Questions for Christians

[AAA]

I will agree with you on this though: the most important ingredient required for swallowing the gospels hook, line, and sinker, as though they are historical texts, is "faith". They simply cannot be considered adequate evidence to accept the truth of their miracle claims. Anybody who thinks they can should first answer the Sai Baba gospel example I provided earlier

The problem I see here is the idea that Christianity can be PROVEN by REASON ALONE. Christians and atheists need to realize this is not possible.

Not only do I realize that, I maintain that reason ought to lead one to reject Christianity.

Everything can be "explained away" by the person who refuses to contemplate the possibility that God exists as we claim. In the same manner, we can also REFUSE to believe that George Washington was the first president.

I do not refuse to contemplate the possibility that the Christian god is real, and I would suggest that the vast majority of atheists do not make this refusal either.

We do contemplate this possibility. In fact, as a Christian, I once wholeheartedly believed in this possibility.

It is after the application of critical thought (read: intellectual honesty) to the evidence and arguments that believers bring forward that atheists, myself included, come to reject Christianity. We don't "explain away" theisms by closing our minds and waving our hands, which is almost certainly what one would have to do if one was to deny that George Washington was the first American president. We engage theistic claims head-on in an intellectually honest fashion, as I am doing here in this thread with you and others.

In my experience, it is believers who refuse to contemplate the possibility that their favourite deity does not exist. In fact, contemplating the possibility that the Christian god does not exist is often specifically discouraged. (Just ask Abraham when you get your chance. ;) )

 

[AAA]

In the same manner, we can also REFUSE to believe that George Washington was the first president. This "knowledge" is based upon the reasonable BELIEF that men recorded faithfully that Washington WAS the first president of the US. But the "non-believer" can also refuse to believe it by not having faith in the historical accounts.

I'm no expert on the historical evidence supporting the claim that George Washington was the first president of the US, but I'd be willing to bet my life that it is much more robust than the historical evidence supporting the extraordinary claims made by Christianity, so this analogy is almost certainly a terrible one.

While there can be no doubt that the gospels are theological in nature, wavy rendered a terrible blow to the historicity of the gospel accounts, and I have not seen a single reasoned rebuttal in this thread to his powerful post, which I will copy below(emphasis is mine):

The gospel authors weren't historians (Luke included). They never cite sources, Matthew and Luke freely plagiarize Mark and embellish, (we only deduce that Mark is their source from literary analysis), and we don't know the reliability of their sources either because they derive from the very groups that are religiously devoted to these stories being true. If you wanted to evaluate the historicity of Joseph Smith receiving golden tablets from an angel, for example, you don't tap all your information from a fanatic group of illiterate Mormons and ask them about the 'truth' of their beliefs. All you're invariably going to receive is a unilateral, tendentious version of the 'facts' involved principally concerned with supporting the validity of Mormonism...on the basis of Mormon beliefs themselves! This kind of 'exclusive bias', in a manner of speaking, cannot be seriously compared, I don't think, with the ineluctable, 'universal bias' that everyone shares, since we all individually hold a unique 'perspective' on things.

 

[AAA]

Our faith is reasonable, but it is outside of the realm of scientific evidence, much the same way that the theory of evolution is based upon faith and is not scientifically proveable, or having faith that your car will start and get you to work today...

It is reasonable to conclude that the laws of physics are constant on earth, and so it is reasonable to fly in planes at 40,000 feet. The science of statistics also tells us how incredibly safe it is to fly commercially, so nobody needs to accept anything on "faith" to do so.

This analogy, like the ones you provided, including the one to the Theory of Evolution (ToE), are terrible ones for Christian theism, which has nothing but the weakest possible evidence to support its extraordinary claims. In contrast to the ToE, the claims of Christian theism do not produce testable hypotheses, and cannot be falsified. Christianity carries no good evidence or argumentation to significantly set it apart from all the thousands of theisms that co-exist or have preceded it through the ages, and which you surely consider to be false.

Faith in God is also reasonable and explainable, since there should be no contradiction between faith and reason.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this commonly held fallacy: faith is required whenever belief is unjustified, for if the belief were justified, then faith would no longer be required. Faith is the filler that closes the gap between reason and belief. The larger that gap is (and for Christian theism, it is huge), the more faith is required, and the less reasoned the belief is. Faith and reason are in fact, in conflict.

 

[AAA]

Five proofs of God's existance according to St. Thomas Aquinas:

As your own words indicate for each of the 5 points, none amount to proof of the existence of the Christian, or any, god.

The bottom line is this: no logic can prove the existence of a god, let alone the Christian god. The only thing that can do that is empirical evidence.

 

[francisdesales]

The problem I see here is the idea that Christianity can be PROVEN by REASON ALONE. Christians and atheists need to realize this is not possible.

Not only do I realize that, I maintain that reason ought to lead one to reject Christianity.

Then you should also reject practically everything you know about history...

The reasoning you give for rejecting Christianity is inconsistent, as I already have laid out.

I do not refuse to contemplate the possibility that the Christian god is real, and I would suggest that the vast majority of atheists do not make this refusal either.

Your refusal to contemplate the existence of God is inconsistent with your non-refusal to contemplate the existence of George Washington or Alexander the Great. As I have said, you have set the bar "too high" for the Christian God to exist, in your opinion. It is based upon philosophical misgivings. You have not proved otherwise, and merely denying it is insufficient to prove it.

It is after the application of critical thought (read: intellectual honesty) to the evidence and arguments that believers bring forward that atheists, myself included, come to reject Christianity.

"Intellectual honesty"??? This is typical of the "atheist". "MY" point of view is based upon "intellectual honesty" and you are intellectually dishonest to believe in God. Ad hominem based upon inability to understand that a person can have a difference of opinion WHILE being intellectually honest...

It appears you have been duped by your own "side's" propaganda. "We" are intellectually honest, theists are intellectually dishonest and must lie to themselves to come to belief...

You "reject" Christianity because you "expect" proof that God has not met YOUR expectations. My "bar" is not set as high as yours, friend, as I am more consistent with history. Rather than accepting that God desires men with faith AND reasoning, you expect Christianity to be self-authenticating - WHILE simultaneously giving every historical figure older than 100 years a free pass... THAT'S intellectual honesty???

:biglol

We don't "explain away" theisms by closing our minds and waving our hands, which is almost certainly what one would have to do if one was to deny that George Washington was the first American president. We engage theistic claims head-on in an intellectually honest fashion, as I am doing here in this thread with you and others.

I use George Washington as an example of a paradigm that demands a particular point of view. If I have a philosophical concept that George Washington CANNOT exist, then I will deny ANY evidence to the contrary. I will claim that historians colluded to enact some sort of conspiracy against John Adams by inventing a George Washington figure.

History is based upon believing the author of a writing. Historians commonly give each other the benefit of the doubt, UNTIL they are proven to be incorrect or embellishing, based upon evidence from a number of other historians. And of course, even THIS is subject to "belief", since the number of "unembellishing" historians do not make THEM correct. Anyone familiar with military history knows that the victor writes the history. Quite frankly, much of what we know about history is based on the belief that the victor correctly related what happened.

As to the writings of the Apostles, you have not given any such evidence that what they wrote were MERELY embellishments unworthy of belief. If I accept the history of Alexander, why shouldn't I accept the history of Jesus Christ, which is much more detailed and has a greater historical authenticity, based upon a number of historical factors used in determining whether it is true or not?

In my experience, it is believers who refuse to contemplate the possibility that their favourite deity does not exist. In fact, contemplating the possibility that the Christian god does not exist is often specifically discouraged. (Just ask Abraham when you get your chance. ;) )

Perhaps you have forgotten "Catholic" post on the five proofs of God's Existence? How could someone as Aquinas NOT contemplate the possibility of God's existence/non-existence while devising these??? Classic Christian thought presumed God's existence - but that didn't mean they REFUSED to contemplate God's non-existence. Of course, the idea is ludicrous, so it is generally dismissed by the greatest thinkers of humanity.

While a person is coming to faith, there is a struggle with whether it (the Christian version, vs. Deism or some other form of theism) is all a big ruse. That is a false statement you are making. A thinking person clearly must prove to his own reason that the claims of Christianity are worthy of belief. During that initial period, there certainly IS the thought that Christianity is not true! An adult coming to the faith MUST do this. Perhaps you were born into the Christian faith and fell away, but it is different for those who CHOOSE to become Christian. The mature adult realizes that he must make "this" faith his own.

In addition, during difficult times, even a more seasoned Christian struggles with doubt. It is false to say that a believer "refuses" to contemplate the possibility that God does not exist. When a believer is faced with the problem of evil and must balance the idea of the Christian God, all sort of thoughts enter into one's head.

 

[francisdesales]

Our faith is reasonable, but it is outside of the realm of scientific evidence, much the same way that the theory of evolution is based upon faith and is not scientifically proveable, or having faith that your car will start and get you to work today...

It is reasonable to conclude that the laws of physics are constant on earth, and so it is reasonable to fly in planes at 40,000 feet. The science of statistics also tells us how incredibly safe it is to fly commercially, so nobody needs to accept anything on "faith" to do so.

Science and metaphysics are two different fields of study that utilize different "evidence standards". We both know that science is based upon empirical study and observation, and cannot be compared to religious or philosophical thought. As to whether a car will start or not, in practical terms, is a matter of faith, since no one actually measures the battery voltage or put their car on a load bank tester before they turn the key... The CURRENT state of the battery in said car is NOT empirically tested, so scientifically, you cannot prove it will start. All you can say is that "it started yesterday fine"... It is a matter of belief that past performance will predict future performance, knowing full-well that we are dealing with something that CAN fail and DOES fail - car batteries...

We aren't talking about general laws of science here. Thus, your disagreement is invalid.

This analogy, like the ones you provided, including the one to the Theory of Evolution (ToE), are terrible ones for Christian theism, which has nothing but the weakest possible evidence to support its extraordinary claims. In contrast to the ToE, the claims of Christian theism do not produce testable hypotheses, and cannot be falsified.

I disagree, since miracles happen in a religious context, making them worthy of belief that are based upon that context. In other words, when science says that someone's optic nerve is totally destroyed, and people pray to God for restoration - and it occurs, we can say we have a good basis to believe that this scientifically unexplainable event has a religious cause and effect.

I don't want to get into ToE, since you can NEVER prove that a supreme being did NOT put it into motion in the first place - PRESUMING that science is even correct (it remains merely a THEORY)... Even if I were to agree in the THEORY (since that is all it is) as valid, science cannot go beyond empirical evidence - and God is not measurable by scientific means. Thus, science is useless to prove/disprove God's existence, even as the intelligence behind the Theory of Evolution. Different forms of human knowledge is required, and ToE proves nothing about God's existence, scientifically speaking.

Christianity carries no good evidence or argumentation to significantly set it apart from all the thousands of theisms that co-exist or have preceded it through the ages, and which you surely consider to be false.

Sure it does. "NO" good evidence is your opinion, and merely stating that proves nothing. The burden of proof is upon you to discount my claim, not merely assert otherwise based upon your supposed "intellectual honesty".

Faith in God is also reasonable and explainable, since there should be no contradiction between faith and reason.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this commonly held fallacy: faith is required whenever belief is unjustified, for if the belief were justified, then faith would no longer be required. Faith is the filler that closes the gap between reason and belief. The larger that gap is (and for Christian theism, it is huge), the more faith is required, and the less reasoned the belief is. Faith and reason are in fact, in conflict.

[/quote]

Faith is required when belief is unjustified? Friend, that is a ridiculous statement! Are you even thinking when you write such stuff, or are you so taken in by the propaganda? Again, you have faith that your car will start, does that make it unjustified???

Or if you don't like that, do you have faith that your mother loves you??? Is that also unjustified belief??? Can you prove your mother loves you???? No, I think not... But your BELIEF must be unjustified, since all such belief is based upon unjustifiable presumptions???

Faith is not a "filler" that is blind or closes a "gap". The issue here is that you think human knowledge is only limited to what we can empirically measure. That is a philosophical paradigm that was invented in the post-Enlightenment era. Human knowledge goes far beyond what we can measure with instruments. Thus, I disagree with your proposition that faith is some sort of gap-filler that ties "true human knowledge" together with other pieces of "true human knowledge". Human knowledge goes beyond what we can scientifically measure. Even atheists must admit this - when they stop and reflect upon it.

How exactly does science measure love??? What unit of measure would it use? Clearly, there are a number of human interactions that are based upon "faith", rather than "scientifically measurable things". But would any atheist deny love's existence, because they have FAITH that they believe that their mother loves them??? Science cannot prove human motives.

Again, the atheist position is inconsistent and does not take reality fully into consideration.

Unless you can scientifically prove that your mother loves you...

 

[francisdesales]

Five proofs of God's existance according to St. Thomas Aquinas:

As your own words indicate for each of the 5 points, none amount to proof of the existence of the Christian, or any, god.

The bottom line is this: no logic can prove the existence of a god, let alone the Christian god. The only thing that can do that is empirical evidence.

First of all, I never presented the "Five proofs" as SCIENTIFIC proof. NOTHING in Aquinas proof's are scientific because science is based upon empirical measurements. Aquinas is discussing metaphysical issues, which have different standards of acceptance. I PERSONALLY stated that one CANNOT prove God's existence/non-existence with reason ALONE. Did I not make that perfectly clear??? Was it not I who said we cannot prove God's existence on reason alone?

Even Aquinas' reasoning does not PROVE God's existence, without an act of faith. These "proofs" are very good reasons, however, that appease man's desire to believe in something that is reasonable, rather than something silly or contradictory. They are acceptable metaphysical arguments. Aquinas provides clear reasons to the gentile that God exists and while not contradict human reasoning. They successfully answer your silly assertion that there is "no evidence" for the Christian God.

The bottom line is this: Empirical evidence is not the ONLY way man knows something... You are painting yourself into a philosophical corner that even you do not subscribe to, in real life. I suspect that you are merely arguing to argue, and arguing without reflecting on how you yourself actually live. The atheist, at the end of the day, is inconsistent between his "philosophy" and his practical life...

And this is "intellectual honest"???

 

[francisdesales]

I'm no expert on the historical evidence supporting the claim that George Washington was the first president of the US, but I'd be willing to bet my life that it is much more robust than the historical evidence supporting the extraordinary claims made by Christianity, so this analogy is almost certainly a terrible one.

Bet your life...??? That makes it somehow more solid of a claim? And you would complain about Christian martyrs?

You clearly are confused on what is PROOF and what is PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. Just because the preponderance of evidence states that George Washington was the first president does not ABSOLUTELY prove it, "scientifically speaking" to the "George Washington denier". The amount of "robust evidence" is inconsequential. This merely makes it more plausible, more likely. However, an act of faith is STILL required, to believe that historians were not duped by some conspiracy, or other historians were not merely copying false history and replicating it based upon false initial evidence.

In other words, what you attribute to the Gospels...

In the field of history, everything we know is based upon faith, unless you PERSONALLY witnessed it. Since you didn't personally witness George Washington, you have faith that the preponderance of evidence is indeed true. But this is an act of faith, whether you want to admit that or not.

 

[TheCatholic]

I'm no expert on the historical evidence supporting the claim that George Washington was the first president of the US, but I'd be willing to bet my life that it is much more robust than the historical evidence supporting the extraordinary claims made by Christianity, so this analogy is almost certainly a terrible one.

LOL. Thats one of the stupidest things I've ever read

 

[MarkT]

This whole 'it must be falsifiable or it isn't scientific' thing is so phony. Now the scientific types have to find a way to falsify their own existence to prove they exist, otherwise the knowledge of their own existence is in trouble ( because it can't be falsified it can't be scientific so it can't be knowledge and it must be rejected) Now they have to find some evidence that could show that they don't exist and finding a lack of evidence, they have to reject the idea that they exist.

 

[francisdesales]

This whole 'it must be falsifiable or it isn't scientific' thing is so phony. Now the scientific types have to find a way to falsify their own existence to prove they exist, otherwise the knowledge of their own existence is in trouble ( because it can't be falsified it can't be scientific so it can't be knowledge and it must be rejected) Now they have to find some evidence that could show that they don't exist and finding a lack of evidence, they have to reject the idea that they exist.

Mark,

Of course it is phony. It is generated by some scientists who have become pseudo-scientists, forgeting that their field of expertise is limited. In an effort to increase their self-worth and importance, they pretend that all human knowledge is limited by THEIR field of expertise - science. All other forms of knowledge, for which they are amateurs at best, are "wishful thinking" or "intellectual dishonesty". What is utterly obvious, and ironic, is that these same people live daily with human knowledge that does not utilize scientific empirical evidence, but is based upon the meeting of rational thought AND an act of faith - such as "Does my wife love me or is she just after my money"?

The ordinary person, sensing that man's knowledge is not limited by science, accepts as an act of faith based upon past observation that his wife does love him. The atheist of today who is consistent (a rare figure) would NEVER accept that his wife loved him, since it is not "scientifically proveable", and would suggest with his dying breath that his wife does not REALLY love him, since he cannot contenance an act of faith - it would be "intellectually dishonest", as all acts of faith supposedly are.

Naturally, this person would have lived an incredibly terrible life without love, but hey, at least he was "intellectually honest"....

Is it a wonder that true atheists die miserable and alone?

Regards

 

[AAA]

Francisdesales,

I admire your passion on the subjects of faith, and the quality of the historical evidence for the gospel claims of Christianity, and I am enjoying our conversation so far.

I think that you have raised some of the common objections, and at least one that I haven’t heard before. Perhaps I can try to summarize them before we move forward. In my experience, trying to summarize and understand an interlocutors opinions and arguments is a good way to ensure that a conversation is really getting to the heart of the relevant matters, so If you are inclined, I’d be interested in having you try to summarize what my arguments in our conversation have been, though I won’t hold you to that request, and I’d be happy to just move forward based on your arguments.

I will use a separate post for each argument I think you have raised and I will include quotes from your posts that I think support my summaries in each post (bold emphasis is mine). If I have failed to accurately summarize your arguments, then please explain what it is that I misunderstood. I look forward to continuing our conversation.

AAA

 

[AAA]

Argument #1

Atheists like me reject the gospels not because they represent poor quality historical evidence but because we are entrenched in a philosophical paradigm of absolute refusal to consider or accept miracles, or the existence of god, as even possible.

Everything can be "explained away" by the person who refuses to contemplate the possibility that God exists as we claim... my insistence that this is based upon philosophical a priori "it couldn't have happened that way because God wouldn't do that". This issue is not based upon historical lack of evidence, but your inability to accept that something IS...The easy way out is to set the bar so high that it is virtually inconceivable to "prove" anything. Again, this is more a philosophical mindset, rather than lack of historical evidence... This is not a matter of a lack of evidence, but a philosophical problem. Your obstacle in this lies in your philosophical idea that "this cannot have happened" and "God would not do this"... People do not accept the Gospels because it invades their philosophical preconceptions, so it is easier to pretend that they are inventions then consider that they need to change their way of thinking and living.

 

[AAA]

Argument #2

In general, we should accept the claims made by historical sources at face value, unless other equally or more reliable historical evidence shows otherwise, because our historical sources, and people in general, ought to be trusted.

Those who wrote these gospels were known by other people and their lives were proof that their writings were worthy of belief...Practically everything we believe is based upon the acceptance that others DID witness something and reliably give accounting of that witness... We can approach the individual writings as we approach any other writing, and have confidence that the writings as a whole are worthy of belief. The rest flows from that.... A writer is not taken seriously ONLY when OTHER sources that are reliable are taken together and discount the first source, calling into question the validity of the first source...History is based upon believing the author of a writing. Historians commonly give each other the benefit of the doubt, UNTIL they are proven to be incorrect or embellishing, based upon evidence from a number of other historians

The following was intended to describe my view, which you thought was the alternative to yours:

You don't trust anyone, not because someone's life vouches for his writings and that he wouldn't trick anyone, but because all men are liars and deceitful... Apparently, you seem to believe that men are incapable of living good lives without the desire to "trick" others. Thus, we must discount everything that was written about the ancient world, since "everyone" is out to stretch the truth to make themselves or their belief "better"... Further proof that this is a philosophical problem. You don't trust anyone, not because someone's life vouches for his writings and that he wouldn't trick anyone, but because all men are liars and deceitful.

Ie. writers should be and are considered historically truthful unless one can show otherwise...

 

[AAA]

Argument #3

Extraordinary historical claims (like miracle claims) don’t require any more or better quality historical evidence than mundane historical claims. Furthermore, the quality of the historical evidence represented by the gospels is on par with the quality of historical evidence for most historical claims that are more than a hundred years old, including ones as specific as “George Washington was the first US presidentâ€.

It is not necessary for "extraordinary evidence" to be available … those on the ground at the time vouch for the extraordinary evidence... Practically everything we believe is based upon the acceptance that others DID witness something and reliably give accounting of that witness... miracles happen in a religious context, making them worthy of belief that are based upon that context...The reasoning you give for rejecting Christianity is inconsistent...you should also reject practically everything you know about history... Your refusal to contemplate the existence of God is inconsistent with your non-refusal to contemplate the existence of George Washington...you expect Christianity to be self-authenticating - WHILE simultaneously giving every historical figure older than 100 years a free pass

 

[AAA]

Argument #4

“Religious Christian faith†is similar to, or at least as reasonable as, the “faith†that people appear to have in dealing with the mundane uncertainties of life, like whether their car will start in the morning.

Our faith is reasonable...much the same way that ... having faith that your car will start and get you to work today. Our life is BASED upon reasonable faith in a variety of things and events that we take for granted. Faith in God is also reasonable and explainable...whether a car will start or not... is a matter of faith

 

[AAA]

Argument #5

Atheists like me have a philosophical misgiving that requires repeatable experimental evidence (“proofâ€) to form a belief. Accordingly, we “set the bar too high†for all kinds of belief, including belief in Christian theism.

The issue here is that you think human knowledge is only limited to what we can empirically measure...the atheist position is inconsistent and does not take reality fully into consideration...You "reject" Christianity because you "expect" proof that God has not met YOUR expectations. My "bar" is not set as high as yours, friend, as I am more consistent...As I have said, you have set the bar "too high" for the Christian God to exist, in your opinion. It is based upon philosophical misgivings.

 

[AAA]

Argument #6

“True†or consistent atheists, who are rare (ie. most of us are inconsistent, and “fake†atheists), require “proof†ALL the time to form ANY belief. Accordingly, they are unable to love and accept love (since love cannot be proven) providing them with lonely lives, dying miserable and alone.

The atheist, at the end of the day, is inconsistent between his "philosophy" and his practical life... The atheist of today who is consistent (a rare figure) would NEVER accept that his wife loved him, since it is not "scientifically proveable", and would suggest with his dying breath that his wife does not REALLY love him, since he cannot contenance an act of faith - it would be "intellectually dishonest", as all acts of faith supposedly are... this person would have lived an incredibly terrible life without love...Is it a wonder that true atheists die miserable and alone?

 

[AAA]

Argument #7

Bias is unavoidable, and really shouldn’t factor into considerations of historicity. (Others have also advanced this argument here relating to the quality of the historical evidence found in the gospels.)

As to "unbiased", practically every writing is biased in some way. Even scientific journals are full of bias, bias for one's own opinions and hypothesis... Historical accounts are biased. Read battlefield accounts by the winners and then the losers... You'll get the point. Bias does not discount the validity of the basic truth of a writing. A writer is not taken seriously ONLY when OTHER sources that are reliable are taken together and discount the first source, calling into question the validity of the first source.

 

[AAA]

I'm no expert on the historical evidence supporting the claim that George Washington was the first president of the US, but I'd be willing to bet my life that it is much more robust than the historical evidence supporting the extraordinary claims made by Christianity, so this analogy is almost certainly a terrible one.

LOL. Thats one of the stupidest things I've ever read

Well TheCatholic, I'm glad that it at least put a smile on your face then. :ohwell

(Hopefully, it also made you feel more intelligent).