentence without going off the rails. That first part of the sentence was only a preface to the question – which you didn’t answer, not surprisingly – as to which parts of the Bible you think are not nonsense. Care to take another run at it?
Supernatural refers to something that is beyond the KNOWN laws of nature.
So, up until Newton developed his laws and theory of gravitation the sun was actually, really and truly, pulled across the sky by the Greek god Helios in his chariot which would make it “supernatural” in your view? But after Newton – A.N. – Helios was immediately and magically superannuated, put out to pasture along with his horses, and the job was done by entirely “natural” mechanisms?
You seem also to have some difficulty with the concept that there is a difference between the labels and descriptions, which are frequently very inaccurate, that we apply to things and their underlying reality – you do recognize that there is a difference between a map of a country and the country itself, I hope? But whether we know the underlying laws or not in absolutely no way says anything against the “naturalism” of the phenomena: if they exist then ipso facto, they are natural. You might wish to take a look at the word definition – although you should keep in mind that just because there is a word or two for a concept in no way justifies concluding that there is any autonomous reality to what is designated (“square circles” or “Zeus” for examples) – and the Wikipedia article on the topic, a salient point of which is this:
One complicating factor is that there is no universal agreement about what the definition of “natural” is, and what the limits of naturalism might be.
Or maybe Jehovah – or maybe Allah – has whispered in your ear precisely what those limits really are.
howardma
June 20, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Steersman,
You are so annoying, why is it you just can not grasp what I am talking about? First off, I believe the entire Bible is the word of God and accurate. Therefore, some of my comments are regarding my theology. If your going to discuss the issue with me, you will have to pretend for the sake of the argument that God is real so I can get to the point I am trying to make. If not, we have nothing more to say to each other. All this crap you keep on repeating that there is no proof for God and no proof for the things in the Bible is stupid, I already know that is how you feel, why do you keep bringing it up? You keep asking me questions, so I assume you want to know why I believe the way that I do, and I try to explain and you keep shooting it down with this no proof crap. So what do you want from me? Why do you keep asking questions you do not want answers to? Is it your hope that I will eventually see things your way? Well, I wouldn’t count on that happening. So if that is what you are hoping for, then you might as well give it up. I was once in a debate with a born again Christian that tried to get me to see the error of my ways, that debate lasted well over a year. He finally stopped asking me questions.
“And I had then said, in essence, that not only had I moved past realizing that that was unsubstantiated – i.e., not supported with proof or evidence”
What a surprise, you did it again! You are aware that a book does not have to be about real people and events for readers of this book to try and interpret the deeper meaning of the author, right? You have heard of the genre called fiction right? So according to your logic, all the people in book groups, etc., that discuss and interpret books of fiction are fools that are wasting their time, because the people and events in these books are not factual? So again, the point I was making had nothing to do with the Bible or God being real or not, it had to do with how people interpret what it is saying. This alone should answer about 90% of your comment in which you kept repeating the idea. And the overall point was that if you are going around telling people, one of the reasons the Bible should be rejected is because it supports the idea of a God-man, the same as other past religions, you are misrepresenting the Bible for your own gain. You are using lies to support your rejection of the Bible.
“Matthew 13:42: [Jesus, the Man Hisself says] “And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.””
A perfect example of what I am talking about. This can mean anything you want once you chop it out of its context and ignore its symbolism. Let’s see what’s really going on here. Jesus says this in response to the disciples question.
(Matthew 13:36) “And his disciples came to him and said: “Explain to us the illustration of the weeds in the field.”
What illustration? The one mentioned just prior to this at Matthew 13:24-30. Where a man sowed fine seed in his field, but at night an enemy came and over-sowed weeds along with the fine seed. The householders solution to this, was not to try and pull the weeds so as not to harm the wheat. He said wait till the wheat is ready to be harvested and then remove the weeds from the wheat, and we will bind up the weeds and burn them in the fire.
The disciples wanted to know what that illustration meant. He tells them by equating each thing in the illustration with things that are considered reality, such as Jesus is the man who sowed the fine seed. The weeds are equated with the wicked people. Therefore, unless you think that literal weeds should be tormented forever in fire, the most proper understanding is that the useless weeds are merely destroyed with fire. It’s the same for the wicked people, they are destroyed because they are useless. There is nothing to indicate that what happens to the wicked, should be something so different than what happens to the weeds. Again, this has nothing to do whether God is real or the Bible is true or whatever. All it has to do with is what did the author of these words mean when he wrote them. I explained my reasoning of the text, can you explain why the author meant two totally different ideas for the fiery furnace, one for weeds and a different one for the wicked?
“Gawd, but you’re obtuse: I wasn’t claiming that it was either false or true doctrine, only mentioning it as a point of reference and to acknowledge that you had rejected it.”
If that is the case, then you better rephrase your statement. You said, “Since you’ve rejected Jesus’ claims to divinity.” That phrase implies that you yourself see this in the text. You should have said something like, “Since you’ve rejected other people’s claims to Jesus’ divinity.” By saying what you did, it can only be taken that you interpreted the text yourself, and came to the conclusion that Jesus himself claimed to be divine. So don’t criticize me because of your obtuse writing skills.
“which parts of the Bible (do) [sic] you think are not nonsense.”
I already answered this, apparently you missed it. I said, NO PART of the Bible is nonsense. The interpretations of the Bible are nonsense. See Matthew 13:42 above.
“So, up until Newton developed his laws and theory of gravitation the sun was actually, really and truly, pulled across the sky by the Greek god Helios in his chariot which would make it “supernatural” in your view?”
Are you done being a jackass yet? And another case of purposeful deception on your part. Remember, context, context, context. We were discussing if the word supernatural is a contradiction. You are here substituting supernatural with a defined theology. In keeping with your theme, are you saying that when men first noticed planets or moving stars, they reasoned for a bit, and came to the conclusion that there must be some natural law that is guiding these moving stars? Or did they consider it as something beyond what they knew as the laws of nature at that time, supernatural? But now we know what these natural laws are, and we don’t consider the orbits of planets as supernatural.
I win, YOU lose!
howardma
June 22, 2012 at 5:52 pm
Steersman,
You are so annoying, why is it you just can not grasp what I am talking about? First off, I believe the entire Bible is the word of God and accurate. Therefore, some of my comments are regarding my theology. If your going to discuss the issue with me, you will have to pretend for the sake of the argument that God is real so I can get to the point I am trying to make. If not, we have nothing more to say to each other. All this crap you keep on repeating that there is no proof for God and no proof for the things in the Bible is stupid, I already know that is how you feel, why do you keep bringing it up? You keep asking me questions, so I assume you want to know why I believe the way that I do, and I try to explain and you keep shooting it down with this no proof crap. So what do you want from me? Why do you keep asking questions you do not want answers to? Is it your hope that I will eventually see things your way? Well, I wouldn’t count on that happening. So if that is what you are hoping for, then you might as well give it up. I was once in a debate with a born again Christian that tried to get me to see the error of my ways, that debate lasted well over a year. He finally stopped asking me questions.
“And I had then said, in essence, that not only had I moved past realizing that that was unsubstantiated – i.e., not supported with proof or evidence”
What a surprise, you did it again! You are aware that a book does not have to be about real people and events for readers of this book to try and interpret the deeper meaning of the author, right? You have heard of the genre called fiction right? So according to your logic, all the people in book groups, etc., that discuss and interpret books of fiction are fools that are wasting their time, because the people and events in these books are not factual? So again, the point I was making had nothing to do with the Bible or God being real or not, it had to do with how people interpret what it is saying. This alone should answer about 90% of your comment in which you kept repeating the idea. And the overall point was that if you are going around telling people, one of the reasons the Bible should be rejected is because it supports the idea of a God-man, the same as other past religions, you are misrepresenting the Bible for your own gain. You are using lies to support your rejection of the Bible.
“Matthew 13:42: [Jesus, the Man Hisself says] “And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.””
A perfect example of what I am talking about. This can mean anything you want once you chop it out of its context and ignore its symbolism. Let’s see what’s really going on here. Jesus says this in response to the disciples question.
(Matthew 13:36) “And his disciples came to him and said: “Explain to us the illustration of the weeds in the field.”
What illustration? The one mentioned just prior to this at Matthew 13:24-30. Where a man sowed fine seed in his field, but at night an enemy came and over-sowed weeds along with the fine seed. The householders solution to this, was not to try and pull the weeds so as not to harm the wheat. He said wait till the wheat is ready to be harvested and then remove the weeds from the wheat, and we will bind up the weeds and burn them in the fire.
The disciples wanted to know what that illustration meant. He tells them by equating each thing in the illustration with things that are considered reality, such as Jesus is the man who sowed the fine seed. The weeds are equated with the wicked people. Therefore, unless you think that literal weeds should be tormented forever in fire, the most proper understanding is that the useless weeds are merely destroyed with fire. It’s the same for the wicked people, they are destroyed because they are useless. There is nothing to indicate that what happens to the wicked, should be something so different than what happens to the weeds. Again, this has nothing to do whether God is real or the Bible is true or whatever. All it has to do with is what did the author of these words mean when he wrote them. I explained my reasoning of the text, can you explain why the author meant two totally different ideas for the fiery furnace, one for weeds and a different one for the wicked?
“Gawd, but you’re obtuse: I wasn’t claiming that it was either false or true doctrine, only mentioning it as a point of reference and to acknowledge that you had rejected it.”
If that is the case, then you better rephrase your statement. You said, “Since you’ve rejected Jesus’ claims to divinity.” That phrase implies that you yourself see this in the text. You should have said something like, “Since you’ve rejected other people’s claims to Jesus’ divinity.” By saying what you did, it can only be taken that you interpreted the text yourself, and came to the conclusion that Jesus himself claimed to be divine. So don’t criticize me because of your obtuse writing skills.
“which parts of the Bible (do) [sic] you think are not nonsense.”
I already answered this, apparently you missed it. I said, NO PART of the Bible is nonsense. The interpretations of the Bible are nonsense. See Matthew 13:42 above.
“So, up until Newton developed his laws and theory of gravitation the sun was actually, really and truly, pulled across the sky by the Greek god Helios in his chariot which would make it “supernatural” in your view?”
Are you done being a jackass yet? And another case of purposeful deception on your part. Remember, context, context, context. We were discussing if the word supernatural is a contradiction. You are here substituting supernatural with a defined theology. In keeping with your theme, are you saying that when men first noticed planets or moving stars, they reasoned for a bit, and came to the conclusion that there must be some natural law that is guiding these moving stars? Or did they consider it as something beyond what they knew as the laws of nature at that time, supernatural? But now we know what these natural laws are, and we don’t consider the orbits of planets as supernatural.
I win, YOU lose!
Steersman
July 6, 2012 at 4:32 pm
Howardma,
If your going to discuss the issue with me, you will have to pretend for the sake of the argument that God is real so I can get to the point I am trying to make.
That “your” of yours there and elsewhere should be “you’re” – there’s a significant difference in meaning although a slight one in sound – depending on how sloppy one is in one’s pronunciation.
But about the only reason that I can see offhand for pretending that “God is real” is if you were trying to present a reductio ad absurdum argument whose only conclusion in consequence would be that “God is not real”. Or maybe that you were trying to advance that as a hypothesis which was to be proven. But since you have apparently already conceded that there is neither proof nor evidence for “God” – at least the anthropomorphic version of the Bible & Quran, I can’t see that there is much point in pretending it is real – I sort of gave up (put aside) playing (pretending: make-believe) “Cowboys and Indians” (the things of childhood) when I was about 6 or 7 years old.
You have heard of the genre called fiction right?
Yes, of course I have. But you apparently want to insist that various events described in the Bible – burning bushes, stone tablets inscribed by The Man Himself, the parting of the Red Sea, Jesus’ virgin birth and divinity [Luke 1:26-35], his death by crucifixion and subsequent resurrection, his descriptions of hell, for examples – are literally true facts which most sane people are going to call outright fantasy – being charitable. If you then want to call the Bible largely a book of fiction then we probably have no, or fewer, arguments. But you can’t reasonably have it both ways by saying that “the entire Bible is the word of God and accurate” and that it is a work of fiction.
And the overall point was that if you are going around telling people, one of the reasons the Bible should be rejected is because it supports the idea of a God-man, the same as other past religions, you are misrepresenting the Bible for your own gain. You are using lies to support your rejection of the Bible.
Whether it “supports the idea of a God-man” or not, the conflict and inconsistency between, on the one hand, your claims, and those of others, that the “entire Bible is the word of God” and, on the other, the fantastical, lurid, barbaric and highly improbable events noted above and elsewhere in the Bible, and for which there is not a single solitary shred of tangible evidence, is what justifies my, and others, rejection of the Bible as anything more than largely a work of fiction – at best.
“Matthew 13:42: …” This can mean anything you want once you chop it out of its context and ignore its symbolism.
That looks like a rather idiosyncratic interpretation of your own there – and a rather confused one to boot. Jesus is supposedly and apparently not offering agricultural advice to farmers on how to deal with a fractious neighbor, but trying to explain how Jehovah is going to treat those who don’t follow his (arbitrary and vindictive and barbaric) laws and regulations: weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth in an eternal lake of fire. Unless, of course, it’s only a fictional story which then can, and should be, rejected as such.
You said, “Since you’ve rejected Jesus’ claims to divinity.” That phrase implies that you yourself see this in the text.
Not in the slightest; it was simply a restatement and summary of what you yourself have said several times about your beliefs in that regard – not at all a statement about what I see there.
But now we know what these natural laws are, and we don’t consider the orbits of planets as supernatural.
You obviously didn’t read the definition I provided last time – do take a closer look this time: definition; you might also want to spend some time thinking about the Wikipedia article on the topic as well. But the crux of the matter seems to be that “supernatural” refers to an apparent or figurative attribute – the “seems” of definition 2a – whereas “natural” refers to an actual or literal attribute. Or maybe you think that dark matter and dark energy – a significant portion of “the mass-energy of the universe” and which no current theory of physics has any explanation for – is the result of supernatural causations of one sort or another: Gremlins? Hosts of angels and devils gathering to descend on the planet Earth? ….
steph
June 14, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Christians today believe in evolution. They also understand the art of storytelling in history. The rest are fundamentalists.
Amen.
Reply
howardma
June 14, 2012 at 7:20 pm
And you’re pretty good at storytelling too… :)
steph
June 14, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Fundamentalists never did have much imagination. That’s why they have to take thing so literally.
Steersman
June 14, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Christians today believe in evolution.
No doubt some of them do. Not quite sure which neck of the woods you’re from but in America at least the picture isn’t quite as rosy:
A new Gallup poll shows that, as in the past thirty years, acceptance of evolution in the U.S. has remained static. In fact, the latest statistics (light green line in figure below), show that 46% of Americans are young-earth creationists, 32% adhere to some form of god-guided or theistic evolution (dark green line), and only 15% adhere to evolution as we scientists know it (“human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process”).
Not particularly encouraging.
They also understand the art of storytelling in history.
To some extent. But many of them, mostly the fundamentalists, seem to have some difficultly with the concepts of fact and fantasy and fiction in their storytelling; tend to wind up putting their thumbs on the scales when it comes to brute facts.
The rest are fundamentalists.
Unfortunately there are far too many of the latter and far too few of the former.
Amen.
“Lord have mercy on us all” – or something more secular but to that effect – might be more appropriate if we’re unable to disabuse the fundamentalists of their delusions.
rjosephhoffmann
June 14, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Considering the dismal state of science education in the us and the fact that only one republican nominee “believes” in evolution I don’t find the stats surprising…tragic but not surprising.
steph
June 14, 2012 at 8:27 pm
We live on a big globe called planet earth, steersman. Your assumptions are very geocentric.
Amen = truly.
OK?
Steersman
June 14, 2012 at 8:38 pm
… tragic but not surprising.
Jerry Coyne [the re-blogger of the previous stats] also had a recent post titled “There is no hope for America” in which he states “I weep for my country”. Which, even as a Canadian, I can very much sympathize with – in part because America has, of course, a fairly large “footprint”. Great principles if not actually transcendent ones – and in a secular sense – but, as they say, “between the dream and the reality there falls the shadow”.
As for the reasons for that, there has obviously been a great amount of ink spilled on the question and I’m not sure we’re any closer to a workable answer. I’d like to pin a large amount of blame for that on religion – which “poisons everything” in, of course, Hitchen’s phrasing – but that may only be the largest and most salient of the tips of the proverbial iceberg. Even if somewhat inconclusive Pogo may have the best starting point: “I have seen the enemy and he is us”.
Steersman
June 14, 2012 at 8:52 pm
We live on a big globe called planet earth, steersman. Your assumptions are very geocentric.
And which assumptions do you think those might be? You have, maybe, some that are more heliocentric or, even, galaxy-centric? Always, or almost always, ready to be instructed: Proverbs 4:7 & 4:13 – among others of a similar nature.
Amen = truly. OK?
If you insist, although there is still a question or two on the floor.
howardma
June 14, 2012 at 9:02 pm
This word in both English and Greek is a transliteration from the Hebrew 'amen'. The meaning is “so be it,” or “surely.” The Hebrew root word from which it is drawn ('aman') means “be faithful; be trustworthy.” In the Hebrew Scriptures the word is used as a solemn expression to obligate oneself legally to an oath or covenant and its consequences (Nu 5:22; De 27:15-26; Ne 5:13), also as a solemn expression to subscribe to an expressed prayer (1Ch 16:36), to an expression of praise (Ne 8:6), or to an expressed purpose (1Ki 1:36; Jer 11:5). The Hebrew word 'aman' is applied to YHWH as “the faithful God” (De 7:9; Isa 49:7) and describes his reminders and promises as “trustworthy” and “faithful.” (Ps 19:7; 89:28, 37) In the Christian Greek Scriptures the title “Amen” is applied to Christ Jesus as “the faithful and true witness.” (Re 3:14)
stephanie louise fisher
June 15, 2012 at 11:11 am
Yup. You forgot the Aramaic. It’s a transliteration from both the Hebrew and Aramaic.
Amen.
Language and ideas evolve and we can apply ‘amen’ (;’truly’, ‘synonymous with so be it’) in all sorts of contexts now. Hallelujah!
Unless you’re a fundamentalist who doesn’t believe in the concept of evolution. Maranatha.
howardma
June 15, 2012 at 10:34 pm
I was not disagreeing with you, just adding more info…
Praise Jah you people…
Steersman
June 13, 2012 at 2:34 am
Simply incredible; no wonder theology is getting such a bad press these days, and quite well-deserved:
… there is no good reason to think that our cognitive faculties are truth-tracking. After all, it is not because those faculties contribute to true beliefs that they are selected for in the Darwinian account; it is because they are likely to contribute to survival.
Seems to me that “having true beliefs” about one’s environment is going to be a strong determinant of one’s survival; guessing wrong about which plants and animals are edible and which ones see oneself likewise can’t have been conducive to leaving many progeny behind to continue the process of a species’ development. Seems that Plantinga doesn’t really understand the processes of evolution and was unable to ask himself why and how those faculties contributed to survival. Possibly a bias of some sort?
Can the naturalist expect, as the theist clearly can, that her cognitive faculties are reliable, i.e., that they lead to true beliefs?
That argument might have had at least a hope of being right – if all theists actually managed to agree on the attributes of god. I mean, why should Plantinga think his conceptions are any more reliable, that his “cognitive faculties” are any better, than those of various Muslim, Hindu, Aztec, Zoroastrian and Confucian theists? Except possibly as a result of incredible arrogance or equally incredible ignorance?
Their rhetoric is inevitably condescending, as the development of the recent cult of the “flying spaghetti monster” makes clear.
Hard not to be condescending when the evidence strongly suggests, at least, that religious belief, particularly in various anthropomorphic deities, is really on the same level of credibility, possessing the same degree of “truth-tracking”, as astrology and geocentrism and bloodletting and a great many other ignorant and barbaric practices and beliefs which humans have been prone to over thousands of years.
Those who dissent from academically “respectable” views about religion, evolution, global warming, sexual ethics, the nature of marriage, and the value of unborn human life are increasingly addressed with scorn and public shaming rather than intellectual argument and reasoned discourse;
To bring out what is probably a hoary old chestnut, Thomas Jefferson said:
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity.
While religion may still have a few claims to fame, direct or indirect, it seems that when there are some 38,000 Christian sects, a large percentage of whom are “at swords’ points with each other on matters of creed and technique [such] that even the definition of Christianity crumples to absurdity”, when Christian pastors wind up dying from playing with poisonous snakes or suggest that the “final solution” for the “homosexual problem” is to put them all inside electrified fences, I would think that theologians should count themselves lucky if ridicule from society is the worst response they have to deal with.
Reply
Scott
June 14, 2012 at 9:06 am
Looks like Plantinga rolling the ole’ human depravity argument so eloquently expressed by St Auggie. One might think,however, that since human depravity is universal, Plantinga’s thoughts “depraved” and therefore lacking as well, so therefore we have no reason to trust his thoughts as well.
Reply
Steersman
June 15, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Looks like Plantinga rolling the ole’ human depravity argument so eloquently expressed by St Auggie. One might think, however, that since human depravity is universal, Plantinga’s thoughts “depraved” and therefore lacking as well, so therefore we have no reason to trust his thoughts as well.
Not at all familiar with much of St. Augustine or even of Plantinga. And not having read any of the latter’s book I don’t know how well Tollefsen has captured what he was getting at. But from what he has written and from what you have suggested it is hard not to reach the conclusion that it’s a very large dog’s-breakfast of egregious logical fallacies and questionable assumptions. For instance, as mentioned above but which deserves a further comment or two, this has to qualify as a real howler:
Since natural selection does not select for truth, or truth-tracking faculties, but for other unrelated properties, we have no reason to expect so given naturalism.
For one thing, I would very much like to know which scientific journals he has cited that show a theoretical analysis proving that evolution, as defined, is simply incapable of selecting for “truth-tracking faculties”, that it is a Model-T in today’s Grand Prix. One would think, since it is obvious that we do have some of those – however created, that those faculties would have been sufficient to prove that point.
And what other journals have managed to prove, since it obviously wasn’t evolution, as defined, doing its thing, that Jehovah had his finger in every pie fiddling the mechanisms – and in his own design to boot – so that every generation had a little more of those same faculties than the last generation? Maybe the Theological Gazette?
And this one is equally bad:
Of course, we have very good reason to think our beliefs are reliable
One would have thought that both of those illustrious, if deluded, individuals would have been sufficiently aware of “The Galileo Affair” to have not entertained that idea of theirs for very long, much less published it.
The point or conclusion should be that obviously some of our beliefs are reliable and some of them are not. And that, in the absence of evidence and verifiable predictions, neither of which Plantinga and company have in even the most miniscule amounts, beliefs and attendant claims, particularly about supernatural anthropomorphic entities, should be taken with very large amounts of salt, if not rejected as the ravings of mad men.
Really seems that Plantinga, at least in those cases, has simply started from the premise, the hypothesis, that Jehovah exists and has just fiddled the facts, the very few that he actually has, to fit them into that rather restrictive straitjacket. And it hasn’t helped that he seems virtually clueless about the nature and mechanisms of science and evolution in particular.
Although to be somewhat fair on the latter point, some famous biologist, whose name escapes me at the moment, said something to the effect that everyone thinks they understand evolution but (I think) very few actually do. It certainly has some tricky concepts some of which are, as they say, decidedly counter-intuitive and the details can be mind-numbingly complex. And it also seems to be a theory that is experiencing some growth or extension as there seem to be quite a few facts that don’t fit easily into the framework that was formulated some 50 years ago. And it has still not yet, I think, addressed the extent to which consciousness – at some level – may have played a role: if artificial selection is seen to have such wide ranging consequences then it seems entirely justified to think that “lower-order” organisms might be capable of similar, if more limited, results – a case, one might say, of natural artificial selection.
But none of the foregoing really absolves Plantinga for the level of ignorance on the topic he seems to exhibit. Although I suppose one might lay part of the blame for that at the doorstep of the educational system.
Quote of the Day | eChurch Blog says:
June 13, 2012 at 5:09 am
[...] SOURCE [...]
Reply
James Tabor
June 13, 2012 at 9:25 am
I think the main problem with this whole discussion as usually cast back and forth by theists and atheists is the assumption that static categories like “the Divine” and “natural” or the “material” exist other than as our dualistic semantic projections upon the whole of reality as we can perceive it. Our experiences are never reductionistically “materialistic,” even in the proverbial “hard, cold” lab. Process theism, by whatever name (Whitehead, Hartshorne) seems a better way of thinking about our “reality” even if “God” might not be the word one choses to use given the connotations from “Classic” theism. Bottom line, the very nature of reality presents us with what appear to be “mechanistic” “time and chance” “atoms and the void” phenomenon, but also “mind” “thought” and other transcendent phenomenon as well, that seem to exhibit will, reason, and the aesthetic–hence this very blog, this topic, and the discussion thereof. These are no opposing realities (mind and matter) but of one whole “panentheistic” reality. Most of us agree that “magical” thinking is not a credible casual factor in our universe (angels, demons, fairies, and projected illusions) but who among us can reduce to “normal,” i.e., our wondrous and marvelous minds and experiences of reality to what is normally described as “the merely material,” i.e., strong and weak nuclear, gravity, and electromagnetic “forces”?
Reply
Scott
June 13, 2012 at 6:14 pm
I admit I’ve been living under a rock on this one, but does anyone know what happened to richard r, La croix? I can’t find many references on the internet. he wrote some rebuttals to arguments by Plantinga and I was wondering if he has others other than what is in “What is God”
Reply
JonLynnHarvey
June 14, 2012 at 10:59 am
The case for atheism essentially boils down to five things
1) Science has revealed a network of causality that makes God largley unnecessary to explain much. Everything from lightning to the appearance of humankind and the Big Bang now has a causal explanation that leaves God with little to do.
2) Some of the classical arguments for the existence of God, especially the ontological argument have a sophistical air to them. Hume argues that even if we accept that the universe is designed, we cannot know anything about the designer. (In particular why should she or it be the Christian God?)
3) The morality of the classic Abrahamic holy books has a great deal of horrible ideas behind it. No matter how much theists protest that you cannot naturalistically explain our sense of morality (from Kant to Francis Collins), the fact is we don’t get all our morality from the scriptures of the Western world and its a good thing too.
4) Theodicy- the problem of evil.
5) It is understandable that humans want a sense of a cosmic connection to a greater whole beyond themselves. There is something to be said for Friedrich Schliermacher’s notion of religion as rooted in a “feeling of absolute dependence”. However, in popular religion this (laudable) feeling tends to degenerate into masochism, and many Westerners today feel that Eastern religions process what FS was talking about in a more productive way!
Plantinga is a bit misleading here: “And to varying degrees, the claims of historical biblical scholarship are either in conflict with revealed religion, if those claims deny straightforwardly the possibility of supernatural action in the world,…”
Historical scholarship can actually discredit quite a bit of the Bible without strict naturalistic assumptions. The contradictions between the Resurrection accounts are there with or without naturalistic presuppositions. There are also good reasons for falling back on naturalistic assumptions whenever possible, but that’s the subject of a different post.
Reply
The Humphreys Intervention « The New Oxonian says:
June 27, 2012 at 11:18 am
[...] A fan of Alvin Plantinga, or maybe Alvin Plantinga or even William Lane Craig, based on a reposted review of Plantinga’s recent book by Chris Tollefsen, and a quote therefrom which I did not write [...]
Reply
.
Leave a Reply
Enter your comment here...Enter your comment here...
Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo
Twitter picture
Facebook photo
« Previous Post
Next Post »
. .
Topics
Uncategorized
Archives
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
Blog at WordPress.com. The Manifest Theme.
Follow
Follow “The New Oxonian”
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 160 other followers
Powered by WordPress.com
loading
The New Oxonian
Books etc.
Comments and Moderation
Vita Brevis
..
Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient
Self-made God?
by rjosephhoffmann
I will blog about this at length: But I do find it amusing that the mythtic fringe seem to have no trouble defending an emperor known to exist as a god and want to deny simple existence to a Galilean outlaw who achieved the same status without a Vergil or a Plutarch to influence the vote.
This, I am made to believe, is because (wait for it) the gospel writers wrote fiction but the Roman historians were models of sober and scientific reporting.
Hmmmm. I wonder what they used to buy bread. Did it look anything like this?
This is the kind of coin that Jesus used to make his point about giving to Caesar what is owed to Caesar, and to God what is owed to God. The Latin around the head (Tiberius) reads TI CAESAR DIVI AUG F AUGUSTUS, or Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti Filius Augustus, in English, Augustus Tiberius Caesar the Son of the Divine Augustus, so the son of god.
I do wonder why the mythtics don’t talk more about context–real, verifiable, in your face, you can bite it because it’s a coin context. Maybe this coin doesn’t exist. Maybe Tiberius is made up. Certainly certain things about him are made up.
They seem instead to be wedded to their own myth of Christian beginnings. And this includes the belief that the Romans didn’t believe extraordinary things about historical persons.
About these ads
Share this:
Facebook5
Twitter
Email
StumbleUpon
Digg
Reddit
Print
Like this:
?
Published: June 13, 2012
Filed Under: Uncategorized
..
20 Responses to “Self-made God?”
.
Franklin Percival
June 13, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Render unto smithereens with that of which you disapprove, yet give free rein to where your fancy takes you.
Reply
steph
June 13, 2012 at 9:15 pm
With a bitter heart, Franklin. For some curious reason this destruction of the past reminds me of Nevil Shute’s novel ‘On the Beach’. Not so free. I still haven’t seen the film. I doubt I could bear it despite the fact it stars my favourite Gregory Peck.
Reply
JonLynnHarvey
June 14, 2012 at 11:03 am
The film of “On the Beach” has a fairly matter-of-fact tone allowing the tragic material to largely speak for itself without the film-makers using any technique (mood music, noirish lighting) to induce a sense of bleakness. In other words, it’s more watchable than you might anticipate.
steph
June 14, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Ah. Probably not worth it then. Except – except Gregory Peck… just a peak at Peck. But you know what they see about the difference between the book and the film. The film will fail to capture what I imagined when I read the book.
Steve Byrne
June 13, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Your point about Roman numisnatry is well taken. I asked aquestion on your other post , inarguable something idont know, ill ask it again here. Gaius used a coin to “divinize” his sister Drusilla at about this same time. Why did he do that? And couldnt have jews , who certainly would have held these same coins in their hands, have concocted a “divinized” messiah along the same terms? The idea seems about the same with minor variations, gender and the fact that she was still alive, wait a minute the coins were post mortem, hmmmm.
Reply
steph
June 13, 2012 at 9:36 pm
Has anyone here implied that the historical Jesus was divine or that the early church wasn’t responsible for creating the traditions which developed, making him more than human, after his death? Like the Romans and historical people, so the early Church believed extraordinary things about a historical person, which was the point of the post…. and I can’t quite unravel your comment to see if it had a point.
Reply
Steve Byrne
June 14, 2012 at 1:02 pm
My point is really a question, Is your position that 1st century jews divinized a galileen peasant in the same way the romans divinized Octavian-Augustus? Im not an axe-grinder, but it seems to me that the roman divination process was pretty cynically political. Even Vespasion thought so hence his dying words ” I think im becoming a god”, or Seneca’s “pumpkinification”. To my knowledge no divinized roman emporer was ever claimed to forgive sins, rise from the dead, or anything else Paul claims for his “annointed one”. I would love to see history discussed vitriol free, and and only using cold hard facts such as coins but here the situation imo is analogous to egyptology and Ahkenaten, every body has their pet theory and will argue it to the death it seems sometimes, but real truth as here is elusive.
rjosephhoffmann
June 14, 2012 at 5:29 pm
@Steve: Of course my point is not that Jews divinized anybody: that isn’t very Jewish, is it? Where did you get that idea? But by the time the gospels were written, post Tiberius (d. ca. 37CE), very few Christians were Jews and so the pace of divinisation accelerates. Augustus it is true was reticent about accepting divine honours and had to be persuaded by a miracle (Suetonius, Aug. 95); I am not sure that doesn’t compare favourably to Jesus doing tricks, but perhaps you think differently. You also need to consider context: there is a natural disposition among amateur historians to read back certain assumptions into the literature that weren’t there. The term/title “son of god” means a very different thing for a Roman Catholic of the 12th century, a Baptist of the 2oth and an illiterate Christian of the second. What usage do you think the Christian writers were adopting–certainly not ones that hadn’t arisen yet. If in fact, as I think is crystal clear, the gospels are borrowing from Hellenistic motifs concerning divine men common in the literature of the day, the case for the historical Jesus is strengthened, on the grounds of similarity. It just means that a new class of Hellenistic, non-Jewish and thus unconstrained believers were doing what the were used to seeing done with their great men. There is even a weak tradition much mucked with in Mark’s gospel that Jesus (maybe Augustus’s reticence is on someone’s mind) refused divine or at least messianic honours when questioned–though I wouldn’t want to stake my life on the accuracy of the account (or any ancient record): cf. Mk15.2 v Mk 14.61. cf. Mt 26.63-64. What would you do with that tangle–just to test your exegetical prowess?
Ken Scaletta
June 13, 2012 at 11:42 pm
The Jews never had any pre-Christian concept of a Messiah as God. That would have been (still is, actually) a contradiction in terms. Not only a heresy, but a logical impossibility since the Davidic Messiah by definition, had to be a human patrilinear descendant of
David (and no adoption or matrilinear descendency need apply – it’s seed of David or nothing). So no, it is all but theologically impossible that “Jews” as such, would have invented a Yahweh avatar to serve as an imaginary Messiah. not only that, but the Jesus of the New Testament did not accomplish a single thing the David Messiah is supposed to accomplish, so if they were going to invent a Messiah-God, it’s odd that they killed him in their story before he did any proper Messiah-ing.
Of course, bizarre anomalies happen in conventional religion. It is not very ordinary, for instance, for a Christian pastor to say he is God or Jesus himself, yet it occasionally happens (David Koresh, Jim Jones), and they can even attract significant followings. The one thing that they have in common, though, is that they existed. We know that religious change is affected, more than anything else, by the strength of individual personalities. A magnetic personality is one thing we know can cause people, even large groups of people, to radically change or reinterpret their religious beliefs.
The Jews would not have invented a God-Messiah out of whole cloth, but a small group of them can very well come to believe that a given individual is the Messiah, and still cling to that belief even after the individual dies. This has happened even in the 20th Century. Google “Rabbi Schneerson” if your not familiar with him (he’s another guy who actually existed by the way – that’s kind of a
pattern with these guys) They also didn’t need Caligula to give them any ideas about deifying kings (or even incestuous sisters of kings).
The Egyptians were doing that 3000 years before Caligula.
sters
Reply
vinnyjh57
June 14, 2012 at 5:46 pm
The Jews would not have invented a God-Messiah out of whole cloth, but a small group of them can very well come to believe that a given individual is the Messiah, and still cling to that belief even after the individual dies.
Isn’t that point somewhat moot though? As I understand it the earliest Christians did not think of the risen Christ as God, but as an exalted agent of God, which status humans could attain. Regardless of whether there was a historical Jesus at the root of the risen Christ, the idea of the God-Messiah was a later development.
rjosephhoffmann
June 14, 2012 at 6:08 pm
@Vinny: Not sure where your quote’s from: this thread? I have seasonal affective disorder when it comes to Christology: we used to think that the Jews didn’t believe in a dying messiah; now we’re not so sure; we used to believe that messianism Jewish style was opposite to divinization Roman style; now we’re not convinced. I think you may be alluding to Paul’s idea that “Christ the Lord” is a kind of template for what every “man” can achieve who dies and is raised in Christ. That is certainly what Paul seems to have thought. As a product of the Bauer-von Campenhausen-Ritter “school” at Heidelberg in my postdoctoral days, I would not want to say that this is what the “early Christians” thought. They thought all kinds of things. Which is why the gospels say all kinds of things. Summarized: orthodoxy? schmorthodoxy.
Ken Scaletta
June 14, 2012 at 6:10 pm
I agree, Vinny. I’m saying that a God-Messiah is better explained as an adaptation to an external variable (i.e. a real person) than as a spontaneous inception of a new paradigm based on nothing but a whim.
rjosephhoffmann
June 14, 2012 at 6:12 pm
@Ken: Right.
ken
June 15, 2012 at 10:44 am
Mr. H.: “we used to think that the Jews didn’t believe in a dying messiah; now we’re not so sure…”
? I’ve been studying the subject as an amateur for many years, and this observation is quite new to me. I was under the impression that one of the basic conclusions of biblical criticism was, as Bart Ehrman says in his book “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet…”
“…prior to the Christian proclamation of Jesus, there were no Jews, as least so far as we know, who believed that the Messiah was going to be crucified. On the contrary, the Messiah was to be the great and powerful leader who delivered Israel from its oppressive overlords.”
Who are the scholars who are now questioning this, and why at this time? Can you provide their names and perhaps the title of a book or two. How widely is this notion being entertained?
reyjacobs
June 13, 2012 at 10:12 pm
So my obvious question here is, Whose image and superscription are on this coin? From your little article it sounds like you think its Jesus.
You are puzzled why someone might believe Tiberius Caesar existed but not Jesus.
“This, I am made to believe, is because (wait for it) the gospel writers wrote fiction but the Roman historians were models of sober and scientific reporting.”
Um, no. If you ruled the whole Roman world and your face was on lots of coins as a result, its quite likely you existed. Isn’t that obvious?
Of course Jesus’ face is on lots of late icons, but sometimes he’s black, sometimes oriental, sometimes a German guy with long hair. Strangely Tiberius Caesar always looks the same. Maybe because he actually existed. I don’t know. I mean I’m no expert, but it seems to me that people who actually exist tend to look the same whereas mythical people have interpreted likenesses.
Reply
Michael Wilson
June 15, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Rey, you miss the point because you assume that what was written about the emporers is true. If we allow as mythicist do for gospels that this could just as easily be creative fiction, then what doi we know, that a name was written on a coin with a face? I have a arcade token with chucky cheese on it, was he a president ?
Reply
vinnyjh57
June 13, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Supernatural stories were indeed preserved and transmitted about many people in the ancient world who we believe to have been historical. To the best of my knowledge, however, in every other case the supernatural stories arose as a result of verifiable prominence or accomplishments achieved during a natural life. If you scrape away the supernatural stories that arose concerning Alexander the Great, you still have a substantial historical footprint.
With Jesus, on the other hand, stories about his natural life were preserved and transmitted only because of supernatural events that were believed to have occurred after his death. If you scrape away the supernatural stories that arose concerning Jesus, you scrape away the reason that any stories about his natural life were preserved and transmitted. Without the belief that arose in his postmortem supernatural accomplishments, it is entirely possible that Jesus of Nazareth might have come and gone without leaving a discernible trace in the historical record.
I don’t think that this in any way proves that Jesus of Nazareth was mythical, but I don’t think the fact that supernatural stories were told about other people provides any evidence for his historicity.
Reply
Ken Scaletta
June 14, 2012 at 6:07 pm
It’s not so much an argument for historicity as it is a rebuttal to the suggestion that a real person can’t accrete a divine mythology.
Reply
Steersman
June 14, 2012 at 2:00 am
They seem instead to be wedded to their own myth of Christian beginnings.
Curious though interesting and somewhat amusing contretemps; not sure yet whether it’s a tempest-in-a-teapot or, maybe, a Rape of the Lock, what with all of the mind-numbingly convoluted and intricate if not acrimonious he-said-she-said going on.
But it certainly seems that more than a few, although I think not all, of the mythicists are of the opinion that any concession to the claims for a historical Jesus is tantamount to conceding his divinity. And so they seem to put their thumbs on the scales and deny the very facts that are most likely to be pulling the rug out from under that latter claim from the fundamentalists.
And it seems that at least a few of the historicists are fellow-travelers with the more sensible fundamentalists who realize that claims for a divine Jesus aren’t going to have much traction unless they have a solid basis in fact.
Seems it is not just politics that makes for strange bedfellows.
Reply
Michael Wilson
June 14, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Good Point Hoffman. There always seems to be the implication from the mythies that literature from early Christians is gobbledygook that could mean anything but the pagan toadies of the rich and famous of the classical world can be taken at face value. Tghis fits well with their own prejudice that any researcher who is religious should be discounted as having ulterior motives and all therest are just so afraid of getting burned at the stake. Being a mythicist is a poor man’s taking a brave stand.
Reply
.
Leave a Reply
Enter your comment here...Enter your comment here...
Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo
Twitter picture
Facebook photo
« Previous Post
Next Post »
. .
Topics
Uncategorized
Archives
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
Blog at WordPress.com. The Manifest Theme.
Follow
Follow “The New Oxonian”
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 160 other followers
Powered by WordPress.com
loading
The New Oxonian
Books etc.
Comments and Moderation
Vita Brevis
..
Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient
The Bloody, Awful, Horrible Catholic Church
by rjosephhoffmann
The Bloody, Awful, Horrible Catholic Church
by rjosephhoffmann
The following originally published January 2012 @ rjosephhoffmann.com.
N ELEMENTARY school my class watched Robert Frost stammer through part of a poem he couldn’t quite read on a snowy and bitterly cold Washington day.
The occasion was the inauguration of John F. Kennedy, the first Roman Catholic to be elected president of the United States. Choosing Frost, then in his eighties, to lend dignity to a ceremony so prosaic it can only be compared to buying stamps, was a stroke of genius–a tribute to Kennedy’s New England roots and the liberal protestant tradition that went with it. Even Presbyterian schoolteachers in Raleigh loved his poetry.
Frost, reverting to “The Gift Outright”
Yes, the new guy was Catholic, the thinking went, but he was also a product of New England’s finest Yankee institutions, Choate and Harvard. Some of that must have had a civilizing effect, though few south of Maryland or west of Pennsylvania had heard of Choate and what they knew of Harvard they didn’t like much. They still don’t.
In that era, when there was still a “Catholic vote,” there was also little disagreement between Catholics and protestants over issues like abortion (illegal), contraception (risky, no pill), and divorce (heinous for Catholics but not recommended for others with political designs, either).
The fear of protestants was not that Catholics would impose a socially conservative agenda on the country but that America would become a colony of Rome and that the pope would rule in absentia. Kennedy put a hole in that senseless idea in a famous speech in 1960 when he said,
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish – where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source – where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials – and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
How things have changed. The Catholic church is now as loud and politically obtrusive as Kennedy required it not to be to win an election. Though Catholics and protestants come out nearly even in surveys concerning prevalence of ”pre-marital” sex (I know: it sounds quaint, doesn’t it?), birth control and even the incidence of abortion in cases of unintended pregnancy (Protestants account for 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women for 31.3%, Jewish women for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation, 23,7%), the Catholic church has decided to make abortion its cause celebre in its battle for social and moral relevance.
HE Gospel of Life -obsession of the official Church is largely based on traditional Catholic moral teaching as expounded by the bewildering and now blessed John Paul II. Along with its pre-modern understanding of human sexuality it carries with its sanctity- of -life prescription a European- friendly condemnation of capital punishment and anti-war bias, as well as a totally incoherent ban on contraception as a way of reducing the instances of unwanted pregnancy. –Call it the Mother Theresa Ultimatum.
The contraception phobia, which dates back to Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae (and the birth-control hysteria of the 1960's) had nothing to do with a consistent sexual “moral theory” but with a theory of human nature formulated by St Augustine in the fifth century, based on the notion that pleasure was never intended by God as a part of human good. The equation between pleasure and sin is so firmly entrenched in Catholic psychology that it has to be seen as the root of orthodox Catholic moral theology: a celibate priesthood, the veiling of women religious (nuns), a virgin birth, an immaculate conception, and a sexless apostolic community are just the doctrinal excrescences of an institutionalized fear of the flesh.
Curiously, alongside this partially disguised abhorrence of fleshly fulfillment the Catholic church still retains its admiration for the productivity of marriage and opposition to divorce. But when you consider that Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, andAndrew Cuomo, to name only prominent political figures, are forbidden (and with variable consistency have accepted that they are forbidden) to receive the Church’s most revered sacrament, while ghoulish mock-Catholics like Rick Santorum and parody-Catholic, spouse-abandoning, thrice married Newt Gingrich get the Church’s seal of approval for their extreme “pro-life” commitments, it is high time for The Catholic Church to declare itself a mouthpiece for the Tea Party.
As if this isn’t bad enough, Santorum has decided to break ranks with the Kennedy legacy by repudiating JFK’s robust appeal to the First Amendment as the guaranty that religion plays no role in the affairs of state. Calling the 1960 speech by Kennedy a “great mistke,” and a “radical statement that did much damage,” he said in a recent speech in Newton, Massachusetts:
We’re seeing how Catholic politicians, following the first Catholic president, have followed his lead, and have divorced faith not just from the public square, but from their own decision-making process. Jefferson is spinning in his grave.
Which of course is true. At the ignorance of Rick Santorum. Rob Boston says mildly and to the point,
Look, it’s bad enough that you run around talking trash about Kennedy, but adding Jefferson to your Festival of Ignorance is just too much. Leave the man out of it. You apparently know nothing about him. Jefferson spent his entire life opposing government-mandated religion and fought every member of the clergy who supported that foul idea. Here’s a famous example: During the election of 1800, presidential candidate Jefferson knew that many New England preachers were yearning to win favoritism for their faith from the federal government. He also knew that they hated him because they realized he would never let that happen. That’s why they spread wild tales about Jefferson being a libertine who, if elected, would burn Bibles.
Santorum
The social and moral “conservatism” of the Republican field is primarily an appeal to the ignorance of the American people. It’s the ugliest kind of alliance between the Church’s need to remain relevant by appealing to uteral issues and the political need of soulless office-grubbers to appear moral. Both are appeals to ignorance, to the Faithful, on the one side, who are often willing to refer moral responsibility to higher authorities and to The American People, on the other, who can usually be counted upon to follow their gut and are often shocked when their gut takes them in the wrong direction as it did in the 2010 congressional runnings.
HAT is even more depressing is that the ignorance of a Rick Santorum is probably real rather than Machiavellian. He is as dumb about the history of his Church as he is about the history of his nation. And the machinations of the Catholic church–his church–while Machiavellian, are tragically self-centered and manifestly wicked.
Ever since the Jewish priestly class invented the story of cloddish Adam and compliant Eve, the hierarchy has known how to use an idiot to make a point: Do what you’re told. Don’t ask too many questions. Believe us: you don’t want the responsibility of knowing the big picture. Given those marching orders, it doesn’t matter what Jeferson really said or thought; it’s enough that there is an interpretation of him as a believing Christian who would spout, basically, the same things the Tea Party is saying if he were around today. There is no difference between history and delusion in Rick Santorum’s world.
Kennedy ended the speech that Santorum calls a big mistake with the following:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute – where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote – where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference – and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
In a scant fifty years, how have we come so far from regarding this kind of rhetoric as fundamental, rational and wise to seeing it as radically mistaken? And how much guilt does the Church bear for encouraging this treason against the first principles of American democracy by egging on the clods?
About these ads
Share this:
Facebook2
Twitter
Email
StumbleUpon
Digg
Reddit
Print
Like this:
?
Published: June 14, 2012
Filed Under: Uncategorized
..
9 Responses to “The Bloody, Awful, Horrible Catholic Church”
.
domenico
June 15, 2012 at 5:40 am
if Dr Hoffmann would read the early second century Didache could find that the ‘contraception phobia’ predates Saint Augustine.
“you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born”.
Infanticide and abortion are both condemned by the church.
In a curious twist of fate recently who is in favor of abortion also spoke in favor of infanticide.http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.short
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
June 15, 2012 at 7:37 am
Dr Hoffmann has, though I am not sure I would want to make the Didache a manual for 20th century sexual ethics; in additon to which the early church was simply adapting its rules to the Julianic marriage rules which were directed against the practices of contraception and abortion, less out of moral qualm than the worry over Roman demographic decline.
Reply
reyjacobs
June 15, 2012 at 10:05 pm
There’s obviously a difference between being against infanticide and abortion (which is quite rational to be against) and being against condoms (more or less stupid to be against). Immoralists like you who lump the two together just have no morals I guess.
domenico
June 16, 2012 at 3:33 am
interesting to imagine the early church adapting his rules to laws that were not even observed in Rome in the imperial palace; and to see the church adapting his rules only in those parts of the Julianic laws about abortion but not the rest as for example the right to kill the adulterers.
jsegor23
June 15, 2012 at 3:36 pm
I don’t know how I missed this wonderful essay back in January. I alerted Argie to it. She now writes a weekly column for an online Dominican newspaper and one of her themes is the need for the DR to become a secular state. The country still has a concordat with the Vatican entered into by the dictator Trujillo in 1954 and recently incorporated some of the worst aspects of Catholic sexual doctrine into its new constitution. The church is heavily funded by the government, thereby siphoning off scarce money that could be used for education and other useful things. The DR’s metrics regarding education and other social metrics are abominable. Priests also teach Catholic doctrine in the public schools. Needless to say, hers is an uphill fight. We would both love to hear more from you about the Church and secularization.
Reply
argeliaty
June 15, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Hi Joe! Great article, but not strong enough for the title. Do us a favor, –to those of us born women in countries where politicians are in bed with the Catholic Church; not out of love, mind you, but out of fear of not getting enough votes. Politicians go as far as signing into law and the Constitution the Catholic new-found cause of defending the unborn one-cell fertilized egg.
That means no abortion, even if the probability of carrying on the pregnancy and dying is certainty; even if a 10 year old girl is raped by her father and horrified to give birth; or even if the fetus is brain-dead. This is the situation in Chile, Honduras, Salvador, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic; with politicians from the right or the left. In the DR there is up to 20 years of jail for the mother of a pregnant child if she seeks abortion, but also for the doctors and all that helped her. That is what I call bloody, irrational, and plain evil.
And if that is not enough, the Catholic Church is still more immoral. Through Concordats signed in the past with militaristic Dictators (in many cases product of American occupations and their anti-communist obsession with political change outside of their border, like in my country the DR) the Catholic Church receives financing for ALL its activities: construction of cathedrals, Churches, houses and offices for bishops, salaries for bishops and priests teaching religion in school, and a monthly allowance of thousands of pesos for all parishes!!!!
Give us a hand and write more often against the most evil religious organization that ever was.
I have a blog and write a weekly column in a Dominican paper, the only one that dares publish articles critical to the church. Could I translate this one for my blog? I am now getting between 4,000 and 6,000 clicks per month, and they get reproduced in many other sites. Most viewers are from the USA even though I write in Spanish, and second from the Dominican Republic, following Spain and Mexico.
Reply
domenico
June 16, 2012 at 2:56 am
Perhaps before thinking of giving women the right to an abortion, you should think of giving them good hospitals and medical care to prevent that DR is one of the countries with highest maternal and neonatal mortality in the world!http://www.unicef.org/republicadominicana/english/children_9497.htm
But everyone has their own priorities.
Reply
jsegor23
June 16, 2012 at 5:22 pm
If you read Spanish Google Argelia Tejada Yanguela and go to her on line newspaper column and her blog. You will indeed find that she is very much for improvements in health care and many other needed reforms in the DR. The assumption that people who support a woman’s right to choose lack morals is both ignorant and stupid. We start with an analysis of the world as it is and care very much about out comes. We are not bound by magical assumption about ensoulment and take a different view about when human legal protections should attach to a fetus. In the case of Argelia, she has spent most of her life fighting for human rights and values.
Steve Byrne
June 16, 2012 at 4:13 am
How dare you insult the great traditions of a universal Catholic and Apostolic, whatever it is. Your allusion to the great Tom lehrer is priceless to an old altar boy like myself, and geuflect, genuflect, genuflect. The problem to my mind is is the propriety of everything that everyone is arguing about was held en communion with these old “virgins?” for over a 1000 years. whatever we have to argue over was left to their hands. I read abook about how the the Irish saved civilization during the “dark ages”. What did they save? They copied texts including everything from Josephuus to John ofPatmos. Im not sure who the joke is on.
Reply
.
Leave a Reply
Enter your comment here...Enter your comment here...
Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo
Twitter picture
Facebook photo
« Previous Post
Next Post »
. .
Topics
Uncategorized
Archives
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
Blog at WordPress.com. The Manifest Theme.
Follow
Follow “The New Oxonian”
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 160 other followers
Powered by WordPress.com
loading
The New Oxonian
Books etc.
Comments and Moderation
Vita Brevis
..
Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient
Atheist Tantrums: The New Loud
by rjosephhoffmann
Reblogged from The New Oxonian:
Click to visit the original postClick to visit the original post
What do you get when you cross a new atheist with a Jehovah's Witness?
Someone who knocks on your door for no reason at all.
This will be brief. Blasphemy Day, God love it, has come and gone. Soon the giggling will stop. Dogs, horses and Episcopalians will be left wondering what the point was. The few Pentecostals who can read a newspaper will say, "See, told you so," and head for the basement before the anti-Christ rides through town.
Read more… 1,144 more words
Short repast from Blasphemy days past, alas. Sometimes you just can't help feeling nostalgic for the new atheism.... a feeling similar to the withdrawal comedians must have felt when W. left the White House.
Published: June 15, 2012
Filed Under: Uncategorized
..
6 Responses to “Atheist Tantrums: The New Loud”
.
David Mills
June 15, 2012 at 8:43 am
How many atheists does it take to change a light bulb? Two. One to actually change the bulb, and the other to videotape the job so fundamentalists won’t claim that god did it.
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
June 15, 2012 at 8:47 am
Ha!
Reply
David Mills
June 15, 2012 at 8:59 am
And one that hopefully everbody can appreciate, since we’re all in the same jam:
http://osopher.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/eat-survive-reproduce1.jpg
Reply
Scott
June 15, 2012 at 9:02 am
But wasn’t changing the light bulb all part of god’s plan anyway?
Reply
Ken Scaletta
June 15, 2012 at 1:56 pm
I see the blasphemy thing as really more therapeutically intended than proselytizing or ONLY provocative. It’s a demystifying process, a sort of exorcism of residual psychological fears.
Reply
JonLynnHarvey
June 15, 2012 at 2:23 pm
A Catholic priest, a Baptist minister and a member of the Skeptic society were at a townhall meeting fielding questions. A member of the audience asked, “Do you believe in infant baptism?”
Father Flanaghan replied, “We believe that infants are born tainted with original sin so it is necessary to remove this, and thus we do indeed believe in infant baptism?”
Reverend Roberts replies, “We believe such a ceremony is meaningless unless the baptised person can understand the meaning of the commitment, so we reserve baptism for adults”.
Skeptical Scooter Scout says, “Could you repeat the question, please?”
The moderator says “The question is do you believe in infant baptism.”
Scooter Scout replies, “Believe in it? I’ve actually see Father Flanaghan do it with my own eyes.”
Reply
.
Leave a Reply
Enter your comment here...Enter your comment here...
Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo
Twitter picture
Facebook photo
« Previous Post
Next Post »
. .
Topics
Uncategorized
Archives
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
Blog at WordPress.com. The Manifest Theme.
Follow
Follow “The New Oxonian”
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 160 other followers
Powered by WordPress.com
The New Oxonian
Books etc.
Comments and Moderation
Vita Brevis
..
Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient
Atheist Tantrums: The New Loud
by rjosephhoffmann
atheist-sex2
What do you get when you cross a new atheist with a Jehovah’s Witness?
Someone who knocks on your door for no reason at all.
This will be brief. Blasphemy Day, God love it, has come and gone. Soon the giggling will stop. Dogs, horses and Episcopalians will be left wondering what the point was. The few Pentecostals who can read a newspaper will say, “See, told you so,” and head for the basement before the anti-Christ rides through town.
I was musing yesterday why, as a pretty fervent Roman Catholic in the 1960's, I fell on the floor in paroxysms of laughter when a friend (also Catholic) played Tom Lehrer’s “Vatican Rag” for me for the first time. I still laugh when I hear it, even though most twenty-first century Catholics don’t know what a kyrie eleison is or bother to stand in line for confession. In college, a little less fervent, I knew priests (many of whom aren’t any more) who knew the song from front to back. We used to break it out on cue at Charlie’s Beef and Beer (RIP) at Harvard.
So if irreverence can be funny (and I love irreverence as much as I love Mahler) why do I think Blasphemy Day was such a fuckwitted idea?
Well for one thing, as I said in my two posts on the topic, bad art, bad jokes, and behavior designed to be stupid and offensive are seldom funny except to insiders.
nails
A competition to see who can come up with the worst art, the worst joke, and the most self-referentially stupid behavior will have to be judged by how funny the insiders think it is.
I’m guessing the atheist insiders peed their pants. As for those standing outside the circle (those dogs, horses and Episcopalians), let the cattle judge.
An NPR story on the subject tried to link the Center for Inquiry-sponsored event to a growing rift between old school and new atheism.
If I bought the distinction, I would be expected to say that the “old atheism” as represented by ardent secularists like Paul Kurtz was warm and cuddly whereas the newer form, usually thought to be incarnate in Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris (et al.) is tactically less subtle, more aggressive, unkinder.
But I don’t buy it. The old atheism was full of cranks and angry old men, but some of them were clever. Many of them (as my grandmother used to say) knew a thing or two. The big distinction between the old and the new is that the old atheism depended on a narrative, based in philosophy, and linked itself to a long tradition of rational decision-making. Not choosing to believe in God was an act of deliberation, not a foregone conclusion. At its best, it was studious and reflective. At its worst, it was purely negative, abrasive and sometimes nihilistic.
The best form of the old atheism had a lot in common with certain theological trends, ranging from nominalism to religious realism and minimalism–the sort of stance you get from Don Cupitt’s best writings. The worst, rejectionist stream of atheism, was marked (or marred) by intolerance and a lack of table manners. It was an atheism for the unsophisticated young and the dispirited old. Wedged between were Philistines of all ages, one big unhappy family.
What’s now being called “new atheism” or atheist fundamentalism is really nothing more than the triumph of the jerks. Unsubtle, unlearned (but pretentious), unreflective (but persistent). They have heroes in super-jerks like PZ Myers (yes, the one who drives spikes through communion “crackers” as he calls them, and Korans) because
Edgy is what young people like….They want to cut through the nonsense right away and want to get to the point. They want to hear the story fast, they want it to be exciting, and they want it to be fun. And I’m sorry, the old school of atheism is really, really boring.
Did you get that: really? Presumably Mr Myers has tenure, but I for one would love to see his teaching philosophy unpacked when it comes out in book form. Students may also like it raunchy, naked, and loud. And that’s why we used to think a university was a good place to lead people out of the tribe and toward civilization. Not PZ. Give him a hammer and he’ll follow you anywhere.
Almost as bad is the point made by CFI executive Ron Lindsay who says that his “research” organization will “take the high road, the low road, country roads, interstates, highways, byways, — whatever it takes to reach people.” Sounds strangely like Jesus, except the bit about the low road.
To the extent this highways and hedges approach works, imagine the good news: “Rejoice greatly: for unto you this day is born in the City of Right Reason…absolutely Nothing.”
Here is my prophecy. The raw atheism of the raw atheists who have given us Blasphemy Day and probably have other delights in store for us is loud because they already know no one is listening, at least no one who matters.
The shrill tones of the movement have to be amplified for the same reason cinemas now have to pump up the volume to drown out the hundred private conversations that are going on during the film, person to person, cell phone to cell phone, tweet to tweet. It is shouting, pure and simple because loud wins. Stupid and loud is even better, and outrageously stupid and loud is best.
But while all this is going on, there are many who style themselves humanists and are not believers in any conventional sense who want to say, “Shut up-I’m watching the movie.” (More precisely, “Shut up, we’re trying to think.,” or maybe read. What we need is an intellectual resource for thoughtful humanists, the thoughtful seekers who don’t think it’s cool to “repent” of your baptism by having a hairdryer pointed at your head.
What I miss about the old atheism–even though I still find its central premises wobbly and unconvincing–is that thinking was permitted. The conversation continued. There was no infallible source of confidence. Skepticism reigned.
The new atheism is a catechism of conclusions reached, positions taken, dogmas pronounced. It is more like the Catholicism I giggled to see parodied, a church too sure of itself and its exclusive ability to save souls and reveal the kingdom.
A Prayer:
Oh Thou who hast no name and many…and may not even be there:
Bring back clever.
Smite with a bolt of intelligence all enemies of parody and good satire.
Bring low the self-assurance of the Brights, and unto the Dims give light.
With a stroke of your mighty pen lay waste the stupidity of your deniers and confound the certainty of your defenders.
Render mute, O heavenly Conundrum, the loudness of the gainsayers and the loudness of the speakers in tongues. Do it soon.
And do Thou, O King, or Something, of the Unseen Regions of my Brain, grant me the endurance to suffer religious fools as gladly as I suffer the Atheist. And failing that, send a scorching fire upon the earth, if it isn’t asking too much.
Amen.
About these ads
Share this:
Facebook26
Twitter
Email
StumbleUpon
Digg
Reddit
Print
Like this:
?
Published: October 19, 2009
Filed Under: Uncategorized
Tags: atheism : Blasphemy Day : Catholic Church : CFI : Fundamentalism : new atheism : Paul Kurtz : R. Joseph Hoffmann ..
54 Responses to “Atheist Tantrums: The New Loud”
.
Hugh
October 19, 2009 at 10:35 pm
I may not necessarily agree with absolutely everything in it but that post was fabulously funny . Something the new anti religionists seem not to have , a sense of humour ( the bus ads in London spring to mind ).
It was a great pleasure to read .
Regards….
Reply
Dave
May 23, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Yes,. me too. Everybody HATES jews,atheist or fucteist,they are all be DEAD within twenty years,yet they still continiue to Kill,kidnap,rape,steal,lie,..
Reply
steph
August 5, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Can’t help but love this writing above. Blasphemy Day was a fuckwat idea designed to offend the religious fanatics perhaps but just offending human dignity (I find it offensive and I’ve never been religious) … and who actually cared or even knew about the blasphemous loud and ignorant few from an organisation we never heard of before. Just today, my cousin in Palmerston North NZ, (a university lecturer in linguistics and sociology who, like me, has never been a believer in anything much), tells me that some nitwits are sticking pointless billboards up down under in Palmy, saying ‘God probably doesn’t exist, enjoy life anyway’ or somesuch rubbish, she couldn’t exactly remember. She, being a happily isolated Antipodian (although she has lived in China, UK etc before) hadn’t heard of such dumb ideas before and really thought it quite ridiculous. ‘Blasphemy Day’ leaves us both embarrassed to be human. ‘Bring back clever’, oh how loverly, ‘Smite with a bolt of intelligence all enemies of parody and good satire. Bring low the self-assurance of the Brights, and unto the Dims give light’ – if only! I love your prayer. And someone who knocks on your door for no reason at all, God love it, I do. As for the cartoon – God forbid it!!
xx
Reply
Atheist Tantrums: The New Loud (via The New Oxonian) « The New Oxonian says:
October 21, 2010 at 9:24 am
[...] Atheist Tantrums: The New Loud (via The New Oxonian) In Uncategorized on October 21, 2010 at 9:24 am What do you get when you cross a new atheist with a Jehovah's Witness? Someone who knocks on your door for no reason at all. This will be brief. Blasphemy Day, God love it, has come and gone. Soon the giggling will stop. Dogs, horses and Episcopalians will be left wondering what the point was. The few Pentecostals who can read a newspaper will say, "See, told you so," and head for the basement before the anti-Christ rides through town. I was musi … Read More [...]
Reply
steph
October 21, 2010 at 11:57 am
So sadly relevant, they are louder than ever, with pointless ranting that is destructive, pitfully artless and as you have said previously, will not help you buy wine on Sundays. “I don’t see much sense in that,” said Rabbit. “No,” said Pooh … “there isn’t”. The shouting on the fringes shows no signs of abating but are the sensible voices in the vast middle ground, those sheep and goats conversing in the middle, able to ignore it? I think so, and with gifted souls like you (and Tom Lehrer, R.I.P.), long may constructive conversation, sensational satire, and wicked wit, make progress imaginatively.
x
Reply
Larry Tanner
October 21, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Too whiny. They’re so LOUD and mean. They’re so dogmatic and STRIDENT.
Take off the pettiness spectacles, please.
Reply
steph
October 21, 2010 at 7:16 pm
“The raw atheism of the raw atheists who have given us Blasphemy Day and probably have other delights in store for us is loud because they already know no one is listening, at least no one who matters … Stupid and loud”. Mean? Who cares? Just petty.
Reply
Ed Jones
October 25, 2010 at 11:50 am
New atheism – old atheism – no God – whatever – all thoughts from within the Cave – bound by mental chains of not knowing. Let go of Religion (=Christianity). Go to the scientists – the world’s greatest physicists – who have turned to face the light which caused the shadows of sense perception. When did we stop looking to science for answers – even clues to Ultimate Reality. “Science offers a surer path to God than religion” Paul Davies. Dare to turn and “see” the Light!
Reply
Atheist Tantrums: Remembering Blasphemy Day 2009 « The New Oxonian says:
April 19, 2011 at 4:21 pm
[...] What do you get when you cross a new atheist with a Jehovah's Witness? Someone who knocks on your door for no reason at all. This will be brief. Blasphemy Day, God love it, has come and gone. Soon the giggling will stop. Dogs, horses and Episcopalians will be left wondering what the point was. The few Pentecostals who can read a newspaper will say, "See, told you so," and head for the basement before the anti-Christ rides through town. I was musi … Read More [...]
Reply
s. wallerstein
April 19, 2011 at 4:38 pm
There are lots of very aggressive, tribal (your word), and intolerant online New Atheists, but should we judge a diffuse movement of people from the worst
characters?
I imagine that there are hundreds of thousands of people who vaguely identify with the New Atheists, but who don’t participate in the daily online lynch mob and who certainly don’t foment the daily online lynch mob.
Obviously, the voices of the least aggressive members of the New Atheist tribe are not often heard.
Unlike the New Atheists, I do not judge the Catholic Church by Opus Dei, and maybe it’s not fair to judge all those who enthusiastically read Dawkins and Hitchens (not me) by those Dawkins and Hitchens readers who want my blood.
Reply
Ed Jones
April 19, 2011 at 10:59 pm
On the chance that it might make some difference, I repeat a comment made to Reason as Myth to shore up the above poor comment.
When so many believe that natural science can and will answer all questions worth asking, we best return to the reasoning of those who can be named as the greatest physicists the world has ever known. All of these pioneering physicists believed that science and religion, pyhsics and spirituality, were necessary for a full and integral approach to reality, but neither could be reduced to, or derived from the other. Physics can be learned by the study of facts and mathematics, but mysticism can only be learned by a profound change of consciousness. They uniformaly rejected the notion that physics proved or even supports mysticism, and yet each and every one of them was an avowed mystic. How can this be? Very simply, they all realized that, at the very least, physics deals with the world of form, and mysticism deals with the formless. Both are important, but they cannot be equated. Little as they were in the postion of thinking within the tradition of one of the old religious tradtions, equally little were they prepared to go over to naive rationalistically grounded atheism. (From Quantum Questions by Ken Wilber)
Reply
Steve
April 20, 2011 at 11:44 am
Ed – nicely stated and poetic statement from Ken Wilber, but I ask you, can there be any answers in supernatural beliefs? Introspection labeled spirituality, maybe… but believing ones imaginary friends are real is just counter productive. Recognizing they are all just reflections of oneself, well that’s a good start. Ken’s description of atheism as “naive rationalistically grounded” is a strawman. Atheism can just be shorthand for “Show me the money”. Calling it naive is just “stupid”.
Reply
Brownian
April 20, 2011 at 11:59 am
The last few times I opened my door to a proselytiser, he was a theist, not an atheist. (Oddly enough, he still had nothing to say. At least, nothing substantive.)
Where are you living that none but mean, unsophisticated, humourless atheists are knocking on your door, rather than members of the Religious Right? Because I’d love to move to the place where the pleasant, sensible, don’t-rock-the-boat moderates are winning.
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
April 20, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Why would you open your door? I do agree that where you are can affect your perspective on approach. Contrary to appearances, I want the new atheists–all atheists–to be responsible, not like our worst experience of their religious opposites.
Reply
Herpy McDerp
April 20, 2011 at 1:00 pm
I love when people use the phrase “fundamentalist atheists”.
Fundamentalist Christians shoot abortion doctors, fundamentalist Muslims fly planes into buildings, and those goddamn fundamentalist atheist write blogs. How disgusting.
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
April 20, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Cross-ranking?
Reply
charvakan
April 20, 2011 at 1:13 pm
the thoughtful seekers who don’t think it’s cool to repent of your baptism by having a hairdryer pointed at your head.”
- the reason why this is cool is because it highlights the stupidity of believing that dunking you in water is what is needed to save you from the wages of sin of an ancient ancestor. Any other response gives the right of baptism more respect than it deserves.
Reply
Drew
April 20, 2011 at 1:27 pm
“What’s now being called “new atheism” or atheist fundamentalism is really nothing more than the triumph of the jerks.”
Please describe to me the “fundamentals” of atheism.
“Unsubtle, unlearned (but pretentious), unreflective (but persistent).”
I’ll give you unsubtle, but unlearned? Unlearned in what respect? Generally, atheists are, more highly educated than their theistic counterparts, and specifically on the subject of religion, at least one study showed that atheists know more about religions than the religious (see for example a recent pew study) which seems to fly in the face of your already arrived at conclusions. As to your accusation of being “unreflective”, well since the bulk of those people you’re criticizing (at least based upon years of reading so-called “deconversion” stories, which I admit potentially could still be the minority though I doubt it) come to atheism usually only after a long, arduous process of research and self discovery, again, your preconceptions don’t fit the data.
In fact this entire work is drivel.
By the way, please demonstrate some of the “catechisms” of New Atheism. The only conclusion reached by atheists is that theists have not met the burden of proof required for the extraordinary claim of the existence of god(s). As an atheist myself, I’m curious to hear some of the “dogmas” that I didn’t realize I followed.
Reply
Backstabber
April 21, 2011 at 9:38 am
Can I second every single word Drew says?.
Reply
Frank B
April 20, 2011 at 1:46 pm
The reason there was a blasphemy day was because too many people in the world take blasphemy seriously. Ireland recently enacted a blasphemy law which should not survive very long. In any country dedicated to the rule of law, enforcing a blasphemy law will automatically create trouble. In many places people go crazy over instances of blasphemy. The solution, blasphemy loud and long so that people will see that nothing happens and get used to it. Wringing your hands and soothing the crazies won’t work and it would be unfair to those who are threatened by the crazies. Concern for blasphemy and social justice are incompatible.
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
April 20, 2011 at 3:30 pm
@Frank What particular crazies were being ridiculed: as far as i could tell, almost all of the insults were hurled at cartoons of Christianity. There may be some counterintuitive purpose I’m not seeing here, but linking blasphemy day to social justice? Come on.
Reply
cameron
April 21, 2011 at 5:15 pm
You see no social justice implications in creating thought-crime laws?
K H Smith
April 20, 2011 at 2:38 pm
I’m sorry but all of this ranting against the ‘new atheists’ is tired. ‘New’ or ‘gnu’ atheists are simply old atheists with a blog or a book or a youtube channel — oh, the horror! David Hume and John Stuart Mill would have a blogs if they were alive today. While ‘Blasphemy Day’ is a way to have a little fun at religions’ expense it is hardly something that can epitomize the atheist mindset. Just as I don’t think that those that nail themselves to a cross on Easter are typical Christians. Wanting a return to some fictional, idealized world of ‘old atheists’ reminds me of the woman screaming ‘I want my country back’ at the health care rallies a few years ago — full of sound and fury – signifying nothing. Times have changed — move on…
Reply
blu28
April 20, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Since this was reposted, I don’t feel too awkward about commenting on an old article. But in answer to “steph”, I would like to point out that Tom Lehrer is alive today, and was presumably alive in 2010 when steph wrote “Tom Lehrer, R.I.P.”. What is particularly ironic, is that the Vatican Rag was in its day, the equivalent of Blasphemy Day, and Tom Lehrer was the day’s equivalent of a “new atheist”, loud, irreverent and in your face. I am afraid that we cannot all be lyrical, musical and talented.
Reply
Ambidexter
April 20, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Another goddist whining about the existence of people who don’t share his delusions. Of course the worst are the “New Atheists” who have the temerity of not showing the respect to goddists that goddists feel they should receive.
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
April 20, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Absolutely. That’s exactly what this post is all about, me not getting respect for my goddist beliefs. –What were your SAT scores, btw.?
Reply
Kieran
April 20, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Nice – a cross between an ad hominem attack and an argument from authority. Two logical fallacies in one. Then again, given the intellectual dishonesty required to justify your kooky and unsupported beliefs, should we be surprised?
rjosephhoffmann
April 20, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Time to Play Learn Your Fallacies. 1. There is no ad hominem attack here. There is a reply to one, but it’s pretty tame. 2. Using scholarship to support a position is called “argument.” Ad baculum arguments are ones you win by threat. There is no argument from authority here. There are some facts: should we fear them?
charvakan
April 20, 2011 at 3:25 pm
If anyone is looking for reasons why Blasphemy Day is NOT fuckwitted idea, read and see the laws against this in the various countries. Maybe when these laws are taken off the books then having a Blasphemy Day will become fuckwitted. Till then we need to send a strong message that just because you believe and revere some book does not mean that everyone else also needs to.
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
April 20, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Pray tell me how this particularly dumb idea had a salutary effect on any of the countries that still have blasphemy laws, especially since its focus was almost exclusively on the Western tradition.
Reply
charvakan
April 20, 2011 at 5:57 pm
First off, you will notice that a lot of “secular” countries still have blasphemy laws on their books and have groups of citizens who like to apply a religious label to their country (eg. American is a “Christian” nation). The focus of Blasphemy Day was not just on Western tradition. It applied to all religions. The “Draw Mohamed Day” was similar in concept and that applied exclusively to Islamic societies. Yes, it is true that these have greater participation in Western societies, but the power of the internet is that eventually these will catch up in other countries where I agree this is needed more.
rjosephhoffmann
April 20, 2011 at 7:15 pm
I do not notice that: Please tell me what you have in mind? Certainly not the US– here we give bathroom passes to idiot clergymen who burn Korans.
randomhuman
April 28, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Are you for some reason incapable of following the link that the good fellow posted in his comment? The Western and/or secular countries that it lists as still having blasphemy laws of some kind include: Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand. Under the section “European Initiatives” you will find a further list of countries who make a crime of “religious insult”. Some of these countries have not prosecuted anybody for these “crimes” in a very long time, and Ireland has not yet made use of it’s recently enacted blasphemy law, but others have done so within the last decade. So as you can see, blaspheming against the “Western tradition” is an act of civil disobedience for many of us, since we do not all live in the US.
rjosephhoffmann
April 28, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Er, no perfectly capable: was it supposed to knock me down?
randomhuman
April 29, 2011 at 8:47 am
Only if you consider Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand to be part of the “Western tradition”. I’m not sure you could make a credible case otherwise, though you seem to be attempting to do so.
cd
April 20, 2011 at 5:48 pm
“A kind of book that has been endemic in England for quite sixty years is the silly-clever religious book, which goes on the principle not of threatening the unbeliever with Hell, but of showing him up as an illogical ass, incapable of clear thought and unaware that everything he says has been said and refuted before. This school of literature started, I think, with W. H. Mallock’s New Republic, which must have been written about 1880, and it has had a long line of practitioners—R. H. Benson, Chesterton, Father Knox, ‘Beachcomber’ and others, most of them Catholics, but some, like Dr Cyril Alington and (I suspect) Mr Lewis himself, Anglicans. The line of attack is always the same. Every heresy has been uttered before (with the implication that it has also been refuted before); and theology is only understood by theologians (with the implication that you should leave your thinking to the priests). Along these lines one can, of course, have a lot of clean fun by ‘correcting loose thinking’ and pointing out that so-and-so is only saying what Pelagius said in A.D. 400 (or whenever it was), and has in any case used the word transubstantiation in the wrong sense. The special targets of these people have been T. H. Huxley, H. G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, Professor Joad, and others who are associated in the popular mind with Science and Rationalism. They have never had much difficulty in demolishing them—though I notice that most of the demolished ones are still there, while some of the Christian apologists themselves begin to look rather faded.”
http://ghostwolf.dyndns.org/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/tribune/AsIPlease19441027.html
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
April 20, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Interesting, if you live in 1898.
Reply
cd
April 21, 2011 at 2:40 am
Let me translate: Blair is pointing out that the apologists’ Argument From Sneer was already a bad cliché in 1944.
Herb Van Fleet
April 20, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Please let me know if the following is blasphemous, heretical, or just cause for another crusade — this time from the Gnus to the bible thumpers who inhabit these parts (we could use a little help):
“Well, I don’t care if it rains or freezes,
Long as I have my plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car
Through all trials and tribulations,
We will travel every nation,
With my plastic Jesus I’ll go far.
“No, I don’t care if it rains or freezes
Long as I have my plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car
But I think he’ll have to go
His magnet ruins my radio
And if we have a wreck he’ll leave a scar
“Riding through the thoroughfare
With his nose up in the air
A wreck may be ahead, but he don’t mind
Trouble coming, he don’t see
He just keeps his eyes on me
And any other thing that lies behind
“Plastic Jesus, Plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car
Though the sun shines on his back
Makes him peel, chip, and crack
A little patching keeps him up to par
“When I’m in a traffic jam
He don’t care if I say Damn
I can let all sorts of curses roll
Plastic Jesus doesn’t hear
For he has a plastic ear
The man who invented plastic saved my soul
“Plastic Jesus, Plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car
Once his robe was snowy white
Now it isn’t quite so bright
Stained by the smoke of my cigar
“If I weave around at night
And the police think I’m tight
They’ll never find my bottle, though they ask
Plastic Jesus shelters me
For His head comes off, you see
He’s hollow, and I use Him for a flask
“Plastic Jesus, plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car
Ride with me and have a dram
Of the blood of the Lamb
Plastic Jesus is a holy bar”
Reply
RickK
April 20, 2011 at 6:26 pm
There’s nothing new about atheism, even strident atheism that demands attention and gives no quarter to illusions of the supernatural or divine. All that has changed is, with the explosive growth in human knowledge of the natural world, “God’s” retreat from relevance has accelerated to a breakneck pace. As we scan the skies, plumb the depths, reach into natural history and delve into the workings of the mind, all we find are nature and natural cause and effect. God has been pushed so completely into the immaterial that it is no longer possible to tell the difference between a God that cannot be understood, and a God that doesn’t exist at all. Bravo to this generation’s band of atheists who, generally more educated on matters of faith than their theist counterparts, have the courage to stand up, point, and declare at the top of their lungs “The Emperor has no clothes!”. And bravo to our Western society for, little by little, growing mature enough to allow the atheists to do so without burning them at the stake.
There is still a long way to go. It is easier for a teenager to declare “I’m gay” at the family gathering than it is for them to declare “I’m an atheist”. But if the loud voices of atheism continue to override dismissive voices like R. Joseph Hoffman, eventually the atheists can come out of the closet at the Thanksgiving table without causing family schisms. And then they can turn their attention to openly teaching the next generation about the truths and limits of “faith”.
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
April 20, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Cute, John. What do you like?
Reply
Frank B
April 20, 2011 at 11:15 pm
When they came for the Jews, I said nothing because I wasn’t a Jew.
I would not come for anyone. Everyone has a right to be themselves and to be different. I would be the one defending them. Mr. Hoffman seems the type to go after someone rather than defend them.
Reply
mandas
April 20, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Wow – the hypocrisy in this post is breathtaking. Complaining about the ‘lack of table manners’ of the ‘new atheists’ while simultaneously calling them ‘jerks’, ‘shrill’, ‘stupid’ and ‘loud’.
But I guess hypocrisy is just normal par for the course for the religious, so why would anyone be surprised. What’s the matter? Don’t you like it when someone who can think for themselves calls you out on the lack of credibility of your favourite superstition?
You need to get used to it. We ‘new atheists’ are here to stay. And we are heartily sick of evangelising and proselytising from people who don’t have the courage to reject the bronze age nonsense that they foist on society – all the time demanding special privileges such as tax breaks and that their superstitious beliefs be protected agains ‘blasphemy’.
As Peter Finch so aptly put it: We are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore.
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
April 21, 2011 at 7:28 am
@Mandas: Why are you mad?
Reply
mandas
April 27, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Since my last post was ‘moderated’ – or to use the more correct word, ‘deleted’ – I will try again. But the very act of deleting my comment perfectly encapsulates why I am ‘so mad’. (it also answers the question I asked in my post as well)
It’s because superstitious nonsense has held sway over our culture for far too long. Bronze age belief systems have no place in the modern world. They corrupt human progress and inflict endless suffering on people. They demand and get special privileges that they don’t deserve and which detract from more rational and deserving pursuits – the costs of which must be borne by everyone.
So you miss the ‘old atheists’ huh? Too bad. The days of compliance – of hiding our rationality for fear of persecution by a society gripped by superstition are over. We want our culture to progress, to move past the fear-mongering, the hypocrisy, and the hatred of religious superstition. And the only way we will be able to move forward is to move out of the dark ages when humans worshipped homophobic, genocidal, mysogenist, racist, and jealous beings in the sky.
Religion is the root of all evil – and we will all be better off when it is confined to the dustbin of history.
Now I ask the question again – why are you such a hypocrite?
rjosephhoffmann
April 27, 2011 at 7:32 pm
“It’s because superstitious nonsense has held sway over our culture for far too long. Bronze age belief systems have no place in the modern world.” Where do we disagree? have you ever read anything I’ve written–because if you had, you know I’ve been saying tis for two decades. As to my hypocrisy: I don’t think my opposition to the rashness of new atheism is hypocritical., it’s heartfelt.
mandas
April 27, 2011 at 11:46 pm
“…Where do we disagree?…”
Isn’t it obvious? You are superstitious, and use ‘faith’ to colour your worldview. You are irrational, and ‘believe’ in things for which there is no evidence.
You have not done the most important thing that any rational individual should do – and that is to question and think about that which underpins the ‘glasses’ through which you view the world.
Ask yourself this. Why do you believe in god? Why do you believe in that particular god? Why are you a christian, and not a muslim or a jew? Why do you think you are right and they are wrong (and yes, if you are a christian then you DO believe they are wrong)?
You may claim to have thought these issues through – but you obviously have not. For there is no RATIONAL reason for you to think the way you do – it is simply a matter of that is the culture in which you were raised. And if you were raised in a different culture, you would draw radically different conclusions on these issues. And that is pretty conclusive proof that there is no real rational thought process underpinning your beliefs.
Belief in a god – any god – is a ‘bronze age belief system’. Indeed, that is being charitable. Belief in the supernatural is even more archaic that that – and less relevant to the modern world. We now know that the earth is not the centre of the universe, that the universe was not created especially for us, it was not created by a supernatural being, and that we are just another animal species, no more special or deserving than any other. These are the teachings of religion – why would you in any way defend such nonsense?
You may claim that religion has given us art and culture etc, but I am going to suggest that art and culture would have existed anyway. And while religious organisations may have done some good, they have done a lot more damage, and on the balance they have had a much more negative than positive impact on society. ‘Goodness’ is NOT the sole province of the religious. Indeed, the worst kind of hate, hypocricy and biggotry is reserved for those who are religious, and who use the teachings of their religions to justify all sorts of unacceptable behaviour.
You have written a lot lately in criticism of atheism and ‘new’ atheists in particular. And that from there that your worst hypocrisy stems. You complain about our ‘lack of table manners’, and of being ‘loud’ and ‘loud and stupid’, and that the only people who don’t matter listen to the ‘shrill’ tones of new atheists.
You might want to take a good hard look at your own table manners and attitudes. New atheism is not – as you put it in your own shrill, lacking in table manners tone – a ‘triumph of the jerks’. Atheism is a triumph of rational thought over superstition; a realisation that the fairy stories you were brought up with have no more credibility than santa claus or the easter bunny. They are great stories to tell children, but its long past the time when humanity – those who still cling to religion – needs to grow up.
rjosephhoffmann
May 1, 2011 at 10:29 am
It is impossible to overlook the tone of the tertiary Gnus. My guess is that they are all trying to sound as acerb at Hitch and fail miserably because they are not as clever as he is. Your entire representation of my worldview and thoughts is so distant from anything I believe that I thought at first it was directed at some other comment. You are superstitious, and use ‘faith’ to colour your worldview. You are irrational, and ‘believe’ in things for which there is no evidence. You have not done the most important thing that any rational individual should do – and that is to question and think about that which underpins the ‘glasses’ through which you view the world. Ask yourself this. Why do you believe in god? Why do you believe in that particular god? Why are you a christian, and not a muslim or a jew? Why do you think you are right and they are wrong (and yes, if you are a christian then you DO believe they are wrong)? Did you just dial a wrong number and continue talking when the message bleep came on, or do you really think these points are pertinent?
SAWells
April 21, 2011 at 2:18 am
I think the phrase we’re looking for is “Link or it didn’t happen”.
You’re writing a blog, making sweeping assertions, and never providing links to anything that might resemble, you know, evidence for your assertions.
Maybe this is your beef with the so-called New Atheists; you want the whole God conversation to remain rarified and abstract and all in your head, and this modern habit of actually asking for evidence doesn’t suit you. It’s so crude, doncherknow.
People are actually being murdered for blasphemy in places like Pakistan: establishing that blasphemy is not a crime actually matters. Wibbling about Respect for Deeply Held Beliefs doesn’t help. Beliefs are not respectable merely because deeply held, and people need to get used to having their beliefs mocked and challenged.
Reply
Jemima Cole
April 21, 2011 at 8:42 am
Blasphemy Day wasn’t some unmotivated bit of spite – it was a specific response to the fact that it’s now illegal in Ireland to diss certain fictional characters. It is now literally *a criminal offence* to impune the virginity of one character from one book – God’s other bit of stuff, his second Queen of heaven, the one he raped when she was fifteen when her husband wasn’t looking. Or so the little strumpet claimed.
Reply
Ewan
April 21, 2011 at 9:41 am
I liked those atheists much better when they weren’t so uppity.
Reply
JoshOnPC
April 21, 2011 at 9:20 pm
I for one am amazed at the capability for people to suspend disbelief for such outragious claims as are foisted upon them by religion. I am amazed at the self defeating God people have the ability to persistently believe in. A perfectly omnicient and omnipotent man that can literally do anything, that creates an imperfect world because He couldn’t create a perfect one? Or because maybe he wanted a flawed world? An all knowing God who flooded the entire world after He got mad at his own creation for doing what He knew it would do? How is it possible to be dissapointed in your own creation knowing the outcome already? If you can believe such diametrically opposed ideas, then you have an absolutly astounding ability to dismiss your own lifes experiences for want of a bearded invisible man. It is shocking to me. Do you want to know why “New Atheists” are mad? It isn’t just because people believe in God. It isn’t just that people don’t value science (the thing that has brought you every modern convenience you enjoy, every medical treatment you use, increased food supply, etc…) over religion. But, that religion works actively against science anytime it feels threatened is the problem. Were there ever to be a final proof that God does not exist, it would not ever matter to you. Why? Because faith is the entire emphasis of religion. And what stronger faith can you have than one that exists despite clear and concise evidence to the contrary? Faith is belief without evidence, and in the world we live in, that is incomprehensably foolish.
Reply
latsot
April 23, 2011 at 6:03 am
Blasphemy Day was doubtless intended to have a little shock value, but I think it was more about using that shock to demonstrate that it’s actually OK to be blasphemous.
Most of the people I know aren’t religious, but they’re shocked by outright blasphemy nonetheless. I think overt blasphemy helps non-believers who have never really identified as atheists to understand what we supposedly strident, shrill atheists are complaining about. For example, the horrible acts of the Catholic church in covering up the rape of minors and nuns and their insisting that AIDS proliferates due to arbitrary bans on condoms while the emancipation of women – the only known remedy for poverty and horribleness – is discouraged at best.
Blasphemy Day wasn’t about pissing off faith-heads, although I personally couldn’t care less if it did. It was mostly about reaching out to people who don’t believe in gods but were brought up to feel religions automatically deserve respect.
It’s a revelation to some people that they DON’T have to respect fairytales after all.
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
June 15, 2012 at 8:20 am
Reblogged this on The New Oxonian and commented:
Short repast from Blasphemy days past, alas. Sometimes you just can’t help feeling nostalgic for the new atheism…. a feeling similar to the withdrawal comedians must have felt when W. left the White House.
Reply
.
Leave a Reply
Enter your comment here...Enter your comment here...
Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo
Twitter picture
Facebook photo
« Previous Post
Next Post »
. .
Topics
Uncategorized
Archives
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
Blog at WordPress.com. The Manifest Theme.
Follow
Follow “The New Oxonian”
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 160 other followers
Powered by WordPress.com
loading
The New Oxonian
Books etc.
Comments and Moderation
Vita Brevis
..
Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient
Movement Humanism
by rjosephhoffmann
Movement Humanism (2011)
by rjosephhoffmann
What makes “organized humanism” different from the humanism that evolved philosophically out of the Renaissance and Enlightenment era is that it didn’t evolve out of the Renaissance or Enlightenment era. Not really.
Anyone who has travelled through the liberal arts curriculum of a European or American university in the last century has experienced the benefits of a benign, docile, unangry form of humanism: a curriculum free from church dogma and supervision, a reverence for scientific inquiry, systematic approaches to the study of literature, history, society and an emphasis on critical thinking.
Once upon a time, theology was called queen of the sciences. That was once upon a time. If you really want to know how the liberal arts (a slightly misleading name in our historically impoverished culture since “liberal arts”–the studies that “set your free”– include mathematics and sciences), fought and dethroned theology for the title, you really only have to look at the history of the American university—not counting, of course, those private and parochial ones that are paid for and managed by religious institutions of various stripes. In general, the modern university is built from the bricks humanism provided. It’s a product of intellectual evolution and learning and constructed to focus on the things that, as humans, we can know about rather than on the things that, as humans, we can’t possibly know.
Sometimes secular humanists want to claim that their brand of humanism shares a common pedigree with the humanism of the university. But that’s not true. Its origins, while respectable are not intellectually apostolic: French salon discussion, satire and tractarianism, German political movements, especially the Left Hegelians (like Marx in economics and Baur in philosophy and theology), anti-clericalism, frontier pragmatism in America, and above all a village atheism and hardheadedness that can be traced back to Tom Paine, Darrow, Ingersoll, and a dozen lesser lights. Many, though by no means all of these bargain basement illuminati never saw the inside of an ivory tower–though it’s a credit to Oxford that the university awarded an honorary doctorate to the cantankerous Midwestern skeptic, Samuel Clemens, in 1907.
As in Britain and Europe, freethought went hand in hand with politics: in England, spinning off the free-churches movement that was allied with Unitarianism and the “chapels,” it was tied to disestablishment— the end of the prerogatives and protections given the Church of England. In the United States, it was tied to First Amendment principles, civil liberties, a certain naive belief in “democratic values” (that did not take into account that the democratic values of the masses were dominantly intermixed with and confused with the Bible), and an occasional envy of the more robust socialism and communist tremors of an evolving secular Europe.
Clarence Darrow
I have never thought of myself as a secular humanist, or a big H life-stance British Humanist Association sort of Humanist. The minute you start qualifying humanism you are no longer talking about humanism but the conditions under which you can think of yourself as a humanist. Humanism is humanism. Movement humanism can be a variety of things–like ice cream or Christian denominations.
The danger in my view is that movement humanism is not innocuous. George Bernard Shaw once drunkenly said that “the conversion of a savage to Christianity is the conversion of Christianity to savagery.” (Shame on him for not knowing that he was impugning the Irish as well as first century Palestinian Jews.) It is true, in the same sense, however, that the theft of the name “humanism” by atheists who think it has a nice ring is the diminution of a major chapter in the history of human learning to a press release.
I have no trouble with anyone calling himself a humanist of this or that colour. But for the word to retain its “denotative” sense, it’s important to distinguish between “movement-humanism” and humanism.
Movement or “organized” humanism, as the name suggests, is a hybrid of certain currents that came together in a strand in the mid twentieth century, especially driven by the frenzy of intellectual change after two world wars. The movement was never fully coherent and for that reason appealed to political liberals, people who sincerely believed that religion (equated with superstition, supernaturalism and dogmatism) was responsible for the world’s ills and others who had been injured by religion and needed catharsis and (perhaps) non-violent revenge. Some of these people were intellectuals. Some were nurses and folksingers and ex-seminarians. All were a little angry.
In terms of its constituency and mood, secular humanism was entirely compatible with atheism; in fact, many recognized that the phrase was simply a circumlocution for atheism or agnosticism, in the same way some Evangelicals equate their doctrinal stance with being “Christian.” The percentage of secular humanists in America or Humanists in Britain or India harboring any “religious” sentiments must be painfully, infinitesimally small.
Other additives of American-style movement humanism included a belief that ethics were man-made and not dictated by a supreme being or mediated by dogma. Secular humanism became wedded to this fairly obvious proposition just when the best theology in Europe and America was teaching much the same thing. The theologies of Hartshorne and Whitehead, and to a certain degree Gilkey and Tillich, with their panentheistic view of God and idealistic view of man, were fully humanistic in the proper sense of the word, but could not be acknowledged by movement humanism with its constricted view of human reality and facile equation of religion and supernaturalism. Indeed, the greatest error of the movement was the simple association of religion with superstition, and the the working assumption that, like superstition and magic, religion could simply be debunked as a system of ritualized hoaxes.
Whitehead
The commitment to “godless” and anti-religious ethics made good sense for an atheist program of action as a kind of self-help course for unbelievers, but could never achieve the intellectual benchmark of an ethics based on the totality of human experience and reflection.
That’s not to say that one needs to believe in God to be moral. It is to say that an ethic that is not grounded in some actually existing infinite reality, such as God is presumed to be, must first state clearly what the grounds and perimeters of values are before proposing them as normative or significant: without such a calculus, it is no more relevant to say that an action is moral because it is human than it is to say that an action is moral because it is something Jesus would have endorsed.
I drink no more than a sponge...
In the realm of ethics, especially, movement humanism became habituated to oversimplification. To make religion more depraved than it seemed to most sensible people, the movement humanists stressed that religion was the sum total of its worst parts. Christianity, a religion of Bible-believing nitwits who meddled in politics, aspired to mind-control and hated Darwin. Islam, a religion of twisted fanatics who loved violence and hated progress and the proponents, mainly western, of progress. There was no equivalent narrative for Jews or Buddhists—not really—or the irrational components of secular movements: democratic socialism, communism, and (within limits) civil libertarianism could be forgiven their excesses precisely because they had their theodicy right if sometimes they got their tactics or outcomes wrong.
While often claiming the protective cloak of science and reason as their aegis for intellectual rectitude, movement humanism was really all about creating straw-men, stereotypes and bogeymen and unfortunately came to believe in its own anti-religion discourse.
To have capitulated, at any point, to the most humane, uplifting or learned elements in religion would have been seen as surrender to the forces of ignorance and superstition. For that reason, by the early years of the twenty-first century movement humanism gave birth to a more uncompromising form of radical secularism in the form of the new atheism with its anti-God and oddly Orwellian postulate: All religion is evil. Some religions are more evil than others. Before God can be disbelieved in, as Christopher Hitchens argued in God is Not Great, he has to be roused from his slumber, bound, tried, and humiliated for his atrocities. If he is not available, his avatar, the Catholic church, will do.
God is Not Great
Movement humanism as it has evolved is not really humanism. Or rather, it is a kind of parody of humanism. A better name for it would be Not-Godism. It’s what you get when you knock at the heavenly gate and no one is home.
It’s a rant of disappointment camouflaged by a tributary note to science for having made the discovery of the great Nonbeing possible. It’s structured outrage towards the institutions that have perpetuated belief and promises that (as many atheists sincerely believe) the churches have known to be empty all along.
At its best, it is a demand for honesty which, for lack of a unified response from “religion,” seems to require commando tactics.
Unfortunately, the tactics are all wrong because they demonstrate the movement’s almost complete lack of understanding of the “total passion for the total height” that validates religion for most Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists—a huge slice of the earth’s population. To read Sam Harris’s extended fallacy, The End of Faith, or Richard Dawkins’ screed, The God Delusion, or any of the clones that have appeared since 2006 is to enter a world of misapprehension and illogic that can only be compared to a child trying to fit the contents of an overstuffed toy chest into a shoebox on the premise that both are boxes that can hold toys. But the logic did not originate with the new atheists; it originated with movement humanism.
What organized humanism lacked from the beginning of its career, as a circumlocution for robust unbelief in God, is a sense of the dignity of wo/man combined with an indulgence and appreciation of human frailty, including the limits of reason. In renaissance humanism, the thought belongs to Hamlet:
What a piece of work is a man! How Noble in
Reason? How infinite in faculty? In form and moving
how express and admirable? In Action, how like an Angel?
In apprehension, how like a god? The beauty of the
world, the Paragon of Animals.
At the beginning of the renaissance, the humanist thinker Pico della Mirandola was censured by Pope Innocent VIII for “certain propositions” contained in his Oration on the Dignity of Man—the first true humanist manifesto.
In the Oration, Pico extolled human achievement, the importance of learning, the centrality of the quest for knowledge, and the primacy of man as the knower of the order of universe (which he associates with the faculty of reason and not divine revelation). He gives this speech to God as an imaginary dialogue after the creation of Adam:
“We have given you, O Adam, no visage proper to yourself, nor endowment properly your own, in order that whatever place, whatever form, whatever gifts you may, with premeditation, select, these same you may have and possess through your own judgment and decision. The nature of all other creatures is defined and restricted within laws which We have laid down; you, by contrast, impeded by no such restrictions, may, by your own free will, to whose custody We have assigned you, trace for yourself the lineaments of your own nature. I have placed you at the very center of the world, so that from that vantage point you may with greater ease glance round about you on all that the world contains. We have made you a creature neither of heaven nor of earth, neither mortal nor immortal, in order that you may, as the free and proud shaper of your own being, fashion yourself in the form you may prefer. It will be in your power to descend to the lower, brutish forms of life; you will be able, through your own decision, to rise again to the superior orders whose life is divine.”
Innocent VIII
Innocent VIII was no fool. This was not the Genesis story. It was a re-writing of the whole creation myth. It makes Adam’s choice of the earth over his own “divine” potential all the more tragic, a squandered opportunity. But it also makes the choice free, unfettered, fully human and the consequences–which lead after all to smart people like Pico writing smart books–all the more impressive. Divine is as human does well: that was the message
An authentic humanism to be inclusive of all people has to be inclusive of all possible human outcomes, including the possibility of failure. The story of the first human being, in the religious context, is the story of a bad choice. I suspect that that is why the story of Adam has staying power and instructional weight.
Maybe the failure of movement humanism really goes back to how we read Adam’s saga. It has always struck me that the word simpleton can be used to describe both the atheist rant against the creation account in Genesis and the fundamentalist’s preposterous attempts to defend it. Beyond the Scylla and Charybdis of that divide are millions of people who think the story is really elsewhere, that it really doesn’t begin with sticking the sun and the moon in the primordial darkness but with Adam, and more particularly with the curse of reason that Pico describes in his Oration.
Curse? Yes, I think so. The “gift” of reason (no, I do not really believe that we are endowed with reason by a divine being) is both the gift to be curious and the ability to make choices, to act. The tension we experience, like Adam, is that natural curiosity sometimes outdistances a third element—reflection.
The humanist understanding of reason doesn’t magic it into a faculty that, used correctly and with the best application of science, will protect us from error. Religion had such a faculty once: it was called faith and it got you saved from sin.
To be blunt, movement humanism with its straw men and reductive techniques, its stereotyping and bogeymen, is not just stuck in the past but stuck in a religious past of its own making. It is a past that an authentic and fully inclusive humanism would want to reject. It is a past that many religious thinkers have already rejected.
About these ads
Share this:
Facebook
Twitter
Email
StumbleUpon
Digg
Reddit
Print
Like this:
?
Published: June 19, 2012
Filed Under: Uncategorized
..
94 Responses to “Movement Humanism”
.
David Mills
June 20, 2012 at 5:10 am
Great Essay. Really good reading. As a ‘New Atheist’, I didn’t find anything much to disagree with, but that comment comes with the proviso that there is a lot which goes to a depth (breadth?) which is far beyond my intellectual waters-treading toes.
Personally, I don’t subscribe to Humanism, it seems to me too much like a religion without a deity, but that’s just me. I fully recognize that it might be a daunting prospect if ‘hard’ atheism was all there is, instead of, as is the current situation, it existing as one ingredient in a soup of humanity rich with religion, Humanism and, well, just an inclination that there must be ‘something more’.
On the other hand, a world of hard atheism does not frighten me. Sometimes I even think it might be exciting. Not that I think it is an imminent or likely prospect. :)
As for the anger, yes, I can see that this is unattractive. But I also see that there is a reason for it. Perhaps I am just more empathetic. It is of course, limiting. But, as a parent of two teenagers, I recognize that it is sometimes more useful to under-react to anger. :)
Reply
Steersman
June 20, 2012 at 6:18 pm
The humanist understanding of reason doesn’t magic it into a faculty that, used correctly and with the best application of science, will protect us from error.
Quite true. One of the more problematic aspects of the “New Atheism” is, I think, its misplaced faith – so to speak – in reason, although there are many threads, apparently most from philosophy and mathematics, that seem to point to reason’s limitations. But the worst case is exemplified by Ayn Rand’s vision of “the heroic man” who regards “reason as his only absolute”. While a better, though probably not the best, view is suggested by this from “The Human Use of Human Beings” by Norbert Wiener – one of the progenitors of the science of cybernetics:
I have said that science is impossible without faith. By this I do not mean that the faith on which science depends is religious in nature or involves the acceptance of any of the dogmas of the ordinary religious creeds, yet without faith that nature is subject to law there can be no science. No amount of demonstration can ever prove that nature is subject to law. [pg 193]
Which then, I think, puts us in the position of being obliged to move forward on the basis of both faith and reason – ideally complements of each other and not antitheses – but to do so with some degree of “fear and trembling”.
Reply
davidjohnmillsDavid Mills
June 20, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Hm. I have a few problems with this, Steersman.
First, I think that the suggestion hat ‘New Atheism’ has a problematic faith in reason is too much of a generalization. It would not describe most atheists I know, who would say (a) that they don’t depend on pure reasoning alone and (b) that they don’t depend on those things they depend on with any more ‘faith’ than to take the view that what they depend on seems like the best thing to (provisionally) depend on at this time, and they would simply ask a theist to suggest a better alternative. :)
Most people I know have no problem resorting to science when the chips are down, such as when they slice off the end of their thumb while carving the sunday roast, though there may be those who prefer to intuit the would to stop bleeding. :)
Secondly, I’m not sure I instictively agree with Mr wiener, when he says that without faith that nature is subject to law there can be no science. Sounds canardish and strawish to me. I don’t think science lays claims to truths, though I suppose it often sounds like it does. science just says, if this wing is designed a certain way, the aeroplane will fly. If not it will crash. Proof. Pudding. Science rolls on without bothering to be certain that a law of nature is adhered to, it seems to me.
Reply
davidjohnmillsDavid Mills
June 20, 2012 at 7:50 pm
‘wound’ not ‘would’ in 2nd paragraph.
Steersman
June 20, 2012 at 11:42 pm
David Mills,
I think that the suggestion that ‘New Atheism’ has a problematic faith in reason is too much of a generalization
Maybe, to some extent, although I qualified the statement by pointing to reason’s limitations, an unawareness of which, or a dogged refusal to even consider them, would seem to be one of the hallmarks of a “misplaced faith” in it. As for the prevalence of that – even in the scientific community – you might be interested in this review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon Haunted World by the well known and regarded biologist, Richard Lewontin, which has this salient point:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
And, as cases in point, there are his descriptions of various claims and “theories” by E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, Richard Dawkins and Sagan himself, as well as Joseph Hoffmann’s critique of Sam Harris’ “extended fallacy”.
But it is that tolerance for, if not careless or egregious use of, “unsubstantiated just-so stories” in those cases which betrays both, I think, an ignorance of the nature of reason itself as well as, in consequence, an “unreasonable” expectation of what it is truly capable of – misplaced faith. And at the heart of that ignorance is something which Daniel Dennett alluded to in his Darwin’s Dangerous Idea:
There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.
And, more specifically, the essence of those unsubstantiated stories is that there is a whole slew of not-precisely-defined premises and assumptions – the unexamined baggage – at the heart and foundation of them: in many cases – mostly physical sciences – not terribly problematic, although consciousness could, I think, be a major exception, but in other cases – sociobiology and the “selfish gene” for examples – it could be substantially more so. The problem seems to essentially boil-down to the example provided by Euclidean geometry: we start out with some axioms – the intuitively “obvious” facts provided by our “common sense” which frequently turns out to be a very weak reed to lean on indeed – and build a number of theorems on top of them which provides us some degree of control over our environment. But in our success in that latter endeavor we tend to forget that we started out with an assumption, a hypothesis, an article of faith, that “reality” has no “obligation” to make good on. In many cases we’re at least in the right ballpark – the non-Euclidean geometry of relativity for example – but in many others we haven’t been so lucky – Copernican versus Ptolemaic cosmology for example. How our current “theories” might fare in the future is, I think, anyone’s guess.
… though there may be those who prefer to intuit the wound to stop bleeding …
Or maybe “gesture hypnotically”. :-) But relative to which you might be interested in this article on intuition by the scientist / philosopher Massimo Pigliucci. And there have been more than a few scientists who have made significant discoveries or advances as a result of intuitive flashes of insight which they describe as something pretty close to religious revelations – the cosmologist Fred Hoyle and the physicist Richard Feynman for examples [The Mind of God; Paul Davies, pgs 228-229]. Seems to me that intuition is roughly equivalent to inductive logic while the scientific method itself is largely based on deductive logic, although even science uses it in, at least, the generation of various hypotheses.
I’m not sure I instinctively agree with Mr Wiener, when he says that without faith that nature is subject to law there can be no science.
I think that is based on the assumption – some of the baggage that Dennett referred to – that there are certain causal regularities in nature that can be captured or described with various mathematical laws or expressions. All sorts of cases to strongly suggest that that is the case. But there is no guarantee that every subsequent case is going to adhere to any particular law – which is, as they say, descriptive rather than prescriptive: Newton was Newton, not God. The problem of induction; hence faith.
Science rolls on without bothering to be certain that a law of nature is adhered to, it seems to me.
What you are describing seems closer to engineering than to science: the practical applications of some “found” laws rather than the search for them and concerns whether we can ultimately find them all.
Reply
rjosephhoffmann
June 21, 2012 at 7:03 am
@Steersman and David: I like this discussion; you and David should each write a position essay that I can use on NO!
David Mills
June 21, 2012 at 7:14 am
Steersman,
Hi. Thanks for the considered and thorough reply.
‘Maybe, to some extent, although I qualified the statement by pointing to reason’s limitations, an unawareness of which, or a dogged refusal to even consider them, would seem to be one of the hallmarks of a “misplaced faith” in it. As for the prevalence of that – even in the scientific community – you might be……’
Yes, I didn’t mean to suggest that you didn’t have a point (note: I type with one finger. Sometimes this leads to my replies being more, er, brief/terse than represents my thoughts on the matter :) ). I just wasn’t sure how prevalent your point was. I am not even sure if it is Sagan or the reviewer who would make the explicit claim that science has anything like ‘all the answers’, but in a way, that is by the by, for me, because if anyone does want to make a claim anywhere in that vicinity, that is their problem, not mine, and I wouldn’t go along with it. :)
In a nutshell, this matter goes (politely) into the category of, ‘yes, science is incomplete and fallible….and? What is your point?’
I don’t doubt that science cannot ensure happiness, among other things, and that religion can, for example, but I don’t believe this is science’s promise. It is not even science’s inherent promise to make things ‘better’, though I agree that this IS a prevalent justification, and the results are indeed something of a curate’s egg.
No. For me, science is first and foremost about making the best possible attempt, using the means at our disposal, to know stuff. Whether this ‘knowledge’ is better for us or not is, I believe, secondary.
This is no better demonstrated than in the bare question of the supernatural and God. The question of whether it is more probable that god exists or not is, essentially, a no-brainer for the neutral (if anyone can be described as such), IMO.
‘Or maybe “gesture hypnotically”. But relative to which you might be interested in this article on intuition by the scientist / philosopher Massimo Pigliucci. And there have been more than a few scientists who have made significant discoveries or advances as a result of intuitive flashes of insight …’
I have no problem with that. Intuition and hypnotism are fascinating examples of what the mind can achieve, but they are not good evidence of anything non-material/non-physical/supernatural. Though those can’t be ruled out, obviously. Only a fool would rule ANYTHINg out. :)
I have not heard of a severed thumb being reattached by mind power alone, however, which was my point.
‘which they describe as something pretty close to religious revelations’
I’m sure they are ‘pretty close’ to religious revelations (though I would strongly prefer religious experiences). Religious experiences/revelations are quite common. What is not common is any persuasive evidence that they come from where they are sometimes believed to have come from.
‘I think that is based on the assumption – some of the baggage that Dennett referred to – that there are certain causal regularities in nature that can be captured or described with various mathematical laws or expressions. All sorts of cases to strongly suggest that that is the case. But there is no guarantee that every subsequent case is going to adhere to any particular law – which is, as they say, descriptive rather than prescriptive: Newton was Newton, not God. The problem of induction; hence faith.’
Again, fine. I don’t dispute that scientists and atheists don’t sometimes overstep the mark in terms of treating axioms and ‘laws’ and assumptions as if they were fixed and absolute, but a really good scientist/atheist should not do so, IMO, and there are plenty who realize this, and simply use ‘working models’.
Yes, induction is faith, but religious faith is faith with good evidence, that is the key difference.
‘What you are describing seems closer to engineering than to science: the practical applications of some “found” laws rather than the search for them and concerns whether we can ultimately find them all.’
Fair enough. For the purposes of the analogy, I think that ‘applied science’ is a very useful category, because it distils what science is ‘about’ better than, say, us discussing the philosophy of science in abstract terms.
Steersman
June 21, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Dr. Hoffmann,
Certainly; my pleasure.
Anything in particular that you would like us or me to develop or elaborate on? Any areas that you think are well-plowed ground or that should be let lie fallow or that could use some cultivation? :-)
rjosephhoffmann
June 21, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Let’s open it up: and then perhaps David can respond to your catalytic force! It would be extremely worthwhile to have an adult conversation about some of these issues: we might set a new tone and precedent.
David Mills
June 21, 2012 at 7:34 pm
@ Joseph, steph and steersman,
Joseph. You said ‘let’s open it up’. This is probably not what you meant, but….
Hm. I am going to be rather busy tomorrow and possibly for the next few days, so, please forgive me for stepping in out of turn to offer a short detour (that is to say, at first impression, off topic, though in reality anything but) since I may or may not be in a position to respond, steersman, to your next reply on the matters we (though I can really only speak for myself) were enjoyably touching on.
I am going to link you to two youtube items. One is a piece of music, the other an animation. They affect me very deeply, for reasons which are personal, or more accurately, personal to people i am close to.
I know an elderly Christian woman, approaching 80, who, 50 years ago, and only a few months after the birth of her 4th child (all girls), lost her husband, her love, to cancer, very suddenly. It is probably fair to say that she has never recovered, though she has done a remarkable job of bringing up her daughters despite everything, despite great hardship, not least financial.
She has, I know, never given up on the belief that she will one day, be reunited with her young love, and has spurned several opportunities to marry again. The lyrics to the piece of music are posted in the comments just below the youtube video, which is really just a picture of Hayley Westenra, who I’m guessing can’t be that much different in age to this woman when she was a young bride and mother.
I know all the 4 sisters very well, and again, I would feel that they have not fully recovered either, even though they lead othewize successful and happy married lives, and have children of their own. I have them in mind when watching the animation.
I’d be interested to know what you think. The reason I post these things is, er, well one can never be sure about one’s motives, can one? i suppose, if I’m honest, I do sometimes feel that as an outright, indeed ‘New’ atheist, atheism is….to some extent…a maligned and misunderstood term. it’s just a superficial label, after all. I should add that i am not suggesting either of you have maligned it. Not at all. I do not even know what your beliefs or lack of beliefs actually are, for starters.
Anyhows, these two items do sort of, in a way, say a great deal about how i, and i believe many other atheists I know, feel about atheism, Humanism, and indeed theology, well at least the Christian version. :)
Wait for a quiet interlude to view them, if you can.
catch you later.
DM
stephie louise fisher
June 22, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Beautiful… Hayley Westenra is a Kiwi born in Christchurch 1987 – she was 18 when she recorded the Odyssey album that Quanta Qualia is on. She has a voice as crystal clear and pure as an angel with a very broad range – at least two octaves and nine semitones. In that album alone she ranges from F sharp below middle C (On My Heart Belongs to You) up to the D# – just over two octaves above middle C (in Quantia Qualia) without effort or strain. She always sends shivers down my spine. She’s recently got engaged to a French boy…
Steersman
June 22, 2012 at 4:58 pm
David,
I’d be interested to know what you think.
To be addressed in the context of your later comments. :-)
The reason I post these things is, er, well one can never be sure about one’s motives, can one?
Quite true – far too much, maybe, happens “underneath the hood” that, I think, we’re only peripherally aware of, except maybe to a limited extent through intuitions – aka feelings: “the heart has reasons that Reason knows nought of”.
… I do sometimes feel that as an outright, indeed ‘New’ atheist, atheism is….to some extent…a maligned and misunderstood term.
Well, I’ve certainly given it a shot or two and have been labelled that “horror of horrors”, an “accommodationist” – far worse than the “baby-eating reductionist” levelled at atheists, for my troubles. :-) But the “sensitivity” that you seem to exhibit there suggests – politely speaking – something that is, I think, a fairly common and entirely human “failing” – which is maybe to paint it in darker colours than it deserves: simply a tendency to stereotyping and categorical thinking, a “my country, right or wrong” type of outlook. Which is, I think, quite problematic as it tends to preclude much in the way of rapprochement, or of finding much in the way of the common ground without which I think humanity’s prognosis is not particularly favourable.
And relative to the example of the “new atheism” you refer to I think there is great amount of value within that movement or philosophy, but also much that is, at least, quite counter-productive. It really appears – as most “isms” are, I think – to be a rather amorphous ball of somewhat or quite conflicting principles, attitudes and values, not all of which are going to be subscribed to or supported by all those who might self-identify as “new atheists” or labour in its vineyards – so to speak. But, for example, I am very much on board – to a greater or lesser extent depending on context – with a principle in Dennett’s tribute to Christopher Hitchens:
Of all the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” Hitchens was clearly the least gentle, the angriest, the one most likely to insult his interlocutor. But in my experience, he only did it when rudeness was well deserved – which is actually quite often when religion is the topic. Most spokespeople for religion expect to be treated not just with respect but with a special deference that is supposedly their due because the cause they champion is so righteous.
And I think, based on my own experience in talking with various fundamentalists or reading their various articles and posts, that that characterization of “expecting not just respect but … special deference” seems to hit the nail squarely on the head – and drives it home if not half-way through the plank: there really does seem to be a great many of them who expect precisely that; one thinks fondly or with some sympathy of the joke about the fellow who hit the mule over the head with a two-by-four – just to get its attention.
However, that “the cause they champion is so righteous” is, I think, decidedly problematic as it is something that is also exhibited, frequently or periodically, by more than a few “new atheists” – problematic, for one thing, because it tends to give the movement a bit of a bad name, gives an opportunity for those who might wish to unfairly malign it. And relative to which you might be interested in this book review of The Righteous Mind and in this blog post which discusses it in some detail. But that all-too-human phenomenon is, I think, best exemplified or characterized by a Christian pastor who, basing his “sermon” on St. Augustine, describes it as “the lust for domination”:
Second, we need to become sensitive to the lust for domination that is part of our fallen nature. It comes out in disguised and insidious ways. We are adept at using acts of service to manipulate others and get our way. Sometimes when making a strong point in a discussion with my wife, I feel an odd thrill. It’s not the thrill of pursuing the good, true, and beautiful in partnership with someone I love. Instead it’s the thrill of winning or, to put it more accurately, it’s the thrill of her losing. I’m dominating. It feels good at home, on the job, in the Church, and in the Public Square. It’s giving in to libido dominandi and is cause for repentance. Loving truth is good; loving being right and lording it over others is sin, plain and simple.
Bit of an echo there of your earlier comment about our motives and how they are not always all that clear even, or particularly, to ourselves. But one of the things that I’ve found most useful as a protection, as a prophylactic – one might say, against going overboard in that “lust” is simply to remember that there is quite likely something of significant or of more-than-passing value in the position and argument of one’s interlocutor. To totally destroy one’s opponent really is, I think, largely counterproductive at best and tantamount to destroying oneself at worst – frequently somewhat of a pyrrhic victory.
Which sort of brings me around to your videos and question, my response to which is largely predicated on the foregoing. While you didn’t elaborate much on how you think they related to “Christian theology” in particular, my view is that, although dogmatic fundamentalists tend to cause me to look around for the nearest two-by-four (figuratively speaking), I think that more metaphorical interpretations are likely to be, and have been, of some significant value. Although that is more along the line of an inkling rather than any great degree of certitude – sort of a “work in progress”. Which might have to wait to a later post for further elaboration. :-)
Jim
[Steersman]
No comments:
Post a Comment