tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post5880332545110189339..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Jamie - bit more on reason being my "religion and God"Stephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-43989310867785998472008-08-30T14:32:00.000+00:002008-08-30T14:32:00.000+00:00Why is it aqn "unfair" request?Why is it aqn "unfair" request?anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-8149414203828315432008-08-28T07:54:00.000+00:002008-08-28T07:54:00.000+00:00Two quick comments here because the discussion on ...Two quick comments here because the discussion on the Jesus thread needs more attention.<BR/><BR/>Stephen:<BR/>Perhaps I misunderstood then. Are you suggesting there are grounds here for supposing the belief is true? Yes or no? If not, what are you doing?<BR/><BR/>Sam:<BR/>Of course I am, taken as a whole, but I was specifically responding to a point referencing David Koresh. I think that the persistence of the faithful community over time, coupled with their incredible success at converting other people to the belief, needs more explanation than simply saying 'they were deluded'. I accept - as I stated explicitly - that this does not of itself imply that the belief is itself true. I just don't accept that 'they were all irrational' is a sufficient argument against its truth. To be more precise, I think it is possible to give a better argument than this, which a) accounts for the historical phenomena and b) still treats the story as untrue - but referencing David Koresh isn't it.<BR/><BR/>Stephen: I thought that was what you were doing (by a sort of implicit argument to the best explanation, e.g. that the belief is true is the best available explanation for why they'd do it).<BR/><BR/>Sam: No, not really. I do happen to see the belief as substantially true, of course, but my aim was more negative - the implied rebuttal (David Koresh point) seems insufficient to account for the historical evidence.<BR/><BR/>Stephen: There may also be a sort of challenge - "We'll you explain why they did it, then - until you can, you've got to admit, it may well be because the believe is true!"<BR/><BR/>Sam: not quite - the first part yes, the second part no.<BR/><BR/>Stephen: As per usual, I find myself having to figure out whether you are making an argument, and if so, what it is!<BR/><BR/>Sam: actually, by the standards of a blog comment thread, I think I was pretty clear. <BR/><BR/>Here's something I've quoted before, which I find more and more relevant: "The 'third rate' critic attacks the original thinker on the basis of the rhetorical consequences of his thought and defends the status quo against the corrupting effects of the philosopher's rhetoric. 'Second rate' critics defend the same received wisdom by semantic analyses of the thinker which highlight ambiguities and vagueness in his terms and arguments. But 'first rate' critics "delight in the originality of those they criticise...; they attack an optimal version of the philosopher's position--one in which the holes in the argument have been plugged or politely ignored."<BR/>~~~<BR/><BR/>Now for the anticant bit.<BR/><BR/>A: “see how the Christians love each other” Ha big Ha! Tell that to Rowan Williams. They squabble like a load of Kilkenny cats in a sack, and make themselves a laughing stock to the wider world.<BR/><BR/>Sam: Actually I think Rowan would be persuaded of it after the Lambeth conference, but I was making a reference to the cliched description of the early church, which I assumed you'd recognise. Sorry.<BR/><BR/>A: “the really wonderful thing about Christianity is that you're accepted even when you fail.” Yes, that must be very nice, like being a Home Office data-minding subcontractor. <BR/><BR/>Sam: LOL<BR/><BR/>A: I’m surprised you don’t quote the Athanasian conception of the purpose of the Incarnation: “He became man that we might become divine”. I suspect that is a large part of the attraction.<BR/><BR/>Sam: Absolutely agree.<BR/><BR/>A: The blind fanaticism of martyrdom may seem to you “a remarkably thin explanation”, but “one of the most important phenomena of human history” really is question-begging. Who, apart from Christians, believes it was – or that it actually happened?<BR/><BR/>Sam: the phenomena to which I refer is the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christian belief.<BR/><BR/>A: “much later forms of Christianity which I would agree were corrupted”, and your following exegesis of different opinions of what true Christian belief is, including your own favoured one, is merely a rehash of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.<BR/><BR/>Sam: No it's not. It's all publicly available information that can be verified independently by anyone concerned enough to do the investigating.<BR/><BR/>A: If Modern Protestants are “sadly all that many people see as ‘Christian’ despite being an incredible minority across time and space” why is that? Because they shout loudest and appear the most unpleasant? <BR/><BR/>Sam: Because they are culturally dominant in the culturally dominant nation in the world.<BR/><BR/>A: As for them being “an incredible minority”, they certainly are incredible although alas very much with us. Why should you read Ranan’s book? Because you would be better informed afterwards [and it would give you a lot of anti-Catholic ammunition, which I’m sure you would like]. Really, what a silly question – why should I read the Bible?<BR/><BR/>Sam: I was after more information about Ranan, I wasn't intending to be dismissive.<BR/><BR/>A: “Billions disagree”. An exaggeration, methinks. And in any case, so what? Is truth decided by weight of numbers?<BR/><BR/>Sam: Not an exaggeration, a mere statement of fact - but I agree with the 'so what', I was just wanting to underline how much of a minority position Modern Protestantism is.<BR/><BR/>A: “To deny that [Jesus] was a solid historical figure is to my mind a certain indication that standards of rationality have been left behind.” I don’t think it is possible to prove a negative [though Stephen disagrees!] . It’s up to believers to prove the existence of the “solid historical figure” they worship from respectable sources other than the Bible and Christian apologetics.<BR/><BR/>Sam: I think this is an unfair request, but I'll come back to it in the other thread. (It'll come up with the Dawkins book as well).Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-7580322335072141622008-08-27T17:35:00.000+00:002008-08-27T17:35:00.000+00:00Hoggs book seems to be online as well here:The Pri...Hoggs book seems to be online as well here:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/James_Hogg/The_Private_Memoirs_and_Confessions_of_A_Justified_Sinner/" REL="nofollow"><BR/><BR/>The Private Memoirs and Confessions of A Justified Sinner, by James Hogg. </A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-43502543570109189612008-08-27T16:32:00.000+00:002008-08-27T16:32:00.000+00:00I didn't know I was "throwing out all apologetics ...I didn't know I was "throwing out all apologetics as reasonable proof". There's a long theological tradition of 'proving' God exists through reason - notably Aquinas - as you surely know.<BR/><BR/>I think you'll enjoy Hogg. It's one of those books which, once read, takes up permanent residence in the mind. There's a good and cheap Oxford World's Classics edition. which you can get via Amazon.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-36711444609382133822008-08-27T14:57:00.000+00:002008-08-27T14:57:00.000+00:00Rev. Dr. Incitatus "You seem to be strangely obses...Rev. Dr. Incitatus "You seem to be strangely obsessed with the taxonomy of the issue here."<BR/>I think it's reasonable to ask someone how they classify themselves. If I met someone with an accent not like my own I think it's fine to ask "Hey, from where do you hail?" From their answer I could get a better idea who they are, though some of my assumptions would probably be incorrect. <BR/><BR/>"Truth ... is the goal, and reason the means to attain it. Everything else tends to fall into place around that central journey."<BR/>You make it sound neat and tidy. If the journey was that simplistic we wouldn't have this message board and Stephen couldn't sell books. If everyone thought exactly the same about reason and truth then all conclusions would be the same -- like the fictional Spock's Vulcan race from Star Trek. And, as I said, calling one's self a "truth seeker" isn't very descriptive.<BR/><BR/>Anticant "You can't expect non-believers to take the time to be conversant with every strand and nuance of Christian belief down the ages."<BR/>I don't expect that and didn't say I did. I asked Stephen to classify himself and gave an example of how I would classify myself. The terms I used may be meaningless to some. The terms Stephen uses may be meaningless to me; so then it would be incumbent upon me to educate myself if I wanted to understand those terms.<BR/><BR/>"Sorry if you think "apologetics" is a pretentious word. It's a widely accepted theological term for defenses of Christian belief."<BR/>No need to be sorry; I agree completely. That's what I was trying to say -- that one needn't throw out all apologetics as reasonable proof just because it sounds more pretentious than the word "arguments".<BR/><BR/>And thank you for the book suggestion (Hogg). I'll take a look.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-32072942633032405962008-08-27T14:21:00.000+00:002008-08-27T14:21:00.000+00:00"Hi, my name is Jamie and I'm a Christian" doesn't..."Hi, my name is Jamie and I'm a Christian" doesn't tell me very much at all, even when you add "protestant, reformed, Presbyterian".<BR/><BR/>You can't expect non-believers to take the time to be conversant with every strand and nuance of Christian belief down the ages.<BR/><BR/>But if you haven't read James Hogg's "Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner", you should. It adds unforgettably vivid flesh and bones to Gide's observations I quoted above. <BR/><BR/>Sorry if you think "apologetics" is a pretentious word. It's a widely accepted theological term for defenses of Christian belief. <BR/><BR/>And while the Bible is historical in the sense that the documents are ancient, and they exist, the historical truth of many of the events it relates are highly questionable. And it is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies - see:<BR/><BR/>http://skepticsannotatedbible.comanticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-86124335829285419422008-08-27T14:17:00.000+00:002008-08-27T14:17:00.000+00:00Jamie,You seem to be strangely obsessed with the t...Jamie,<BR/>You seem to be strangely obsessed with the taxonomy of the issue here. Speaking for myself only, I tend to try and avoid allowing myself and my views to be categorised, boxed, assigned a pithy name, and shelved. Categorizing people is rarely constructive, and often a prelude to catastrophe.<BR/><BR/>e.g. <EM>"Well, you know why he's being difficult don't you? He's a Jew/Catholic/Atheist/Socialist/Democrat/Manchester City supporter. Let's go and beat him up."</EM><BR/><BR/>It's a strategy for simplifying difficult things so that we don't have to think carefully about them, or how our actions relate to them. <BR/><BR/>Rant aside, it seems to me that Stephen's position is relatively straight forward enough, if I understand it correctly. Truth (in the logical rather than ethereal, spiritual sense) is the goal, and reason the means to attain it. Everything else tends to fall into place around that central journey.<BR/><BR/>Whether the whole truth and nothing but the truth is attainable is besides the point; the incremental approach to uncovering it is substantial enough as a personal objective.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Personally, I'm not sold on the idea of truth completely. I think Bokononism might have something going for it, and that a lie that makes <EM>everyone</EM> feel happy, might not be intrinsically bad. That's why I'm not bothered if someone clings to astrology, or new age paganism, or Christianity for a sense of belonging. Just so long as they aren't making themselves or anyone else unhappy in the process, I say live and let live.<BR/><BR/>Although the caveat here is that rationalize irrational beliefs just make rationalists feel unhappy, so it's best not to bother. I have a certain admiration for certain theists who completely agree that relgion is irrational, but embrace it anyway, and to no detriment to themselves or their neighbours. If I ever decide to embrace nonsense, I wil follow their noble example..Incitatus4Congresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08099138083845953108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-37588651872611467162008-08-27T13:42:00.000+00:002008-08-27T13:42:00.000+00:00Anticant "It’s up to believers to prove the existe...Anticant "It’s up to believers to prove the existence of the “solid historical figure” they worship from respectable sources other than the Bible and Christian apologetics."<BR/><BR/>While I do agree that it's the believer's task, I would say "sources <I>in addition to</I> the Bible and Christian apologetics" because the Bible, if nothing else, is a pretty amazing collection of historical documents (many of which corroborate with other historical documents on factual items) and because "apologetics" is just a fancy word for "arguments", which all philosophical systems use.<BR/><BR/>But I get your point. Saying the Bible is inerrant (to prove a point) because it says it's inerrant is circular.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-706473632358833172008-08-27T13:26:00.000+00:002008-08-27T13:26:00.000+00:00Stephen "You want me to define "system of beliefs"...Stephen "You want me to define "system of beliefs"? Well, that's easy."<BR/><BR/>Yes, categorically. "Hi, my name is Jamie and I'm a Christian" would tell you alot (though not perfectly) about my beliefs, worldview, assumptions, values, heritage, etc. etc. And to be more specific I could say about me, "protestant, reformed, Presbyterian".<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you would say "atheist" and then more specifically "humanist" or something. But "truth seeker" is a bit vague and doesn't really give an indication of who you are.<BR/><BR/>I've got to say thanks again for being generous with your time. The discussion has been a great learning experience for me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-68152146954875056192008-08-27T11:32:00.000+00:002008-08-27T11:32:00.000+00:00Nice try, Sam –But not over-convincing!“see how th...Nice try, Sam –<BR/><BR/>But not over-convincing!<BR/><BR/>“see how the Christians love each other”<BR/><BR/>Ha big Ha! Tell that to Rowan Williams. They squabble like a load of Kilkenny cats in a sack, and make themselves a laughing stock to the wider world.<BR/><BR/>“the really wonderful thing about Christianity is that you're accepted even when you fail.”<BR/><BR/>Yes, that must be very nice, like being a Home Office data-minding subcontractor. I’m surprised you don’t quote the Athanasian conception of the purpose of the Incarnation: “He became man that we might become divine”. I suspect that is a large part of the attraction. <BR/><BR/>The blind fanaticism of martyrdom may seem to you “a remarkably thin explanation”, but “one of the most important phenomena of human history” really is question-begging. Who, apart from Christians, believes it was – or that it actually happened? <BR/><BR/>“much later forms of Christianity which I would agree were corrupted”, and your following exegesis of different opinions of what true Christian belief is, including your own favoured one, is merely a rehash of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.<BR/><BR/>If Modern Protestants are “sadly all that many people see as ‘Christian’ despite being an incredible minority across time and space” why is that? Because they shout loudest and appear the most unpleasant? As for them being “an incredible minority”, they certainly are incredible although alas very much with us. <BR/> <BR/>Why should you read Ranan’s book? Because you would be better informed afterwards [and it would give you a lot of anti-Catholic ammunition, which I’m sure you would like]. Really, what a silly question – why should I read the Bible? <BR/><BR/>“Billions disagree”. An exaggeration, methinks. And in any case, so what? Is truth decided by weight of numbers?<BR/><BR/>“To deny that [Jesus] was a solid historical figure is to my mind a certain indication that standards of rationality have been left behind.” I don’t think it is possible to prove a negative [though Stephen disagrees!] . It’s up to believers to prove the existence of the “solid historical figure” they worship from respectable sources other than the Bible and Christian apologetics.<BR/><BR/>“Our hearts are restless until they find rest in the truth”. Ah – dear old truth again. I’m with Pontius Pilate on this one.<BR/><BR/>Joking apart, Sam, I was brought up as a conventional [i.e. not enthusiastically evangelical] C of E Christian, and I’ve known and admired many Christians during my life, including Archbishop Michael Ramsey, Bishop John [“Honest to God”] Robinson, and Chad Varah of the Samaritans. There are many socially benign Christians. I admire their good works, but I can’t swallow their faith, and wonder why they can’t just do the good works for their own sake without constantly prattling on about dubious deities. <BR/><BR/>Andre Gide said: “The deeper the soul plunges into religious devotion, the more it loses all sense of reality, all need, all desire, all love for reality…The dazzling light of their faith blinds them to the surrounding world and to their own selves. As for me, who care for nothing so much as to see the world and myself clearly, I am amazed at the coils of falsehood in which devout persons take delight.”anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-14950273826872783422008-08-27T10:57:00.000+00:002008-08-27T10:57:00.000+00:00JamieMy thinking does lead to beliefs and conclusi...Jamie<BR/><BR/>My thinking does lead to beliefs and conclusions. I gave you several example.<BR/><BR/>You ask me to define "it" but I don't know what "it" is. My system of beliefs?<BR/><BR/>You want me to define "system of beliefs"? Well, that's easy.<BR/><BR/>Or do you want me to state what my system of beliefs is? What, the entire system - all of it: everything I believe? That would take a long time! I refuse to do that, not because I am keeping it secret, but because it would take the rest of my life!<BR/><BR/>Maybe you mean - the key, lynchpin beliefs. Well, there are quite a few, and I listed several already. Again, it's hard to be precise about where my key or lynchpin ideas end and the others begin. It's sort of a continuum.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-70971395038417959972008-08-27T10:50:00.000+00:002008-08-27T10:50:00.000+00:00Sam, you say:"A: You say the conviction of the mar...Sam, you say:<BR/><BR/>"A: You say the conviction of the martyrs requires explanation. What explanation besides the fanaticism of irrational belief?<BR/><BR/>S: That seems a remarkably thin explanation to me for one of the most important phenomena of human history.<BR/>"<BR/><BR/>See, you are running a veiled argument to the best explanation, are you not?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-75249877149324206102008-08-27T10:47:00.000+00:002008-08-27T10:47:00.000+00:00Stephen -- I don't think there is anything to be g...Stephen -- I don't think there is anything to be gained by continuing to parallel your non-religion with my (or any) religion at this point.<BR/><BR/>I still don't fully understand how one can have a whole system of beliefs and conclusions that they've come to and not define it. Thinking does not occur in a void and if it does not lead to beliefs and conclusions then thinking seems pointless.<BR/><BR/>But trying to illuminate how your particular system works does not seem to be productive here for our purposes.<BR/><BR/>That's a half-hearted concession, I guess, but I concede.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-30951640124089161962008-08-27T10:43:00.000+00:002008-08-27T10:43:00.000+00:00S: ... but the really wonderful thing about Christ...S: ... but the really wonderful thing about Christianity is that you're accepted even when you fail.<BR/><BR/>Anon: maybe but you have to <I>try</I> don't you. Have yuo even made the offer? Ebay makes it very easy. <BR/><BR/><BR/>A: You say the conviction of the martyrs requires explanation. What explanation besides the fanaticism of irrational belief?<BR/><BR/>S: That seems a remarkably thin explanation to me for one of the most important phenomena of human history.<BR/><BR/>Anon: No-one is suggesting that irrational beliefs cannot be historically important. Nor should one dismiss an explanation because it is a simple one.<BR/> <BR/><BR/>S: Our hearts are restless until they find rest in the truth.<BR/><BR/>Anon: So why stop when you get to "God of the Christians"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-79349879827270412142008-08-27T10:37:00.000+00:002008-08-27T10:37:00.000+00:00Paul Power -- I was making a joke with my being ei...Paul Power -- I was making a joke with my being either "a liar, lunatic, or God" myself. Guess it wasn't a good one.<BR/><BR/>You ask why I argued that reason was a god. I was trying to see if there was any common ground with an absolute (e.g. your truth = my god, leap of faith, etc.). Stephen clarified his positions in these posts and we let that line of thought go. Although, others pointed out that <A HREF="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/02/feedback-public-schools" REL="nofollow">some label humanism</A> as a religion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15449197984015235552008-08-27T10:30:00.000+00:002008-08-27T10:30:00.000+00:00SamPerhaps I misunderstood then. Are you suggestin...Sam<BR/><BR/>Perhaps I misunderstood then. Are you suggesting there are grounds here for supposing the belief is true? Yes or no?<BR/><BR/>If not, what are you doing?<BR/><BR/>I thought that was what you were doing (by a sort of implicit argument to the best explanation, e.g. that the belief is true is the best available explanation for why they'd do it).<BR/><BR/>There may also be a sort of challenge - "We'll you explain why they did it, then - until you can, you've got to admit, it may well be because the believe is true!"<BR/><BR/>As per usual, I find myself having to figure out whether you are making an argument, and if so, what it is!Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-24783722838867415092008-08-27T10:28:00.000+00:002008-08-27T10:28:00.000+00:00Hi Jamieso have you given up on saying reason is m...Hi Jamie<BR/><BR/>so have you given up on saying reason is my religion? If so, good and we can move on...<BR/><BR/>best<BR/>StephenStephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-45759230891214310672008-08-27T10:25:00.001+00:002008-08-27T10:25:00.001+00:00Miken/Stephen -- At the time I was responding to S...Miken/Stephen -- At the time I was responding to <A HREF="http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/jamies-latest-email.html" REL="nofollow">Stephen's idea</A> that religion inherently included the idea of liturgical worship. Therefore, I stated one of the non-liturgical dictionary definitions of religion (e.g. "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance").<BR/><BR/>I did not mean to imply that the singular test of whether something was God was if it was supremely important. I was trying to define religion, not God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-56049512752060612352008-08-27T10:19:00.000+00:002008-08-27T10:19:00.000+00:00Anticant - The “attractiveness” of the Jesus of th...Anticant - The “attractiveness” of the Jesus of the Gospels is also a very moot point.<BR/><BR/>True, but this is not uncommon, a lot of charismatic figures seem very flawed when looked at in the cold light of day. e.g. Hitler, Mother Theresa. <BR/><BR/><BR/>I also find it significant that there seems to be much evidence of frenetic revision and re-interpretation of both doctrine and apparently "factual" accounts during the early years of Christianity. There are huge biases at work here. <BR/><BR/>1. The version(s) of documents we have today are the version(s) of the relatively successful factions. The losers often had there works not just discredited but physically destroyed. They were certainly denied the security of having multiple copies of documents lavishly scribed and stashed in well protected vaults. <BR/><BR/>2. In terms of corroborating accounts from non-Christians, there seems little. Why? Perhaps he wasn't considered significant at all being just one of a whole bunch of traveling preachers. I gather these were quite fashionable at the time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-33730081123432848712008-08-27T10:12:00.000+00:002008-08-27T10:12:00.000+00:00Stephen - you accuse me of being slippery but then...Stephen - you accuse me of being slippery but then you completely distort the plain sense of my comment and respond to a point that I was explicitly and carefully not making. Seems to me that you're the one being a bit economical with the <I>actualite</I>.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-46727148262570490082008-08-27T10:11:00.000+00:002008-08-27T10:11:00.000+00:00Anticant: Your version of Christianity is way too ...Anticant: Your version of Christianity is way too bland.<BR/><BR/>Sam says: !!<BR/><BR/>A: You say: “the attraction of the lifestyle…drew millions to the faith”. <BR/><BR/>Sam says: 'see how the Christians love each other'<BR/><BR/>A: What lifestyle, precisely? And who in modern times follows Christ’s precepts to the letter [if anyone ever did]? Have YOU sold all your possessions and given the proceeds to the poor?<BR/><BR/>S: Someone like Thomas Merton did a good job, but the really wonderful thing about Christianity is that you're accepted even when you fail.<BR/><BR/>A: You say the conviction of the martyrs requires explanation. What explanation besides the fanaticism of irrational belief?<BR/><BR/>S: That seems a remarkably thin explanation to me for one of the most important phenomena of human history.<BR/><BR/>A: And what about the martyrdom of Christians by other Christians because of piddling – and often incomprehensible – differences of doctrine? The Albigensians were Christians of a sort, but “heretics” according to the Catholic Church. When asked how to distinguish them from true believers a warrior bishop blithely replied “Kill them all. God will know his own.”<BR/><BR/>S: You're picking on much later forms of Christianity which I would agree were corrupted.<BR/><BR/>A: It’s news to me that “most Christians” take the period up to 250 AD as “normative”. You really do need to justify that statement. <BR/><BR/>S: Well I'm sorry that it is news to you but Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and Calvinists all give essential weight to the testimony of the church fathers and the witness of the early church (not least in how to interpret Scripture). The only ones who don't are Modern Protestants - sadly, they are all that many people see as "Christian" despite being an incredible minority across time and space.<BR/><BR/>A: You can’t brush away the Catholic Church – God’s most powerful mouthpiece on earth for over a millennium – so cursorily! Whether you like it or not, the history of Catholicism is effectively the history of Christianity from the founding of the Church until the Reformation [whose bloody religious wars you also conveniently forget]. <BR/><BR/>S: That's just nonsense. You need to discuss that with some Eastern Orthodox Christians.<BR/><BR/>A: If you haven’t already, you should read “Double Cross: The Code of the Catholic Church” by David Ranan.<BR/><BR/>S: Why?<BR/><BR/>A: The “attractiveness” of the Jesus of the Gospels is also a very moot point. To non-believers he comes across as an insufferably smug self-absorbed figure who was by no means averse to anathematising his critics – not to mention blasting poor innocent fig trees.<BR/><BR/>S: You're entitled to your opinion. Billions disagree.<BR/><BR/>A: In any case, to claim seriously that he was a solid historical figure is absurd. <BR/><BR/>S: So point to an established academic expert in the field, whether Christian, atheist, agnostic or whatever, who agrees with you. To deny that he was a solid historical figure is to my mind a certain indication that standards of rationality have been left behind.<BR/><BR/>A: Why do people NEED to believe in all this rubbish?<BR/><BR/>S: Our hearts are restless until they find rest in the truth.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-88571361080471411012008-08-27T09:55:00.000+00:002008-08-27T09:55:00.000+00:00It's standard Christian apologetics that God canno...It's standard Christian apologetics that God cannot be defined, except negatively - i.e. by stating what He is not.<BR/><BR/>Personally I don't find this very helpful.<BR/><BR/>Maybe Jamie and Sam will make a better shot at it?anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-22820620384524621282008-08-27T09:37:00.000+00:002008-08-27T09:37:00.000+00:00Sam said:"I agree that people dying for their beli...Sam said:<BR/><BR/>"I agree that people dying for their beliefs is not a cast-iron case for the truth of the belief, but I do think it provides very strong evidence of the conviction with which the beliefs were held."<BR/><BR/>This is very slippery! The implication that people dying for a belief is not cast-iron evidence, but pretty good evidence of the truth of the belief. Of course their dying for a belief is strong evidence of their conviction (duh!). Question is - is it any sort of evidence for the truth of their belief?<BR/><BR/>No. People die in their thousands for all sorts of beliefs, in wars, in religious battles, etc etc. Beliefs that contradict each other. So millions are dying for false beliefs. So the fact that many died for this one is not good evidence for its truth. (especially, I would add, as the belief itself promises that they will then live for ever).Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-338952919829863082008-08-27T09:30:00.000+00:002008-08-27T09:30:00.000+00:00Jamie - here's an incidental point. Mike N will sp...Jamie - here's an incidental point. Mike N will speak for himself, but I am puzzled. You said:<BR/><BR/>"Miken "How is that different from your argument? I have simply substituted my son for your God, everything else stays the same."<BR/>Simple substitutions don't work. I do not think your children (or Stephen's example of L. Ron Hubbard) are God for lots of reasons. And I would guess that Stephen doesn't believe your children are truth (in the philosophical sense)."<BR/><BR/>You said God is that to which an someone gives supreme value. But is this a definition of THE God, or merely "their" God (what they treat as, or consider to be, God)<BR/><BR/>Surely not the former as that makes God relative (I could actually make Hubbard THE God just by believing he was! And you could make Barney the Dinosaur God by similar means. There would then be many truths about God, but no Truth, as it were). I guess the latter then?<BR/><BR/>So why can't Mike's kids be of supreme value to him, and thus his "God", as you use the term? You might not give them supreme value. But that's irrelevant. Similarly, for a scientologoist who chose to give L Ron Hubbard supreme importance, Hubbard is their God, according to your definition.<BR/><BR/>You are now alluding to "other reasons" for thinking neither Hubbard nor Mike's kids are God. But presumably these would be reasons for thinking Hubbard is not THE God, not reasons for thinking he is their God (what they consider to be God). In which case, given your definition is of what people *consider* to be God, they are irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>It's all rather confusing at the moment. Can you clarify what you mean by "God" a bit.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-52529253899720995112008-08-27T07:26:00.000+00:002008-08-27T07:26:00.000+00:00Sam Norton:Your version of Christianity is way too...Sam Norton:<BR/><BR/>Your version of Christianity is way too bland. <BR/><BR/>You say: “the attraction of the lifestyle…drew millions to the faith”. What lifestyle, precisely? And who in modern times follows Christ’s precepts to the letter [if anyone ever did]? Have YOU sold all your possessions and given the proceeds to the poor?<BR/><BR/>You say the conviction of the martyrs requires explanation. What explanation besides the fanaticism of irrational belief? And what about the martyrdom of Christians by other Christians because of piddling – and often incomprehensible – differences of doctrine? The Albigensians were Christians of a sort, but “heretics” according to the Catholic Church. When asked how to distinguish them from true believers a warrior bishop blithely replied “Kill them all. God will know his own.”<BR/><BR/>It’s news to me that “most Christians” take the period up to 250 AD as “normative”. You really do need to justify that statement. You can’t brush away the Catholic Church – God’s most powerful mouthpiece on earth for over a millennium – so cursorily! Whether you like it or not, the history of Catholicism is effectively the history of Christianity from the founding of the Church until the Reformation [whose bloody religious wars you also conveniently forget]. If you haven’t already, you should read “Double Cross: The Code of the Catholic Church” by David Ranan. <BR/><BR/>The “attractiveness” of the Jesus of the Gospels is also a very moot point. To non-believers he comes across as an insufferably smug self-absorbed figure who was by no means averse to anathematising his critics – not to mention blasting poor innocent fig trees.<BR/><BR/>In any case, to claim seriously that he was a solid historical figure is absurd. Why do people NEED to believe in all this rubbish?anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.com