Print
The truth in religion
by REVEREND John Polkinghorne, Times Online
The Times Literary Supplement is less than frank about the credentials of John Polkinghorne, the reviewer. He is the REVEREND John Polkinghorne, an ordained Anglican priest, and they should have said so.
Reposted from:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article2778493.ece
Substituting science for religion is like swapping a series of case-notes on senile dementia for King Lear
John Cornwell
DARWIN'S ANGEL
An angelic riposte to The God Delusion
171pp. Profile Books. £10.99
978 1 84668 048 9
John Humphrys
IN GOD WE DOUBT
Confessions of a failed atheist
323pp. Hodder and Stoughton. £18.99.
978 0 340 95126 2
Religious belief is currently under heavy fire. Books by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others tell us that religion is a corrupting delusion. Despite their assertions of the rationality of atheism, the style of their onslaughts has been strongly polemical and rhetorical, rather than reasonably argued. Historical evidence is selectively surveyed. Attention is focused on inquisitions and crusades, while the significance of Hitler and Stalin is downplayed. Believers in young-earth creationism are presented as if they were typical of religious people in general. The two books under review aim to make a more temperate contribution to the debate.
John Cornwell has hit on the amusing conceit of writing in the persona of Richard Dawkins's guardian angel, a being, moreover, who had earlier stood in the same relationship to Charles Darwin. The book's tone is gently ironic and its style that of modest discussion, which all makes for an enlightening read. The twenty-one short chapters each consider some claim made in Dawkins's book The God Delusion (reviewed in the TLS, January 19) and then subject it to reasoned questioning.
Cornwell begins by pointing out that Dawkins makes no serious attempt to engage with the academic discussion of religious thought and practice. His book is "as innocent of heavy scholarship as it is free from false modesty". When it asserts that Jesus' call to love our neighbour referred only to relations between Jews (despite this claim being in clear contradiction to the point of the parable of the Good Samaritan), the only support quoted for this highly questionable statement is a book written by an anaesthesiologist.
Over the centuries, theologians have wrestled with how human language can attempt to speak about the nature of God, emphatically rejecting the idea that the deity is simply an invisible object among the other objects of the world. Yet, as Cornwell points out, the God in whom Dawkins disbelieves is a kind of "Great Science Professor in the Sky", a simplistic notion that any thinking theist would be quick to reject. We are continually told that theology is no proper academic discipline, a conclusion that could only be reached by someone whose knowledge of the subject was comparable to the scientific knowledge displayed by those who write in green ink that "Einstein was wrong".
Dawkins is relentlessly rude about religious believers. They are said to be "malevolent, barking mad, mendacious, deluded" and much more. He cannot have the courtesy to take seriously those of us who are both scientists and believers. Religious education of the young is equated with child abuse. Darwin's angel pertinently asks, "Would you really trade child sexual abuse for being brought up in the religion of your parents?". The tone of contempt – one might almost say hatred – that characterizes many of the assertions in The God Delusion is one of the most disturbing aspects of the book.
In God We Doubt displays much more even-handedness. John Humphrys is respectful of religious belief and the kind of life that often, but not invariably, issues from it, while emphasizing that he is unable himself to accept such belief. His approach is that of one who remains open and questioning about these matters, as indicated by the subtitle of his book, Confessions of a failed atheist. Humphrys writes in the chirpy colloquial style one might expect from a presenter of the Today programme on Radio 4. In fact, the book originated partly from interviews he conducted with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Chief Rabbi and Tariq Ramadan, a Muslim academic, for the radio, and from the deluge of correspondence that followed.
Humphrys takes very seriously the human experience of conscience, urging us to do some things and to refuse to do others. No doubt, evolutionary thinking offers us some partial understanding of this, with its concepts of kin altruism (protecting the family gene pool) and reciprocal altruism (I'll help you in the expectation that you will help me). Nevertheless, Humphrys rightly sees that these concepts fail to offer insight into the kind of radical altruism which, to use an example he discusses at some length, led Irena Sendlerova repeatedly to risk her life in saving 2,500 Jewish children who were trapped in the Warsaw ghetto. Humphrys sees ethical intuition as the signal of a transcendent dimension in life, which he values but does not know how to explain from an atheist point of view.
Humphrys believes that the case for God made by the Abrahamic faiths is "riddled with holes". He fails to acknowledge the subtlety and truth-seeking character of theological thought, or to recognize that the care and discrimination exercised in serious biblical studies carries us well beyond a plodding, crypto-literalist approach to the interpretation of Scripture.
Both Dawkins and Humphrys rightly engage with the challenge to theism that is represented by the existence of a world claimed to be the creation of a good and powerful God, but which nevertheless contains so much evil and suffering. This is surely the greatest difficulty holding people back from religious belief, and it is one that continually troubles religious believers. One could not claim that there is a complete and straightforward answer available to remove the perplexity. Yet there are some arguments, not discussed by either Humphrys or by Dawkins, which offer modest help as theologians struggle with the problems of theodicy. Interestingly, science is of some assistance in this regard. Its understanding of how the world works shows that natural processes are inextricably entangled with each other. They cannot be separated out, so that those with good consequences could have been retained by a competent creator who, at the same time, eliminated those with bad consequences. The integrity of creation is a kind of package deal. For example, the process of genetic mutation produced new forms of life, but it has also resulted in malignancy. You cannot have the one without the other. Humphrys asks why there are not repeated divine interventions to avert evil consequences. Such things could only happen in a magical world, and that kind of world is not this one, because its creator is not a capricious magician. Only a world with sufficient reliability for deeds to have foreseeable consequences could be one in which moral responsibility was exercised. These insights do not dispose of all the anguish and anger that we feel in the face of individual human suffering, but they suggest that it is not simply gratuitous, easily removable by a God who was a bit less callous.
Fundamental to the discussion to which both books are seeking to contribute is the relationship between faith and reason. Too often the two have been pitted against each other, as if they were in necessary contradiction. Religious faith is not a matter of the unquestioning acceptance of unmotivated belief, demanded of us by some overriding authority. Quite the contrary. Faith is a commitment to a form of motivated belief, differing only from scientific reason in the nature of the subject of that belief and the kind of motivations appropriate to it. Science achieves its success by the modesty of its ambition, only considering impersonal experience open to repetition at will. Personal experience, let alone encounter with the transpersonal reality of God, does not fit within this limited protocol. The concept of reality offered by scientism is that of a world of metastable, replicating and information-processing systems, but it has no persons in it. Darwin's angel criticizes Dawkins for a lack of trust in the power of imagination to explore reality, such as we exercise through poetry. He is said to sound "as though he would substitute a series of case-notes on senile dementia for King Lear".
No progress will be made in the debate about religious belief unless participants are prepared to recognize that the issue of truth is as important to religion as it is to science. Dawkins invokes Bertrand Russell's parable of the teapot irrationally claimed to be in unobserved orbit in the solar system. Of course there are no grounds for belief in this piece of celestial crockery, but there are grounds offered for religious belief, though admittedly different people evaluate their persuasiveness differently. Religion does not have access to absolute proof of its beliefs but, on careful analysis, nor does science. In all realms of human inquiry, the interlacing of experience and interpretation introduces a degree of precariousness into the argument. Yet this does not mean that we cannot attain beliefs sufficiently well motivated to be the basis for rational commitment. In his book on the philosophy of science, Personal Knowlege (1964), Michael Polanyi stated that he was writing in order to explain how (scientifically) he could commit himself to what he believed to be true, while knowing it might be false. That is the human epistemic condition. Recognizing this should encourage caution, but not induce intellectual paralysis. It is in this spirit that the dialogue between science and religion needs to be conducted.
John Polkinghorne was formerly Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge University, and President of Queens' College. His autobiography From Physicist to Priest was published this year.
Reposted from:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article2778493.ece
Substituting science for religion is like swapping a series of case-notes on senile dementia for King Lear
John Cornwell
DARWIN'S ANGEL
An angelic riposte to The God Delusion
171pp. Profile Books. £10.99
978 1 84668 048 9
John Humphrys
IN GOD WE DOUBT
Confessions of a failed atheist
323pp. Hodder and Stoughton. £18.99.
978 0 340 95126 2
Religious belief is currently under heavy fire. Books by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others tell us that religion is a corrupting delusion. Despite their assertions of the rationality of atheism, the style of their onslaughts has been strongly polemical and rhetorical, rather than reasonably argued. Historical evidence is selectively surveyed. Attention is focused on inquisitions and crusades, while the significance of Hitler and Stalin is downplayed. Believers in young-earth creationism are presented as if they were typical of religious people in general. The two books under review aim to make a more temperate contribution to the debate.
John Cornwell has hit on the amusing conceit of writing in the persona of Richard Dawkins's guardian angel, a being, moreover, who had earlier stood in the same relationship to Charles Darwin. The book's tone is gently ironic and its style that of modest discussion, which all makes for an enlightening read. The twenty-one short chapters each consider some claim made in Dawkins's book The God Delusion (reviewed in the TLS, January 19) and then subject it to reasoned questioning.
Cornwell begins by pointing out that Dawkins makes no serious attempt to engage with the academic discussion of religious thought and practice. His book is "as innocent of heavy scholarship as it is free from false modesty". When it asserts that Jesus' call to love our neighbour referred only to relations between Jews (despite this claim being in clear contradiction to the point of the parable of the Good Samaritan), the only support quoted for this highly questionable statement is a book written by an anaesthesiologist.
Over the centuries, theologians have wrestled with how human language can attempt to speak about the nature of God, emphatically rejecting the idea that the deity is simply an invisible object among the other objects of the world. Yet, as Cornwell points out, the God in whom Dawkins disbelieves is a kind of "Great Science Professor in the Sky", a simplistic notion that any thinking theist would be quick to reject. We are continually told that theology is no proper academic discipline, a conclusion that could only be reached by someone whose knowledge of the subject was comparable to the scientific knowledge displayed by those who write in green ink that "Einstein was wrong".
Dawkins is relentlessly rude about religious believers. They are said to be "malevolent, barking mad, mendacious, deluded" and much more. He cannot have the courtesy to take seriously those of us who are both scientists and believers. Religious education of the young is equated with child abuse. Darwin's angel pertinently asks, "Would you really trade child sexual abuse for being brought up in the religion of your parents?". The tone of contempt – one might almost say hatred – that characterizes many of the assertions in The God Delusion is one of the most disturbing aspects of the book.
In God We Doubt displays much more even-handedness. John Humphrys is respectful of religious belief and the kind of life that often, but not invariably, issues from it, while emphasizing that he is unable himself to accept such belief. His approach is that of one who remains open and questioning about these matters, as indicated by the subtitle of his book, Confessions of a failed atheist. Humphrys writes in the chirpy colloquial style one might expect from a presenter of the Today programme on Radio 4. In fact, the book originated partly from interviews he conducted with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Chief Rabbi and Tariq Ramadan, a Muslim academic, for the radio, and from the deluge of correspondence that followed.
Humphrys takes very seriously the human experience of conscience, urging us to do some things and to refuse to do others. No doubt, evolutionary thinking offers us some partial understanding of this, with its concepts of kin altruism (protecting the family gene pool) and reciprocal altruism (I'll help you in the expectation that you will help me). Nevertheless, Humphrys rightly sees that these concepts fail to offer insight into the kind of radical altruism which, to use an example he discusses at some length, led Irena Sendlerova repeatedly to risk her life in saving 2,500 Jewish children who were trapped in the Warsaw ghetto. Humphrys sees ethical intuition as the signal of a transcendent dimension in life, which he values but does not know how to explain from an atheist point of view.
Humphrys believes that the case for God made by the Abrahamic faiths is "riddled with holes". He fails to acknowledge the subtlety and truth-seeking character of theological thought, or to recognize that the care and discrimination exercised in serious biblical studies carries us well beyond a plodding, crypto-literalist approach to the interpretation of Scripture.
Both Dawkins and Humphrys rightly engage with the challenge to theism that is represented by the existence of a world claimed to be the creation of a good and powerful God, but which nevertheless contains so much evil and suffering. This is surely the greatest difficulty holding people back from religious belief, and it is one that continually troubles religious believers. One could not claim that there is a complete and straightforward answer available to remove the perplexity. Yet there are some arguments, not discussed by either Humphrys or by Dawkins, which offer modest help as theologians struggle with the problems of theodicy. Interestingly, science is of some assistance in this regard. Its understanding of how the world works shows that natural processes are inextricably entangled with each other. They cannot be separated out, so that those with good consequences could have been retained by a competent creator who, at the same time, eliminated those with bad consequences. The integrity of creation is a kind of package deal. For example, the process of genetic mutation produced new forms of life, but it has also resulted in malignancy. You cannot have the one without the other. Humphrys asks why there are not repeated divine interventions to avert evil consequences. Such things could only happen in a magical world, and that kind of world is not this one, because its creator is not a capricious magician. Only a world with sufficient reliability for deeds to have foreseeable consequences could be one in which moral responsibility was exercised. These insights do not dispose of all the anguish and anger that we feel in the face of individual human suffering, but they suggest that it is not simply gratuitous, easily removable by a God who was a bit less callous.
Fundamental to the discussion to which both books are seeking to contribute is the relationship between faith and reason. Too often the two have been pitted against each other, as if they were in necessary contradiction. Religious faith is not a matter of the unquestioning acceptance of unmotivated belief, demanded of us by some overriding authority. Quite the contrary. Faith is a commitment to a form of motivated belief, differing only from scientific reason in the nature of the subject of that belief and the kind of motivations appropriate to it. Science achieves its success by the modesty of its ambition, only considering impersonal experience open to repetition at will. Personal experience, let alone encounter with the transpersonal reality of God, does not fit within this limited protocol. The concept of reality offered by scientism is that of a world of metastable, replicating and information-processing systems, but it has no persons in it. Darwin's angel criticizes Dawkins for a lack of trust in the power of imagination to explore reality, such as we exercise through poetry. He is said to sound "as though he would substitute a series of case-notes on senile dementia for King Lear".
No progress will be made in the debate about religious belief unless participants are prepared to recognize that the issue of truth is as important to religion as it is to science. Dawkins invokes Bertrand Russell's parable of the teapot irrationally claimed to be in unobserved orbit in the solar system. Of course there are no grounds for belief in this piece of celestial crockery, but there are grounds offered for religious belief, though admittedly different people evaluate their persuasiveness differently. Religion does not have access to absolute proof of its beliefs but, on careful analysis, nor does science. In all realms of human inquiry, the interlacing of experience and interpretation introduces a degree of precariousness into the argument. Yet this does not mean that we cannot attain beliefs sufficiently well motivated to be the basis for rational commitment. In his book on the philosophy of science, Personal Knowlege (1964), Michael Polanyi stated that he was writing in order to explain how (scientifically) he could commit himself to what he believed to be true, while knowing it might be false. That is the human epistemic condition. Recognizing this should encourage caution, but not induce intellectual paralysis. It is in this spirit that the dialogue between science and religion needs to be conducted.
John Polkinghorne was formerly Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge University, and President of Queens' College. His autobiography From Physicist to Priest was published this year.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, November 1, 2007 | PermalinkComments 51 - 100 of 135 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers52. Comment #84467 by phasmagigas on November 2, 2007 at 5:32 am
in the UK they are called donnar kebabs, in the USA they are called gyros.When i think of science/religion i think of the rotating meat on a rod.
The truth (whatever it is) is the metal rod and it may well include god for all I know.
The meat however obfuscates and hides the rod. Religion coninually packs more meat upon the rod, the meat is various, often meaningless and often contradicting, eg there is no limbo but there was (really?), you cannot eat pork, you must kill apostates, bananas are the 'atheist nightmare' (what about pomegranates-a test of patience?)love your neighbour, kill those who work on sunday, dont drink alcohol, drink wine, remove foreskin, drip water on head, all fag enablers go to hell, confession makes you forgiven but all catholics still go to hell according to muslims, god guided evolution, god used special creation, and that doesnt include anything from the other 1000's of religions/cultures across the world, anyway you get the idea.
Note the meat doesnt have to be in the form of a scripture or dogma, it consists of all possible variants of religious based thought, a seperate chat with 10 creationists will pack at least 3 gyros worth of unfalsifiable and probably contradicting nonsense, ask another 10 just what is hell and what determines if you get there and you'll have another couple of gyros worth of meat packed on there.
I see science in attempting to par away the meat bit by bit to attempt to get honestly to the rod but the religious mind is persistent and just cannot fail to keep packing that rancid flesh.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
53. Comment #84468 by Estragon on November 2, 2007 at 5:40 am
"attempting to par away the meat bit by bit to attempt to get honestly to the rod"what were you doing? trying to blow a fat guy?
i'll get my coat
Other Comments by Estragon
54. Comment #84470 by phasmagigas on November 2, 2007 at 5:46 am
"attempting to par away the meat bit by bit to attempt to get honestly to the rod"
what were you doing? trying to blow a fat guy?
i'll get my coat
i'll agree that donner meat is particularly fatty.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
55. Comment #84559 by ADH on November 2, 2007 at 12:55 pm
"So The Samaritan stroy deals with Zenophobia that is nevertheless within the israelite loop, not the more deep divide between Jews and Gentiles."That is indeed what the Samaritan story deals with. That was where the Jews had to start. There was no point in them trying to love their neighbour in the Gentile if they couldn't love them in the Samaritan! But Jesus himself exemplified kindness towards Roman centurions, for Jexample, in healing the son of one of them. The story of Peter and the centurion who loved God in his own way but on the basis of incomplete knowledge of who God was illustrates the fact that God's mercy was from the start intended to embrace Gentiles as much as Jews. Peter was loaded with culpable prejudice, which he had to be disabused of. The all-embracing love and kindness that the Jews might not then have been ready for, the Church was commanded to exhibit. The term "neighbour" took on a whole new meaning and stands now as a challenge to our innate (human not Christian) tendency towards prejudice and intolerance. Unfortunately of course the Church has slid back (or not really risen out of) precisely the kind of prejudice that Peter was guilty of. But the injunction in the New Testament is clear.
Other Comments by ADH
56. Comment #84566 by BaronOchs on November 2, 2007 at 2:20 pm
ADH that is a good response. It is of course ironic in any case that the challenge for the Jews, for the next 2 millenia would not be so much living upto the lovemessage of one of their own radical prophets but surviving massive hate from the non-jewish adherents to that message.I must have been less than careful in that last post because now I'm tottering over an abyss. Clearly I should not be committed to the fact that Jesus failed to preach a truly radical message, when precisely the point I would make is the strong claims made by orthodox christianity, based sometimes only loosely on the scriptures or "tradition" are unsustainable. We just can't have this kind of certainty about Jesus and this has been the undeniable conclusion of biblical scholarship for a long time now.
I don't recognise the man in the gospels in the cosmic supernatural figure of popular christian imagination. Nor do I recognise the good view of his teachings having any real impact on christian history. To reclaim Jesus would mean rescuing him from popular religion as much as anything else and besides I don't have much hope or enthusiasm for that endeavour.
Other Comments by BaronOchs
57. Comment #84574 by ADH on November 2, 2007 at 2:54 pm
BaronOchs, there is a lot of truth in what you say. As regards the strong claims made by Orthodox Christianity, I suppose you mean the claims relating to the identity of Jesus. Of course the question is, as you have rightly discerned, whether these claims were made initially by Orthodox Christianity or by Jesus himself. I do not think it is beyond dispute that these claims were invented by the Church rather than uttered by Jesus himself. I realise that a lot of serious scholars maintain the former. Nevertheless, there are (at least) equally competent scholars who maintain that the Jesus of the gospels is the Jesus who actually lived in Palestine at the beginning of the first century. It is not necessary to surrender to the often simplistic sentimentalism of popular religion in order to hold this view. Bishop NT Wright, for example, who could not be accused of pandering to popular religion, has compellingly argued that Jesus was indeed a 1st century Jewish peasant who preached the arrival, in himself, of the kingdom of God, and explicity confronted the kingdom of Caesar (he was politically subversive rather than "kosher") on the one hand and the Jewish collaborationist establishment on the other. His going to the cross was, paradoxically symbolic of the King taking up his position on the throne, challenging the powers that be to do their worst. His resurrection - yes full-blooded and bodied resurrection - was God decisively intervening in this world to begin the from now on inexorable process of putting the world to rights.Believe me I have no truck with popular fundamentalist Christianity as normally understood. I believe it is soppy, sentimental, politically disengaged and inward looking, inordinantly and unbiblically focussed on personal miracle-working and outrageously individualistic. Its hymns reek with the "Jesus and me" and "all in the garden is lovely" theme. To tell you the truth it makes my skin crawl, and if Jesus were still in his grave it would have him spinning in it.
Believe me, it is just not true that the consensus of contemporary biblical scholarship undermines the accounts of Jesus life offered by the four gospels. If you are interested we can thrash this one out in more depth.
I also agree that Christendom in the past (and maybe much of it in the present) has been anti-semitic. But that is the result of seriously defective hermeneutics (not to mention our innate inclination to prejudice and hatred of the "other"). Luther himself was a proto-nazi in that respect! The Christian Church has a great deal to repent of!
Other Comments by ADH
58. Comment #84577 by Diacanu on November 2, 2007 at 3:10 pm
ADH-Outragiously individualistic?
As opposed to what, being part of the Borg collective?
I'm not getting what you're saying.
Other Comments by Diacanu
59. Comment #84580 by ADH on November 2, 2007 at 3:20 pm
the Borg collective??What's that?
Other Comments by ADH
60. Comment #84582 by Diacanu on November 2, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Y'know, cyborgs with transmitters in their heads so they're all telepathically linked into one hive mind.Their individuality erased.
Sorta like some descriptions of christain Heaven.
Other Comments by Diacanu
61. Comment #84593 by Quine on November 2, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Like Sam Harris says (or something like) Science requires a small epistemological puddle-hop, Religion, a trans-atlantic flight.
Part of the scientific method is to continually work to reduce the size of the puddle-hop, whereas, in religion, the wider the ocean, the more valued is the faith.
Other Comments by Quine
62. Comment #84595 by mmurray on November 2, 2007 at 5:04 pm
The Borghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_%28Star_Trek%29
Resistance is futile
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
63. Comment #84675 by ADH on November 3, 2007 at 7:07 am
"The Borg are an amalgam of humanoids of many different species that are enhanced with implanted cybernetics, giving them improved mental and physical abilities. Individual members of the Borg are called drones. The Borg function as automata; the minds of all Borg drones are connected via implants and networks to a hive mind, the Borg Collective, personified by the Borg Queen and controlled from a central hub, Unimatrix One. The Borg claim to seek to "improve the quality of life for all species" by integrating organic and synthetic components in their quest for perfection. To this end, they travel the galaxy, increasing their numbers and advancing by "assimilating" other species and their technologies, and subjugating captured individuals by injecting them with nanoprobes and surgically implanting prostheses, quickly changing their biological anatomy and biochemistry to the Borg standard."If this is the direction culture is driving us in, "Religion" has lttle or nothing to do with it. But I do agree that we are moving in this direction. I would put it down to mass media, to the fact that via gormless absorbtion of the TV's staple cocktail of images and slogans, plus advertising, plus the virtual disappearance of the written word from people's leisure, and even from their formal education, we are producing a generation that is utterly incapable of critical analysis, wallowing in self-obsession, self-help, ego-massaging.
Having said that I do admit that swathes of Christendom have sold out to this culture of self-absorbtion, with little real intellectual engagement. Songs which endlessly repeat mantras aimed at inducing some kind of higher emotional state, sermons which focus on material and psychological health and wealth, and let the rest of the world go hang. People lulled into the absurd conviction that the next miracle is just round the corner, if only they have enough faith. The result of this mindless self-engrossment is, paradoxically, the loss of individuality. The "faithul" become clones of one another - same lingo, same thought-patterns (where there is any thinking worth speaking of), boring uniformity. But I should also point out, that "Christian" churches do not have the monopoly in this regard. The more self-obsessed people are, the more clone-like they become, and the mass media and the celebrity "cult"ure are leading us by the nose along this path.
The genius of the Christian gospel (unlike the multifarious and yet strangely uniform distortions of it) is that it releases the individual from the prison of "self" and makes him or her an integral part of an organic whole - a "body". Each individual is more fully him or herself the more they see themselves as capable of making a unique contribution on behalf of the community. I realise this is an ideal which is rarely reflected in actual Christian communities. But it is implicit and explicit in the Biblical text as a scenario that we can work towards. That insight has been the primary contribution of Christian theology to human society, and I defy anyone to show that we in the West have not benefitted fom it. But we have little patiece, we love shortcuts and we are too prone to turn our attention inward and become obsessed with ourselves. Once Christians do that they have lost it. They have sold out and just turn into the drones and "Borgs" that you quite rightly criticise them for being. But look around. Do you really see more "borgs", more automata, inside the church than outside it?
Other Comments by ADH
64. Comment #84704 by monkey2 on November 3, 2007 at 9:22 am
The genius of the Christian gospel...is that it releases the individual from the prison of "self" and makes him or her an integral part of an organic whole - a "body".
Humans have been organising themselves into 'bodies' since hunter gatherer days without the genius of the christian gospel.
Each individual is more fully him or herself the more they see themselves as capable of making a unique contribution on behalf of the community.
Reminds me of TV documentary I gormlessly absorbed. A man was living with a pack of wolves. There was a bit of a war going on over who was the alpha male. He pointed out a nervous scrawny individual who was obviously not in the race for pack leader. His nervousness, however, made him ideal as a look out. He was able to make a unique contribution on behalf of his community without the genius of the christian gospel.
Other Comments by monkey2
65. Comment #84717 by ADH on November 3, 2007 at 10:06 am
Fair point monkey2. I didn't say that only the Christian gospel maintains this balance between individual and community. This is indeed the way humans have always found their fulfilment and their purpose. The Greek philosophers also had a lot to say about it - about finding and preserving this balance. But Christianity has come under fire for turning people into clones and drones. Not true at all. Christianity, rightly understood, helps people to preserve their individual distinctiveness without spinning off into their own little orbit. "He who finds his life will lose it, but he who loses his life for my sake will find it". If we are becoming clones it's not the fault of Christianity!Other Comments by ADH
66. Comment #84796 by BaronOchs on November 3, 2007 at 4:28 pm
ADH the truth is I am not familiar with biblical criticism enough to have a serious debate over it.It might be good if you want, for you to outline the case for accepting whichever parts of the gospels to someone inclined not to do so. One question to set the ball rolling, it seems the correct conclusion to me that Jesus expected the end of the world within his own lifetime. In which case he could hardly have understood himself to be starting a religious system to stay around long term. I'm hardly sure he was delivering any sort of "system" at all for that matter. What is your view on this?
Anyhow your posts are intelligent and thoughtful enough for me to enjoy reading, the hat is doffed!
Other Comments by BaronOchs
67. Comment #84800 by Bonzai on November 3, 2007 at 4:46 pm
ADH,Christianity, rightly understood, helps people to preserve their individual distinctiveness without spinning off into their own little orbit.
Indeed read the fine print. Hard for us nonbelievers to tell what the "right way" of understanding is while Christians vehemently disagree among themselves. What is the value of Divine revelation if it is so difficult to get it right even for people who study the bible their whole lives and sincerely seek God? What did God achieve with his "revelation" except to sow mass confusion?
Other Comments by Bonzai
68. Comment #84803 by ADH on November 3, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Good question BaronOchs. I'll need to think about your question a bit more. But for the moment my take on it is this. Jesus couldn't have foreseen the end of the world within his own lifetime precisely because he was very explicitly laying the foundations for a global movement. He warned the disciples that they would be taken and imprisoned and confronted by sundry religious and secular regimes with the choice to remain on board with him, so to speak, or to opt out. He also told them that he would be "going away", but would be returning. The apocalyptic language that he sometimes used which seemed to presage immanent catastrophe was about the fall of Jerusalem and the collapse of Judaism as a "national" religion. For the average Jew that moment was experienced as "the end of the world". It seemed to them, unless they were paying attention to what Jesus was saying, that the Romans, the empire of Caesar, had won. Judaism itself survived of course, but the Jews (and the Christians who were still broadly part of Judaism until the fall of Jerusalem) found themselves scattered far and wide. That was the event which Jesus was referring to in, for example, Matthew 24 and 25. Incidentally, that fact, predicting that "not one stone (of the temple) would be left on top of another makes it pretty unlikely that Jesus was fabricated out of bits and pieces cobbled together from the Old Testament, as has been claimed. Words like these would not have been put into the mouth of a character invented by 1st century Palestinians.But it's getting late and I need to get to bed. I don't want to run the risk of tiredeness causing me to lose any important threads. So I'll try to give a fuller answer by and by.
Other Comments by ADH
69. Comment #84812 by ADH on November 3, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Bonzai, Christians do disagree among themselves, and sometimes more vehemently than they should. None of us Christians has got it all taped, and if anyone says they have I for one won't give them the time of day. But the fact that we do disagree serves to prove that we are not the drones and clones that certain atheists are making us out to be. We are unite over essentials, though there might me some dispute about what the essentials include. I also believe that "Christianity" can be as much of a bandwagon for some as any other movement can. There are many who "jump on the bandwagon", ride with it for as long as they ind it useful to themselves to do so, and while they are on board they might well get the lingo and the mannerisms down to a fine art. It is possible to be on the Christian gravy train and not really have understood what it's all about, or even not to care less. There are hangers-on in every movement, who give the movement itself a bad name. I don't want to seem self-righteous. As I say, I don't have it all taped and both my understanding and my behaviour are far from infallible. But there is something unique and special about Jeus, something about his words that rings true, that gives hope and purpose, and that deeply challenges all huma cultural constructs, even (and perhaps especially) the "Christian" ones.Other Comments by ADH
70. Comment #84813 by Goldy on November 3, 2007 at 5:22 pm
But there is something unique and special about Jeus, something about his words that rings true, that gives hope and purpose, and that deeply challenges all huma cultural constructs, even (and perhaps especially) the "Christian" ones.
Only if you want to believe these words. The same can be said for, well, the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, the words of Mohammed, the hadiths, The God Delusion, etc, etc. You believe the words and they resonate with you. Doesn't make the words resonant.
Other Comments by Goldy
71. Comment #84814 by steve99 on November 3, 2007 at 5:26 pm
But there is something unique and special about Jeus, something about his words that rings true, that gives hope and purpose, and that deeply challenges all huma cultural constructs, even (and perhaps especially) the "Christian" ones.
There is nothing unique or special about Jesus and his words... many said the same thing before (such as the Buddha). Even if his words are special, that is no reason to believe anything supernatural about him.
Other Comments by steve99
72. Comment #84816 by Diacanu on November 3, 2007 at 5:33 pm
The words of George Carlin are really right on, and stirring to me.Do you suppose he has super powers?
His concerts saved my sanity as a teenager, which likely in turn kept a gun out of my mouth.
I've seen him as my own Superman ever since.
But WOW, to think by religious reasoning, that could REALLY make him Superman....willikers!!
Other Comments by Diacanu
73. Comment #84846 by ADH on November 4, 2007 at 12:23 am
"that is no reason to believe anything supernatural about him".Steve, I appreciate your difficulty in accepting that there was anything supernatural about him, if you already hold the position that the idea of the supernatural is itself an absurdity. In that case nothing I or anyone else could say would persuade you that God could embody himself in a human being. How can he if God does not actually exist?
As regards what he said, take words like:
"The writings of Moses all pointed towards me" or
"Before Abraham was I already existed" or
"I am the light of the world, whoever follows me will not walk in darkness" (and many other statements like these)
If a self appointed guru went around making statements like these about him or herself nowadays we would dismiss them as a headcase. Our mental hospitals are full of such megalomania. If that is what we have in Jesus then we are wasting our time even talking about him. I'm sure there are many people on these boards who have already arrived at this conclusion about him.
Nevertheless, I defy anyone to open-mindedly read through one of the gospels and to come away with this impression of Jesus. If he was just another deluded mystic, another self-appointed guru afflicted with megalomania, then we will be hard-pressed to explain the enormity of his impact in every human culture right up to the present day. I know many people here will put it down to the gullability of the masses, the fact that he came to pre-eminence in a pre-scientific age. But people knew then as well as now that virgins don't give birth (that's why Joseph was heading for the exit before God actually sent a messenger to reassure him), that dead bodies don't come back to life (which is why the disciples did not believe that Jesus had been resurrected). And if that were the case, then you would have expected his influence to fade away among the scientiically trained. Yet that is not happening. Many top-ranking scientists and philosophers actually believe Jesus was who he said he was.
But as I say, if you have made up your mind already that the supernatural BY DEFINITION cannot be believed by any rational person, then all of this is going to be water off a duck's back.
Other Comments by ADH
74. Comment #84848 by BAEOZ on November 4, 2007 at 12:35 am
I defy anyone to open-mindedly read through one of the gospels and to come away with this impression of Jesus.
And I defy anyone to read Harry Potter and come away with the same impression of him. What of it? The gospels are selected propaganda. We don't know who wrote them. We know they were not written by anybody who knew Jesus (granting that he existed, which no historian worth his salt would grant). They were selected by Constantine. They were written and rewritten to make it look like Jesus was prophesized. But this is false.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
75. Comment #84853 by CHeard on November 4, 2007 at 12:55 am
Baron Ochs (49) wrote:BaronOchs, while there was certainly a very significant "family resemblance" between the religions of Judeans and Samaritans in Roman-era Palestine, there's no reliable way to trace any genealogical connection. In any event, there was a pretty significant divide between those two groups in that era, and referring to that divide as "within the Israelite loop" is an outsider's view, not an insider's view.[Polkinghorne:] When it asserts that Jesus' call to love our neighbour referred only to relations between Jews (despite this claim being in clear contradiction to the point of the parable of the Good Samaritan)This claim is not in "clear contradiction" to the Samaritan story as Polkinghorne well knows! Samaritans comprised I think ten of the twelve israelite tribes? The "Real Jews" were members of the tribe of Judah, from which the name comes. (And the final tribe of course is Levi who were not confined to a single local)
So The Samaritan stroy deals with Zenophobia that is nevertheless within the israelite loop, not the more deep divide between Jews and Gentiles.
Regardless of the specific Judean-Samaritan schism, at any rate, the above really is one of Dawkins's weaker arguments (although, if I recall correctly—it having been several months since I read TGD—it was more of an aside than a major point). There are a number of stories in the gospels in which Jesus is said to have treated Gentiles as well as, or even better than, he treated his fellow Jews. Any painting of Jesus as xenophobic—which necessarily must rely on those same gospels for evidence—will end up holding no water.
(Of course, one cannot then say, "Therefore, Jesus was divine. QED." I wouldn't even attempt to make such a leap.)
Other Comments by CHeard
76. Comment #84856 by CHeard on November 4, 2007 at 1:05 am
BAEOZ (74)We don't know who wrote them. We know they were not written by anybody who knew Jesus (granting that he existed, which no historian worth his salt would grant). They were selected by Constantine. They were written and rewritten to make it look like Jesus was prophesized. But this is false.My dear BAEOZ, you're overstating the case here. While it's true that we don't know with absolute certainty who wrote the four canonical gospels, we do possess very early traditions about their authorship. Just how reliable those traditions are is, of course, up for debate, and certainty is impossible—but then, do we really know with certainty that Julius Caesar wrote De Bello Gallico?
Moreover, it is logically incoherent to say "we don't know who wrote them" and "we know they weren't written by eyewitnesses," for if we don't know the first, we can't know the second. Traditionally, two of the gospel writers have been thought to be eyewitnesses ("Matthew" and "John"), though there's considerable uncertainty here; the questions about "Mark" are bigger; and if we take "Luke's" word for it in the first paragraph of his book, he certainly was not an eyewitness but interviewed some. In short, your statement doesn't allow for enough degrees of variance.
The line about Constantine is just flat wrong. The four canonical gospels had achieved that status well before Constantine. Usually I find your comments insightful or at least entertaining, but that particular sentence sounded like you were channeling the woefully underinformed Dan Brown.
As for the prophecies, it didn't take multiple rewritings. From the very beginning the gospel writers adapted older writings and the story of Jesus's life to mesh more nicely with one another.
Other Comments by CHeard
77. Comment #84857 by CHeard on November 4, 2007 at 1:09 am
TheCelestialTeapot (13)Something I have come to notice after months of reading similar articles to this one is that none of the religious ever bring up Dennett's book Breaking the Spell. I think the reason that it often goes unmentioned when the religous are making claims that "Dawkins and Hitchens don't understand theology" or that "this is not my religion" is because Dennett offers the argument that the religious are claiming that the other athiest books do not.Another difference between The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, and The End of Faith on the one hand, and Breaking the Spell on the other, is that—last time I checked, at least—BTS isn't available in unabridged audio format on Audible.com. :-(
Other Comments by CHeard
78. Comment #84859 by BAEOZ on November 4, 2007 at 1:21 am
Cheard:do we really know with certainty that Julius Caesar wrote De Bell Gallico?
No, nor do Caesarists knock on our door sunday morning, vote against scientific advances for Caesarian reasons or expect us to follow some moral code. It's a question of how much it affects us to believe that Caesar wrote de bello Gallico. Though the evidence for Caesar is pretty more substantial than for Jesus.
it is logically incoherent to say "we don't know who wrote them" and "we know they weren't written by eyewitnesses,"
I don't know who wrote your post, but I do know it wasn't the apostles. A bunch of illiterate Aramaic speakers wouldn't write down gospels in greek or your post in English (especially when they aren't around). That was my poorly attempted point.
The line about Constantine is just flat wrong. The four canonical gospels had achieved that status well before Constantine.
So Constantine didn't get the vote on what was Christian and what wasn't? I must be woefully underinformed. I apologize.
Usually I find your comments insightful or at least entertaining, but that particular sentence sounded like you were channeling the woefully underinformed Dan Brown
I do tend to disappoint. But I'm glad you found some of my posts entertaining. I've never read Dan Brown, so he must've possessed me. :)
As for the prophecies, it didn't take multiple rewritings. From the very beginning the gospel writers adapted older writings and the story of Jesus's life to mesh more nicely with one another.
No multiple rewritings. but then you say from the very beginning there were adaptations. Had to be some rewritings me thinks. Oh well, you are the biblical scholar. I'll resign myself to my confused state.
Apologies for stomping on your territory in such an ignorant fashion. I just find the assertion that the gospels have anything more to say about history than the Illiad question begging in the extreme and insulting.
ADDENDUM: Just rereading my first post I can see why you took me to task. It seems to imply that the rewritings occurred because of Constantine. That wasn't my contention. Only that they happened early on to fit the prophesies to the Jesus myth.
Oh well, when the rush of blood grips me, I post first, think later. Apologies again. :)
Other Comments by BAEOZ
79. Comment #84864 by Quine on November 4, 2007 at 1:41 am
Comment #84856 by CHeardThe four canonical gospels had achieved that status well before Constantine.
Hi Chris, welcome back.
What evidence do we have now that they were canonical then? My understanding is that we have only fragments of copies until the fourth century when we have a more complete manuscript such as the Codex Vaticanus. What do we know about adaptations and splits in the second and third centuries, and how do we know it?
Other Comments by Quine
80. Comment #84868 by Veronique on November 4, 2007 at 1:28 am
The point is that Jesus said nothing that he personally left behind in any document. Any purported words he (if he existed as an individual and that's also debatable) uttered, that have been attributed to him and after an oral history of over 70 years, come through the mouths of ordinary people beguiled by promise and hope in their untenable situation of being ruled by a successful occupying force.I understand the need for promise and hope and also understand the need to strive to develop what the Buddhists call a 'sanga' – a group of like-minded people so that the closetedness and reiteration of the 'beliefs' form the consolation of a beleaguered group of people in the catacombs and so becomes a cultural meme. Of course, I consider that particular meme to have replicated very successfully because an underlying tenet tapped into a fairly basic fear of the unknown and supplied an understandable, though spurious, answer to ameliorate that inchoate fear.
Then, of course, this meme was inculcated into the children of the 'faithful' and so gained such a toe-hold on the imaginative and vulnerable mind that the religious meme has proliferated through all superstitious peoples' cultures and remains today.
You may gather from this that I view religiosity as a very basic form of indoctrination. It was usurped, by the controllers, from its original consoling idea while believers were held under the thrall of temporal rulers. Fantasy is a marvellous way to ward off horror and despair of one's horrific circumstance. It also supplies the necessary in-group mentality to enable it to survive.
It is now the 21st century. It confounds me, as with most posters on this site, that such stories, embellished and with so many egregious inconsistencies manufactured by the desperate proselytisers of the 'faith' in appalling living situations, can be taken as inerrantly true now. It is a man-made collection of stories designed to gather together people who needed an extended 'family' of like-mindedness.
Even those who talk about metaphor rather than literal inerrancy come unstuck in their arguments. When trawling through what the non-atheists say about the bible and its teachings, we find splinter groups numbering in the hundreds or even thousands of Christian sects with miniscule differences in interpretation of this supposedly inerrant holy book. These sects are implacably opposed to other sects utilising the same collection of stories.
I have to say it is quite mind-boggling to me. I look back over the creation myths of different peoples'. I am enamoured of the Greek Pantheon (they were so human and fallible, full of hubris and human partisanship, and naughty to boot!).
I can only quote Stephen F Roberts again:
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
I commend some videos:
Brian Flemming The God Who Wasn't There
???? Zeitgeist.com
BBC (Tony Robinson)The Doomsday Code
Now anyone can charge me with being 'caught up' in the current worry about religious extremism. They would be right to do so. However no platitudes can allay my fears.
Try, I beg you. Please – no un-evidenced extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. Please, no comforting platitudes, I can do without them. Please do not expect me to believe on 'faith' that this planet and its inhabitants (that includes all species both plant and animal, as well as homo sapiens), are sequestered from disaster because someone invented a religious regime and has been seduced by it.
I need a drink
V
Edit I had to erase another post I had composed in Word. Sorry to those that wouldn't have been able to follow my post. Fixed now:-)
V
Other Comments by Veronique
81. Comment #84872 by Veronique on November 4, 2007 at 1:44 am
Chris – you are back. I never got an answer from you to my very basic question about religion. Is it possible that you can answer it now? I know you are busy and it has been several weeks since I asked.You can see from my earlier post that I am still caught at that very basic point. I don't want theologically erudite expositions. I need an answer to my basic question. I will re-state it for you:
I am far less interested in the minutiae of theological argumentation on specifics, as I am in the basic argument for belief in an unseen, un-evidenced and hidden god. That premise is what halts me right at the beginning. I cannot get past it.
It's a basic question and I would like to see it addressed without prevarication and slippy, slidey, sideways obfuscation. Can you oblige, please?
I was hoping for your response on the 'Leprechology thread but you left it – as did everyone else:-).
Are you able to address this very basic question that pertains to belief?
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
82. Comment #84873 by Goldy on November 4, 2007 at 1:52 am
Nevertheless, I defy anyone to open-mindedly read through one of the gospels and to come away with this impression of Jesus. If he was just another deluded mystic, another self-appointed guru afflicted with megalomania, then we will be hard-pressed to explain the enormity of his impact in every human culture right up to the present day. I know many people here will put it down to the gullability of the masses, the fact that he came to pre-eminence in a pre-scientific age. But people knew then as well as now that virgins don't give birth (that's why Joseph was heading for the exit before God actually sent a messenger to reassure him), that dead bodies don't come back to life (which is why the disciples did not believe that Jesus had been resurrected). And if that were the case, then you would have expected his influence to fade away among the scientically trained. Yet that is not happening. Many top-ranking scientists and philosophers actually believe Jesus was who he said he was.
I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing what you're trying to say. What did the Gospels if Jesus' life say that wasn't said before? Virgin birth? Regeneration? All done, I believe. Impact of Jesus on EVERY culture? You sure? Maybe it's just me but I do think some of these cultures might be just that wee bit pissed off about his impact, given the bringers of his message might have distorted what he said :-) And some still haven't heard or just don't give a damn. God sent a messenger to Joseph? God did this? You sure this actually happened? Not something a writer thought might sound better than, say, Joseph got a lass up the duff before marriage...or even Jesus was just a normal man with a loud mouth (or words to that effect). God himself sent this messenger? Hmmmm, doubts start to cross my mind now...
I think you'll probably find many more scientists and philosophers might say Jesus was a, for want of a better phrase, holy man, but he was not born of any virgin and he was not resurrected. Quite a few doubt his existance, seeing in him more a continuation of Middle Eastern mythology. Maybe a man did exist that was Jesus - but the Jesus you want to believe in has a very good chance of not being that man.
Just because a top-ranking scientist or philosopher says he thinks it's true, doesn't make it thus. A very top ranking scientist is in trouble for believing black people are less intelligent members of H. sapiens. They are, after all, people, subject to that same thoughts as us.
Other Comments by Goldy
83. Comment #84879 by steve99 on November 4, 2007 at 2:31 am
Steve, I appreciate your difficulty in accepting that there was anything supernatural about him, if you already hold the position that the idea of the supernatural is itself an absurdity. In that case nothing I or anyone else could say would persuade you that God could embody himself in a human being. How can he if God does not actually exist?
I do have a problem with responses like this. It assumes that for someone to have a certain opinion, you have to have a certain mental state. Well, I certainly don't hold an opinion that the idea of the supernatural is necessarily absurd. I was, for a long while, religious. I am prepared to accept supposedly supernatural phenomena on one condition - that someone actually provides me with concrete evidence. Not words in books, and not wishful thinking, not personal revelation and not what a friend of a friend reports having experienced.
This is a very simple filter for nonsense. Try it!
Actually, I don't actually believe that the term 'supernatural' is meaningful. I think the true distinction is between things that are real and that are unreal. I am fully prepared to accept things like psychic powers, or ghosts, given sufficient evidence.
If he was just another deluded mystic, another self-appointed guru afflicted with megalomania, then we will be hard-pressed to explain the enormity of his impact in every human culture right up to the present day.
He hasn't had impact in every human culture. The majority of cultures (and people) remain distinctly un-impacted - Christianity is a minority belief in the world today.
Yet that is not happening. Many top-ranking scientists and philosophers actually believe Jesus was who he said he was.
But the vast majority don't, and surveys show that, generally, the more educated you are, the less likely you are to believe.
Other Comments by steve99
84. Comment #84880 by steve99 on November 4, 2007 at 2:35 am
Quite a few doubt his existance, seeing in him more a continuation of Middle Eastern mythology.
And some believe his ideas (assuming he existed at all) were simply a continuation of existing beliefs from the East. For example, the Buddha was telling people to "love your enemy" centuries before.
The 'it all started with Jesus' idea is a trap that many Christians fall into.
Other Comments by steve99
85. Comment #84882 by Duff on November 4, 2007 at 2:49 am
Perhaps this good reverend doesn't so much believe his own apologetics but is nearing retirement and could use a nice cash infusion. He hasn't already won the Templeton has he? He could share it with the good professor Anthony Flew, who, apparently, in an alzheimerish fog has reverted to his childhood beliefs.Other Comments by Duff
86. Comment #84884 by keith on November 4, 2007 at 3:00 am
Steve99,I'm not well up on this but didn't Jesus pre-date Buddha by about 600 years? If that is the case, then of course, he really must be the Messiah. QED!
Other Comments by keith
87. Comment #84887 by steve99 on November 4, 2007 at 3:40 am
I'm not well up on this but didn't Jesus pre-date Buddha by about 600 years? If that is the case, then of course, he really must be the Messiah. QED!
It is the other way around. The Buddha lived hundreds of years before Christ (assuming both were real historical figures).
Other Comments by steve99
88. Comment #84888 by keith on November 4, 2007 at 3:48 am
Steve99Then I stand corrected. I must be thinking of some other geezer. Mohammed, perhaps?
Other Comments by keith
89. Comment #84891 by epeeist on November 4, 2007 at 3:54 am
Comment #84887 by steve99
It is the other way around. The Buddha lived hundreds of years before Christ (assuming both were real historical figures).
And this makes him roughly contemporary with Confucius. A different way of coming at things, but still a thought out set of ethics half a millennium before Jesus.
Other Comments by epeeist
90. Comment #84892 by epeeist on November 4, 2007 at 4:02 am
Comment #84846 by ADH
Steve, I appreciate your difficulty in accepting that there was anything supernatural about him, if you already hold the position that the idea of the supernatural is itself an absurdity. In that case nothing I or anyone else could say would persuade you that God could embody himself in a human being. How can he if God does not actually exist?
How many other people have there been supposedly born of virgins? How many resurrected?
You are claiming a set of extraordinary events. As such the burden of proof is upon you to validate your claims.
If your claim is that god is purely "supernatural" then I think steve99 and I would (provisionally) be prepared to accept this. Steve will correct this if he doesn't agree. But as soon as he sticks his oar into the natural world then we require some extraordinary proof to go with the extraordinary claims.
Other Comments by epeeist
91. Comment #84893 by steve99 on November 4, 2007 at 4:14 am
If your claim is that god is purely "supernatural" then I think steve99 and I would (provisionally) be prepared to accept this. Steve will correct this if he doesn't agree.
Not quite. I would still have a problem. There would, according to this idea, be two statements that seem to me to combine to form a logical inconsistency:
1. God exists and is supernatural.
2. We have come up with the concept of God because he exists.
If we have come up with the concept of God because he exists, then that must be because of some interaction with the natural world (our brains).
The only way I can see of God existing and being purely supernatural and us having come up with the idea is that there has been the most amazing co-incidence.
Other Comments by steve99
92. Comment #84894 by Veronique on November 4, 2007 at 4:22 am
Good on you epeeistMuhammed (circa: 570 to 632 CE) is known to have drawn on Christian theology and Judeo theology in making up his own theological teachings that he told everyone were the inerrant words of Allah. A pure charlatan and an megalomaniac to boot with his overweening impression of his place in the (any) scheme of things.
The Gautama Buddha (circa: 563BCE to 483BCE) was different but not by much. His teachings were not committed to writing until about 400 years after his death (yes! he did die; how unusual).
Jesus, the Christ (circa 4BCE to 30CE) never left a written fragment of his teachings. Until about 70CE nothing was written about him All oral tradition and suspect.
Don't you find it interesting that none of these revered persons ever left an extant document/fragment written by themselves of their extraordinarily subversive (for their times) teachings? So how did these mythologically re-vamped figures gain so much temporal power?\
It's a mind-fuck, pure and simple.
V
Other Comments by Veronique
93. Comment #84895 by steve99 on November 4, 2007 at 4:30 am
It's a mind-fuck, pure and simple.
I really have to disagree with you. No-one who has studied the teachings of the Buddha could claim he was a charlatan or a megalomaniac.
One of the themes of the Buddha's teachings is that what he proposes are simply ideas that people can use to improve happiness, and that if they don't work for you, fair enough - try something else. No inerrant words. Religion or not, it is a pragmatic philosophy.
I may have misinterpreted you, but if you are claiming that the Buddha was not much different from Muhammed, I think you are way out of line, sorry.
Other Comments by steve99
94. Comment #84896 by USA_Limey on November 4, 2007 at 4:43 am
I much prefer the honesty of a filthy islamic throatcutter than the hand wringing duplicity of these wishy washy christian idiots.At least I can plainly understand the former.
Other Comments by USA_Limey
95. Comment #84897 by Veronique on November 4, 2007 at 5:23 am
OK SteveI maybe culpable of tossing all of these 'teachings' into the same dye vat. I guess that what I am trying to convey is that all transcendental teachings are just trying too hard to make homo sapiens transcendental.
They all try to imbue our existence with something out of the ordinary; something that sets us apart from our co-existent species; something that propounds dominion over those species. We all seem to suffer from this.
And that is my problem. Yes, we have these amazing frontal lobes within our neo-cortex that appears to give us reason, communication, creativity, language and the ability to recall what we have said and thought (with the rider of a shifting and suspect memory).
I was really trying to put these teachers into an historical context. However all of them are guilty of playing transcendental games with the vulnerable masses.
Muhammed was violent in the extremity of his teachings as revealed to him by god (which he vowed were the words of Allah as given to him and written down by his scribes).
Jesus was a tad more conciliatory, not by much; never left a written word, but was quoted and interpreted by fallible men as the inerrant truth inspired by god.
Gautama Buddha was much the same. No written word, just the interpretation of what he said passed through the mindset of his devoted followers. And he gave up a fortune (being of a high caste) which endeared him to the masses. He met them on their own ground and discarded his wealth. How attractive is that to a poverty ridden underclass?
So where am I wrong? All people are vulnerable to bullshit. It doesn't matter whether the teacher is a conscious charlatan or whether he believes his own version of the 'truth'. Maybe that should be a capital T.
I don't buy any of it. It is all hubris. Siddartha was a gorgeous book; it engaged me with delight. However it was just a story. I didn't cleave it to my soul(?).
Sorry Steve, it's all still beautiful bullshit:-). You take out of it what you want to get you through the day; it doesn't make it real. And I know you know that.
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
96. Comment #84899 by Vinelectric on November 4, 2007 at 5:35 am
Muhammed (circa: 570 to 632 CE) is known to have drawn on Christian theology and Judeo theology in making up his own theological teachings
Muslims view their religion as a continuation of an evolving but consistent theme of revelation, several installmnets of a single message handed down to all cultures throughout history. They claim that the theolgoy was corrupted by successive generations and that is why a new wise man was sent to renew the message every so often.
Thus the "plagiarism" charge will not work. Any concordance with eariler religious systems is further evidence that these teachings originate from a single source. See what I mean? If you point out that theologies vary wildly between cultures they'll say: but of course, that's why several attempts were made to correct that through Jesus, Moses...etc.
And by the way another argument that won't work is the "How can a merciful God does this and does that". They don't believe in a nice god. They believe in a god that "can" and "will" if you don't follow and doesn't mind feeding his evil masterpiece (hell) with some unsuspecting humans. In fact the Quran suggests that that has to happen anyway as this is the main source of fuel for Hell.
Twisted and wicked, don't you think?
A pure charlatan and an megalomaniac to boot with his overweening impression of his place in the (any) scheme of things.
Excessive grandiosity definitely indicates some form of mental dysfunction. As a combatant and leader he definitely had skills, otherwise who would have thought that a backwardly desert tribe would swerve past Africa and into Europe and the far East?
That all happened against a background of torture and persecution of (his followers) by the surrounding tribes. That kind of determination would outsize your description of a "pure charlatan".
Other Comments by Vinelectric
97. Comment #84900 by steve99 on November 4, 2007 at 5:37 am
Sorry Steve, it's all still beautiful bullshit:-). You take out of it what you want to get you through the day; it doesn't make it real. And I know you know that.
I don't know that, because I don't believe it is all bullshit. A lot of what the Buddha taught was extremely sensible (*). Same for Jesus. To reject those bits simply because of the religious context seems extreme to me, as those same ideas have been expressed by good non-religious people.
*Just to give an idea, the Buddha taught much about the 'self' that I am sure Daniel Dennett would approve of .... it is pretty similar to his 'no Cartesian Theatre' idea. Are you going to call this 'bullshit' when it comes from the Buddha, but accept pretty much the same idea when it comes from Dennett?
I think there is a problem in that our experience of monotheistic religion has tainted our views of other ideas both in different places and times, views that are more philosophy than religion.
Other Comments by steve99
98. Comment #84903 by epeeist on November 4, 2007 at 5:57 am
Comment #84900 by steve99
I don't know that, because I don't believe it is all bullshit. A lot of what the Buddha taught was extremely sensible (*).
Speaking with my pseudo-bellicose hat on, I thought "Zen and the Art of Archery" was extremely thought provoking.
As for Hesse, you have to remember his background. He was looking at Eastern philosophies with an existentialist bias. Both "Narziss and Goldmund" is Christianity with an Apollonic/Dionysian viewpoint. The "Glass Bead Game" is similar, but without the Christianity.
One other Jew you could look in terms of a system of ethics is of course Spinoza.
Other Comments by epeeist
99. Comment #84904 by Veronique on November 4, 2007 at 6:31 am
97. Comment #84900 by steve99That's a decent slap on the wrist:-) and I will wear it.
I have to modify my earlier post.
It's not so much what the prime expositors said of their cogitations and how they were recorded, but more how they were recorded by their adherents. That's where the bullshit comes into play.
I can't recall the actual quote but I'll paraphrase:
Someone has a good idea; then the bureaucracy picks it up and runs with it, manipulating it to fit with the society at large and eventually canonising it in the legal framework. Then the original idea is lost forever within the maze of interpretation.
That's a poor description of what I am trying to recall as an excellent exposition of what happens to ideas whose time has come. Maybe someone knows the quote that I have not remembered.
The take home message is that all these ideas end up corrupted and manipulated for the hoi poloi and their subservience to a governing class. I can't see it any other way.
Maybe you can help me see it differently
V
Other Comments by Veronique
100. Comment #84907 by steve99 on November 4, 2007 at 6:40 am
That's a decent slap on the wrist:-) and I will wear it.
Nothing so painful intended... consider it more like a friendly tap on the shoulder, and a polite English "excuse me".
The take home message is that all these ideas end up corrupted and manipulated for the hoi poloi and their subservience to a governing class. I can't see it any other way.
I think it is still possible to salvage some good ideas. I have a fondness for Buddhism (even though not a Buddhist), as it seems to me that the core principles are pretty good, and it is only later that much religious nonsense was wrapped around them. An example of why I have that fondness is a recent statement by the Dalai Lama that he would be prepared to modify even his core beliefs based on the findings of science. (OK, so I am not so much a fan of the Dalai Lama himself, but it shows a reasonableness about Buddhism that seems sadly lacking from monotheisms).
Other Comments by steve99
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
51. Comment #84462 by BaronOchs on November 2, 2007 at 5:01 am
Accepting a scientific theory constructed with full attention to Occam's Razor etcetera that has as its subject experiments which can be repeated indefintely may involves some little kind of jump. You drop a tennis ball 999 times and it hits the ground, how can you infer it will on the 1000th? Difficult and of course famous question. The response certainly should not be "well I can't be 100% sure the sun will rise tommorrow but I still believe that so really anything goes. Someone claims a man in C1st Galilee was born of a virgin, died, rose again, ascended into heaven, although all this wasn't documented until some time after the event in documents that do not entirely agree and were written down by his followers in any case . . .well if I can believe Newton's theory of gravity without absolute proof why not this?
Like Sam Harris says (or something like) Science requires a small epistemological puddle-hop, Religion, a trans-atlantic flight.
Other Comments by BaronOchs