by VorJack
Victor J. Stenger, author of works like God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist, came out with a work last year titled The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason. In it, Stenger apparently has a section on the nonhistoricity of Jesus.
First off, he doesn’t do himself any favors by confusing Philo and Josephus. It looks like a simple mistake of confusing quotes, but someone should have caught it.
But second, is this really the battle we want to be fighting?
I know I’m suspect in this discussion, because I’ve stated that I do not accept mythicism. But I think it should be pointed out that even the most scholarly of the mythicists – Robert Price and Richard Carrier – acknowledge that it’s a very complex argument.
For example, Carrier has pointed out that a lot of the arguments from previous generations of mythicists have been really bad. Pointing to parallels between the Gospel stories and other myths in the Greco-Roman world doesn’t cut it. You need to explain why the biblical authors were adapting those stories. Carrier has argued that you really need a solid grasp of Jewish writings and other ancient literature before you can understand what was going on.
Lacking that knowledge, the mythicist argument is going to be counter-intuitive and, therefor, a hard sell.
In contrast, what do we gain from making the mythicist argument? If nothing else, it should be noted that even to mythicists, Paul and the authors of the Gospels did believe in Jesus – just a semi-divine Jesus who wasn’t present on earth. If we could, through masterful debate and sound reason, push believers back to that point, we still haven’t really gained anything for atheism.
I’m not going to argue against mythicism here, but I will argue that mythicism should not become a plank in the New Atheist platform. It is a difficult argument that stands to gain us very little.
My stance on mythicism is that the very existence of the argument is something that christians should be aware of. As I understand it, the main argument against it is that it’s not really supported by any evidence, in the same way as Jesus historicity isn’t supported by any evidence; mythicism is essentially the argument from silence. But the fact that there isn’t really a solid piece of evidence that you can hold up to refute mythicism should be an important and serious warning to people who want to build a picture of Jesus as a historical figure.
Agreed. I hear a lot of atheists say they are willing to accept the historical Jesus as a real person, but I always wonder what they base this on. I’ve gone plenty of rounds with hardcore theists (and used to be one myself) and never, ever come across anything in favour of Jesus outside of the usual Tacitus/Josephus texts, and they have their own problems. So what do the atheists have up their sleeves?
Having studied literature, mythology, etc. at University, I see so many tell-tale markers in the gospels that scream myth or fable. It’s far from concrete, but I think it’s easy to see why someone would lean heavily in that direction. I do myself. Of course, I’m not banking my eternal soul on it, which means I’m always open to new information to help re-evaluate my position.
I think, personally, that while it is somewhat important to throw out there during a debate, e.g. “due to lack of evidence, we can’t even be sure of the existence of the person you call God…”, the argument itself is a dead-end, and should probably be followed by, “…but let’s assume for the sake of argument that he did exist as a historical person…”. It’s usually way too much of a leap for a person who is already invested in the man-God figure to attack the historicity of the man.
I don’t think atheists who are willing to accept an historical Jesus are basing that on any extra information or evidence they may have. To me it’s just that the point isn’t whether or not a guy named Jesus existed, but whether a guy named Jesus who was god incarnate existed. Usually giving the ground that Jesus existed but was schizophrenic or a charlatan is good enough for most atheists’ arguments.
Also, I’ve always wondered how much evidence we should expect to find for Jesus. Wasn’t he basically a traveling preacher with 12 friends who was executed for blasphemy? It’s not like he led a successful rebellion against the Romans or anything else that typically gets you in the history books.
You’re probably right, but to me it seems like it would be difficult to argue a guy was schizophrenic or not if you can’t first say whether he even existed. Though my comment was also meant to refer to some atheists who seem to not just be willing to accept Jesus’ possible existence (which was how I phrased it, my bad) but actively believe it and see mythicists as kooks.
Personally, I don’t find the need to believe he was either a schizophrenic or a charlatan. He could quite easily have been a good man, a teacher or a leader without being (or even claiming to have been) the son of God.
I agree with you there. I think I had C.S. Lewis’ “mad, bad, or god trichotomy” on my mind while composing that comment. I suppose the more general phrasing of my point would be that atheists who believe / accept that Jesus might have existed would think that the gospel accounts are myths based on a real person rather than myths created whole cloth.
In any event, I think I agree with VorJack’s original point about mythicism being a dead end in terms of trying to convince Christians that their religion is false. For the believers the proof that Jesus existed is the Bible and the church itself. The argument should still be advanced in my opinion though, because anything that makes someone think about the truth in their religion is at least better than nothing.
I always figured he was the best con artist ever IF he existed. I just find it interesting that there are no records for him. Almost every other important historical figure of that time is recorded including other executions but not this one.
Well we can be sure that somebody early on was one of the best con artists ever. I’m still not sure how religions manage to get adults to convert and then pay money to spend Sunday mornings listening to some babble about a super powerful magic man who ends up doing nothing for anyone.
Thinking about it a bit more starting a church around a mythical figure might be easier than starting one around yourself. I imagine it would be easier to sell people on a guy you knew who was the son of god and could do all sorts of miraculous things, rather than claiming that you could perform miracles yourself. Basically when someone says “oh yeah, show me” you can respond “well the thing is my mysterious, magical friend was recently executed.”
“I’m still not sure how religions manage to get adults to convert and then pay money to spend Sunday mornings listening to some babble about a super powerful magic man who ends up doing nothing for anyone.”
But that’s just bronze age _________ (fill in preferred superhero film)!
You can’t gain anything for atheism. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, no matter how likely it is that that’s the case. It is equally impossible to prove that god exists, not only because there is no way to know, but more importantly, because the god myths do not support themselves, logically.
It depends how you define God. If you define God as a large purple banana hovering above my house, then *checks out the window* I’m fairly sure I just proved he/she/it doesn’t exist.
In the same way, with simple and verifiable observations about the world, you can definitely prove that some – many – Gods are much less likely to exist than to not exist. (Does that make sense? Sorry about the double negative).
It is also much easier to prove that most Gods exist than that they do not. The problem is that they haven’t been proven to exist, so those who are inclined to believe in God are forced to believe in a God who by necessity cannot be shown to exist.
@ confused.
I’m not sure if the burden of proof lies on the Christian (or non-mythicist). To make a claim contrary to what the bulk of New Testament scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) assert requires the claim to have pretty outstanding and compelling evidence. Claiming the New Testament borrows stories from Greek and pagan mythology is simply outdated scholarship…
I’d agree with Vorjack that mythicism isn’t the best place to hedge the new atheists’ bets. It really isn’t even a viable place to diversify. It would parallel to investing in Enron now, or calling up Bernie Madoff and asking him to take care of your money. Mythicism has already been exposed as being less than reputable.
There’s more to the argument than ‘this looks familiar’, and I would say the burden of proof lies on those who are making a positive claim. They say Jesus existed, but can provide scant evidence that it was so.
Uh, no, any assertion, including that of the New Testament scholars, should require proof, otherwise it’s just an assumption. The fact that theologians have been making an assumption for 1900 years doesn’t make it any less of an assumption.
The burden of proof for mythicism lies squarely with the mythicists, and that’s why I view mythicism with some skepticism. What I think is quite interesting – and something that historicists should pay close attention to – is the kind of arguments that are used to dismiss mythicism (argument from silence, “outdated” scholarship, although that’s not an argument I’m equipped to get into), and what that implies for the strength of their assumptions on Jesus historicity.
“Claiming the New Testament borrows stories from Greek and pagan mythology is simply outdated scholarship…”
No, it’s not.
Without saying anything about the actual existence of the Jesus character, it is still fairly clear that a lot of other cultures mythology got ‘borrowed’ for the mythical aspects of the Christ character.
This is not unexpected. This period of history is a great mashup of Greek philosophy with other cultures and belief systems.
@ Ty,
If you can’t accept that there is an actual historical Jesus (whether or not he is depicted accurately in the Bible is irrelevant) to be discovered, then we should never waste our time with historical texts at all – religious or otherwise. The NT manuscripts are the most documented and consistent pieces of ancient literature ever. With over 50,000 manuscripts in 12 centuries since the autographs are thought to have been written, the NT is unparalleled amongst ancient literature. The next closest in terms of textual strength is “The Illiad” with the first manuscript being a fragment over 300 years after the autograph is thought to have been written.
In light of the impressive and expansive textual evidence, denying the existence of Jesus being a historical figure (regardless if you think mythical elements were introduced) is completely incoherent. Jesus of Nazareth did walk the earth some 2000 years ago, that is indisputable. You can debate the truthfulness of the recordings of his actions, not his existence.
Could you cite some of the elements of other culture’s mythology which were used as sources for mythologizing Jesus? I’ve heard a few ideas, but I’m wondering what you are specifically thinking of… could you be as specific as possible so I know exactly what mythological episode you’re referring to?
Thanks!
Well, off the top of my head, born of a virgin is well covered territory long before Jesus arrived.
But your fairly strong and, frankly silly, assertions about the historical value of the gospel accounts makes me believe you haven’t actually done much research on this topic.
The NT manuscripts are the most documented and consistent pieces of ancient literature ever.
No. Just … no.
First off, there’s the confusion of categories. Is it literature or is it history? If it’s literature, what on earth can you mean by “documented”? If it’s history, then what documentation do you mean? No Gospel author cites his sources, not even in the ancient manner (“Plutarch says …”)
There are only a few examples of documents that came from outside the Christian movement that even mention the movement before the 2nd century. All of our major sources come from within the movement, composed of people who were reading each other’s works and sharing each other’s stories.
These, therefore, are not completely independent sources. And that’s what we need to verify the historical accuracy of the story. If I say that s0-and-so rose from the dead, and he just repeats what I told him, and she just repeats what he told her, then this really proves nothing. Do you see?
With over 50,000 manuscripts in 12 centuries since the autographs are thought to have been written, the NT is unparalleled amongst ancient literature.
Agreed, it was very popular. Having an institution dedicated towards spreading your message is very healthy if you’re a book. But so what? How does this bear on its accuracy, or it’s historicity?
The next closest in terms of textual strength is “The Illiad” with the first manuscript being a fragment over 300 years after the autograph is thought to have been written.
Again, so what? Show me a historian – hell, show me a sane human being – who thinks that The Illiad is historically accurate. I want to meet them. Well, from a distance, at any rate.
@ Vorjack
It is historical literature, not either/or. I pointed this out in an earlier post you wrote. The NT isn’t just “one thing or the other” in terms of genre. Acts is a historical book, giving incredible detail to various events, governors who were ruling, and even a first person account of events that occurred. The Gospels are historical books – and, concerning your claim that no one citing sources, Luke gave a general citation at the beginning of Luke, and secondly, why would the Gospel writers need to cite sources for things they saw first-hand? Moreover, you are confusing Greek scribal tendencies with Hebrew ones (Hebrews had no problem with lifting information from other books and reorganizing in various ways – plagiarism now, but the norm then).
Every letter is peppered with historical bits and pieces interwoven into the teaching, for example, In Paul’s letters we can discern that the town of Corinth was notoriously a sexually loose city, or that there was an in-house debate concerning the gnostic gospel (due in part to the apocryphal books like the Gospel of Judas, Peter, Abraham, and Enoch), all of which can be verified by other historical sources.
In terms of general historical accuracy such as rulers and cultural norms, (not including the miracles or elements which you claim are mythical), the Bible has not been shown to be inaccurate.
Certainly you would agree that the early church (until Constantine legalized Christianity) was anything but a massive institution similar to the Catholic or Protestant churches today.
With something like the NT, where it was hugely popular before the end of the 1st century, the people who were converting were first person witnesses of the events or were not aware of any reasons for not believing it. This wasn’t some pop-culture novel – it was claiming to be historical fact.
The facts that they were spreading were that Jesus was both man and God, walked the earth and taught with incredible authority, was accused of blaspheming and was subsequently crucified. On the third day he rose from the dead, signifying that his divine claims were true.
The importance of the textual accuracy is that we can be very reasonable in believing that the Bible that we have today contains the same information as the texts the Church had 1900 years ago (this doesn’t prove anything, as you pointed out) – the point is that myth wasn’t installed later down the road. It could only have been applied at its original inception. Which begs the question, “Why would different individuals conspire to fabricate a lie which led to the death of all but one of them?”
Obviously, they could have done just that – lied. Or they could have been mistaken. That doesn’t make much sense either in light of Jewish understandings of the Messiah, which was that he would establish an immanent political rule. So the belief that Jesus rose from the dead could come only from them actually seeing Jesus be raised.
The bible never claims those books you claimed are historical, but you. God can damn well show his existence to mankind without your lying claims if he does exists. He does not need a liar.
whoa!
Darkmatter, I am not sure where you think I intentionally lied. I can certainly be mistaken, but I wouldn’t intentionally deceive people so they would believe what I do!
Could you please explain where you think that I lied?
“Could you please explain where you think that I lied?”
You don’t have to pretend your innocence, it’s useless here. It just make you look silly.
DarkMatter:
Sooooo, what am I guilty of then?
Don’t pretend to be stupid, silly pig.
Well, the Bible claims that David was the ruler of a mighty and powerful kingdom whose palace was built with 3,000 tonnes of gold and had as many men under arms as the modern US does; but it’s now generally agreed that (if he existed) he ruled about as far as he could see from the top of his hill.
Exodus falsely claims that the Egyptians used Hebrew slave labour, and the Israelites somehow managed to spend 40 years lost in a desert that’s only 10 day’s walk across. And when they finally settled down, they did so in Canaan, which (at the time) was a part of Egypt, making it a poor choice for escaping Egypt.
Jonah claims that the city of Ninevah would take 3 days to walk across, making it larger than any modern city. Habakkuk says that the Chaldeans rode horses that were faster than leopards and more fierce than wolves.
Daniel claims that the royal line of Persia goes Nebuchadnezzar -> Belshazzar -> Darius, rather than the actual lineage of Nebuchadnezzar -> Awil-Marduk -> Nergal-shar-usur -> Nabonidus (Belshazzar was his viceroy) -> Cyrus.
Then there’s Herod’s Slaughter of the Innocents, which is known to have never happened; and the Census of Qurienius, which absolutely didn’t require people to move to a different town, didn’t cover the entire Roman Empire, and didn’t take place during Herod’s reign; there was no eclipse recorded at any time near Jesus’ possible death.
Want me to go on?
“Show me a historian – hell, show me a sane human being – who thinks that The Illiad is historically accurate.”
Noble effort VorJack, but I highly doubt Brian actually knows what The Illiad is. He is just quoting Josh McDowell.
Nox,
I wasn’t trying to claim that the events in the Illiad were historical. I was trying to point out that later additions are not present in the gospels because of how close the first manuscripts we have are from when the autographs are believed to have been written, and we don’t have this luxury with the Illiad.
Not quoting McDowell (even if I was, how would that refute or rebut my claim?), I have actually done some studying of the texts.
I’m not a NT scholar, so these are not the sort of arguments I engage in in my own historical studies. Personally, I have no issue if there was a Yeshua from Galilee that caused enough of a disturbance he got himself killed by crucifixion. I think there is probably more traction in Social Memory studies for how his followers and early Christians began remembering him and the stories and events he began to be associated with; usually to meet the present needs of the remembering community.
In social memory theories the process of remembering the past is dynamic because it is wired into the ever shifting present, so their is a synergistic relationship between the two; however, and this is important, the past does set limits on the social memory of the group; e.g. there is some sort of ‘historical’ event, but it is reified in the present in a way that is meaningful and normative.
As to there being parallels. Any discourse must take place within linguistic and conceptual categories that exist or else it is meaningless. For a first century person to convey the metaphysical meaning of the ‘Christ’ event it would be expected for that discourse to take place within narratives and language that conveys meaning. Especially when they began to try to convey that meaning to non-Jewish audiences.
I am convinced by the mythicist arguments, especially by the case put forward by Earl Doherty in his “The Jesus Puzzle” and more recent “Jesus: Neither God Nor Man – The Case for a Mythical Jesus.” However, referring to Stenger’s mistake, it’s as I’ve always said, if we want to convince the believers of anything, we have to get our facts straight. Stenger is an excellent physicist, but not being an historian of Christianity, it’s unfortunate, but perhaps not surprising, that he would commit such an elementary error.
“the New Atheist platform”
Contradiction in terms friend. Non-belief (atheism) is neither new nor is there any ‘platform’ from which it may stably stand (since nothing can not stand upon its own…nothing ‘ness’) there is simply no-thing, is entirely unsubstantial, a vast void of unbelief, a repudiation of its own originality and essence, its own highest, truest-intentioned ‘platform’ of being.
This is a tower of Babel, man erects a ‘platform’ made of earth, mortar and clay (all things of the material, ie matter, his human form alone, void of the Spirit) from which he attempts to ascend to his own, vainly-imagined ‘heavens’ meaning a high place in his consciousness (in and of) Himself to create an alternative reality of his own making (and unmaking).
So instead of a garden, an Edenic state within himself teeming with life, light, truth and Love, he ends up with a bleak and arid, dried up desert-of-human-reasoning experience in which he continues to wander aimlessly, nomadically, in perpetuity unless he ‘awakens’ and comes to his (true) self and spiritual senses as the prodigal son in us all has that ‘right’ to do, to RE-turn (a pre-fix, meaning we were at one time with Him, in the garden since you can’t be invited to RE-turn to a place you never were) back to our “Fathers house” from whence we (originally) came. If not we risk giving our breath and length of days to the ‘cruel one’, ie our false selves and sense of identity. We are in danger of living the lie and not the Truth, Who is Love.
This is the very essence of pride, in the way in which Love speaks of it, in its contrasting polarity and so remaining therein can only perpetuate an ever-widening separation, an even darker mattering of sorts, is the ultimate de-constructed/constructed ‘straw man’ edifice.
De-construct, you are building in vain, there is already a rest for you to enter into for Love has already built you a ‘house’, a beautiful and Ouranos-like dwelling in Him (Ephesians 2:22). He is ever watching for your RE-turn, longingly.
Ever seen the movie ‘Somewhere in Time’? There is hidden in it a beautiful and enduring truth and mystery. Sometimes the secular prophet speaks louder, far louder than the ‘Church’. All the best friends.
*heavy sigh*
Firstly, non-belief and atheism are two distinct things. We can have an argument about what atheism is, but this is blatantly misrepresenting it to suit your purposes. You have been posting here long enough to know this, so the only conclusion is that you’re lying to stir up trouble.
Also, “New Atheism” is an ideological movement among atheists, characterised by an outspoken criticism of religion and political activism. No, none of this is new – not atheism, not outspokenness, not political activism, but this particular wave of atheists – people like Dawkins, Dennett, Myers and Hitchens – operate under the moniker of “New Atheism”.
Your argument is as stupid as saying George Bush wasn’t a Machiavellian psychopath because his name wasn’t Machiavelli.
Lying or Purposely Stupid.
There’s a difference?
There’s really no difference between the two.
You make it sound so hollow, I think you don’t know what you’re talking about. Well I know you don’t know what you’re talking about. Your made up truth fairytales light and love garden of smelling your own farts is calling, why don’t you go there and be quiet for a few days.
I read this excerpt over on Cynical-C about George Steinbrenner, and then I read a few more comments in this thread, and it sort of gelled in my mind over a couple hours:
http://www.cynical-c.com/?p=18464
Follow the whole article here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/181073/83512
I was also reading xkcd.com very early this morning:
http://xkcd.com/767/
It’s about Mr. Rogers, Fred Rogers, and the forum post related to this cartoon led to some sites where comments were 99% very positive that Mr. Rogers was as nice as you could ever get, and really as nice as he seemed. It’s easy to think in a few decades, no one alive will believe anyone was ever that nice for real.
I was just thinking of these things as they relate or don’t relate to Jesus myth/man/historicity. I lean toward Jesus didn’t really exist, he may have been a real guy but I don’t think it’s important. I haven’t read all there is, so I’m not sure. I used to lean toward he was obviously very charismatic and deluded like a manic bipolar person, but if so, wonder how many people wouldn’t have just locked him up rather than listen to an obvious rambling obsessive kind of talk, he wouldn’t be able to really finish his thoughts or say much of what he’s reported to have said. So I think there was maybe someone or they wished there was, some guy you’ve never met, yeah, he’s awesome. I’ll introduce you next time he comes to town. It builds and builds. If someone wants to get their agenda or ideas across, it might be easier to invent a friend who is the real “brains.” Then people thought he was real because it had been a while and nobody left to say he’s actually never been here.
You get some old guy in a diner talking about one of his friends from the good old days, they don’t make them like that anymore, he used to say this or that, but he’s dead or moved out of town now. People might start spreading the legend of the man who is talked about but might not have existed or said anything like the old guy repeats. Bigger than the man himself on rumors alone.
@John C
Not all of us need an invisible means of support my friend.
Not support, rather Life itself of a (whole) ‘nother kind and quality. You are right though, not all want it. As a wise old man once said ‘God finds it hard to give because He would only give His very best, and man finds it hard to receive because he would settle for far, far less’.
Respectfully intended,
All the best
Does his very best include the Leukemia he seems to like to give to little kids?
“‘God finds it hard to give because He would only give His very best, and man finds it hard to receive because he would settle for far, far less’.”
So kids with terminal illness’, mental retardation and many other horrible things are because we denied the help of a deity and accepted the ailment?
Also, my quality of life is likely higher than those of faith as I view death as an absolute negative. Viewing death as anything but negative puts your quality of life on a different, lower level. Morality makes me love life and my family.
No, morality causes you to live from a duality, from the tree of the knowledge of good AND evil, but in the spirit there is no potential for any other (kind and quality) of life to manifest itself, it is single-hearted, single-natured. The duality is what man(kind) wrestles with, is what Christ eradicates, that other man and nature in us.
Loving your family? Yes you are correct, Love causes you to love ‘your’ life and family.
Why do you quote and capitalize when it is absolutely not necessary? “your” and Love? Don’t tell me how morality makes me live. It makes me enjoy every moment I have in this random event. You didn’t respond to a key question so I will ask again: “So kids with terminal illness’, mental retardation and many other horrible things are because we denied the help of a deity and accepted the ailment?”
I, too, would like an answer to that.
I’d love an answer to that as well.
Hmmm, I Capitalize some words in because I when I’m thinking about how its going to sound I want to apply a little Emphasis certain words as I would when speaking to someone.
John C prolly does it because hes Bugfug crazy.
“Loving your family? Yes you are correct, Love causes you to love ‘your’ life and family.”
Why do you agree with me on something I did not say. I said morality makes me love life and my family. Don’t agree with me on something I did not say.
Have you forgotton god’s good and acceptable will? Stop telling people a liar, John.
Oh, fuck you, John.
You’ve just claimed that people like me, who are disabled, are disabled because we “settled for less”.
Do you not see just how offensive that is?
No, that’s not at all what I said Kitty, I am (always) speaking in inward terms, never outwardly, physically. I have always shown nothing but compassion, mercy, sympathy toward you, Siberia or anyone else who has a debilitating (outward/physical) condition or limitation.
May I kindly recommend a beautiful woman, who herself also had a debilitating physical limitation? There is much beauty, life, inner healing in the writings of Vassar Miller.
All the very best Kitty, Siberia…good night.
Oh, please. Don’t tell me you didn’t at the very least IMPLY that I, and others, are disabled due to rejecting your god, that we’ve “settled for less”.
It really pisses me off when christers say one thing, then claim they never said it. Seriously, it’s right fucking there, in black and white — and we can’t all be imagining it, now.
Be a man and own up to your words.
He really said it AND YOU WERE THERE!! Awesome!! Otherwise you are quoting stuff you can’t prove was said and are putting your name behind it. bummer dude.
I’d always thought that this was barking up the wrong tree a little as well. We already did find a whole new gospel that was left out of the Bible and how much did Christians care about that? But it might be worth asking Christians this – if they found out Jesus didn’t exist, would that change anything for them in terms of their values and how they live their lives? Is the morality of their principles really dependent on the existence of a specific being? If I found out Darwin, Locke and Jefferson were all figments, this would be shocking at first – but ultimately the principles we associate with them exist and must be coherent independently of them.
I think they would all have to revert to Judaism or admit they had it wrong. Catholics would ask you to prove the virgin Mary didn’t exist or the pope.
@ Michael Caton
The Gospel of Judas wasn’t introduced into the canon was for multiple reasons.
It contradicts many of the teachings of the 4 Gospels and Paul’s letters as well. The authenticity of the authorship is also undetermined. The early church fathers universally condemned the letter as being unorthodox. It is also an incomplete text.
Instead of granting the conditional premise that “Jesus didn’t exist,” (for this premise is outrageous to begin with) I’ll grant that “Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate but did not raise from the dead.” The former premise is not worth writing over again, because there is A historical Jesus – what is up for debate is who this historical figure was…
If Jesus died and it could be proven through philosophical, historical, societal, cultural, or scientific means, I would immediately recant my faith, adopt agnosticism, and begin studying to figure out what the most coherent worldview is after the collapse of Christianity.
I would still know stealing is wrong, I would still know that it’s not right to rape, murder, torture, and the like are all wrong too – just as atheists and agnostics do now. I wouldn’t have any solid philosophical reason for believing it, but I couldn’t ignore those moral obligations either.
I’d probably get really pissed at people who were still Christians, because it would be utter nonsense to believe in the Christian God when it had been proven that Christ did not raise from the dead.
However, until it is proven that Christ did not raise from the dead (or every other argument is crushed), I will continue to be a Christian, and I will be perfectly in my rights to reasonably believe so.
To point out something very quickly, I’d like to submit that (most) Christians don’t believe that non-Christians can’t perceive morality. I have friends who are atheists and agnostics, and I don’t keep a close eye on my wallet when they’re around because I know they are caring individuals who wouldn’t steal from me!
Christians believe that God has written his moral laws on the hearts of all men. The very existence of objective moral values gives us a strong reason to believe that God does exist.
1. For if God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values (when something is always morally wrong – i.e., the holocaust would still be wrong even if the Germans had won WWII and successfully brainwashed or exterminated everyone who disagreed) do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Logically, this is an airtight argument. You can argue the first 2 points, but until you refute them the conclusion is necessarily the only option we can come to.
@ Roz
You’re probably right – I might eventually convert to Judaism , but I’d first go on a binge drinking fest and lament that I’d wasted my life believing in a false worldview.
You, sir, are delusional. And your “logic” doesn’t make a damn bit of sense.
Just because some things — murder, rape — are nearly-universally considered wrong does NOT prove that “god” exists. In fact, I’d say that given your “god” and his approval of (and outright commands to commit) murder, rape, and genocide IN THE BIBLE, the only position that makes any sense is that the “holy” bible is a work of pure evil. In fact, according to the babble, your so-called savior was the product of “divine” rape! Your “love” of “god” is nothing more than Stockholm Syndrome, just as an abused wife “loves” her abuser.
Stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it.
Now wait a minute, wmdkitty.
I did not say specifically that the moral argument I posited above proved the existence of the Christian God. It wasn’t meant to prove that – it only gives me a very plausible reason for believing in a transcendent being who acts as an anchor point and objective ground which I can base morality on.
Allow me to elaborate a bit on what “God” is. God is the most perfect being that can be imagined (feel free to adopt the term “maximally great being”) – omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent (and the rest of the “omni’s” :). If a being fails to meet this criterion, it is not God.
So, if you believe that the God of the Bible did immoral things (which I wont interact with here), then he is not the transcendent moral anchor which my argument puts forth.
In your emotional claims against the morality of God, you have really affirmed my second premise, namely, that objective moral values do exist. You have not interacted with the first premise at all.
Once again, I would like to point out a very important element of this argument – it does not prove or make plausible the Christian God, it only posits the existence of a maximally great being conceptualized in the term “God.”
Weird how clinging to the existence of a god means you still have to come up with faulty logic to convince yourself it’s more likely true than not. While I realized I was an atheist, I tried to consider possible gods (just to make really sure of myself) something like this – a set of qualities below which one would not qualify for the title “god.” Not possible. I don’t know if it’s the only argument you have for this god, but the moral law doesn’t work.
You have a whole universe of physical laws that don’t require a god, but your fascinating argument chooses that a creator made the earth and make sure that humans know the difference between an absolute right and wrong. There’s no such thing. Rape used to be ok – it used to be ok to rape someone if they were married to you, and I think it’s still ok now. Soldiers rape captive women as part of their battle, not just because they can. They kill also. Sometimes killing is ok. We people of earth mostly tolerate it with conditions, while some have no conditions, and some have different conditions, and some are against it in every circumstance, even animals, even if those animals are pests to them and destroying their home. Sometimes that last group does what they must and forgive themselves for being only human.
Some people think there’s something immoral about being gay, and many who say there’s nothing wrong with it. Some people will cheat on money, they will take an extra newspaper, or not put the dollar in the coffee can when they fill their coffee cup in the coffee room at work. Many people will loaf at work if they can get away with it. Judging people. I think judging people is immoral, but we have to do it. Judges have to do it. It’s hard to go out on a first date with someone and not judge them, it’s hard to sign your kid up for nursery school and not judge the people who work there, and maybe how much smarter you think your kid is than everyone else’s kid. Ok, judging people is ok, but prejudging them is immoral. I don’t think there’s a god, do you?
I mean, based on human behavior, what we’ve been socialized to think is “ok” like gossip, like wearing skimpy clothes in public, or how late it’s ok to pay your electric bill – not a lot of simple agreement. You’ve got a few major things that are “always” wrong that aren’t always wrong. Sure, they disgust most people, but we’ve agreed together, over time and history, to some extent, how not to be asshoIes to each other. Yet millions of other things there is a right and wrong about that aren’t agreed upon. There is a personal balance here, each person is able to sleep at night even if they gave some pedestrian the finger and a cussin’ for walking too slow across the street while urgently texting someone about a Justin Bieber video. Not everyone is that much of a jerk to each other, but apparently we’ve all agreed that it’s ok enough not to outlaw it, that this is the world we live in.
Some will say it’s because those people have free will and use that will to reject god and his moral law, but the truth is, we’re just social animals and we’re intelligent enough to recognize over time and history when we’re less civilized, like slavery is outlawed, and women get to have jobs and wear pants at them, and gay people can marry each other, just some examples. There is no god that can explain how far we’ve come since we are here on earth, and why we haven’t always been as kind to one another as we have been for the last few decades, and why we’re still working at it and arguing with each other over it.
“Rape used to be ok – it used to be ok to rape someone if they were married to you, and I think it’s still ok now.”
Wow, clarifications: I don’t think it’s ok to rape your wife! I meant I believe this is still not against the law in some places. Huge difference!
Basically its pure ego in the thinking he is measuring himself by the standards of this objective morality.
Brian is saying, “I know whats right and wrong, that means I’m in touch with a higher power from whence all morals spring.” all the while they are lecturing someone about thier immorallity.
A few centuries earlier Brian would have been saying, “I know whats right and wrong, I’m in touch with a higher power from whence all morals spring.” all while he is stoning a woman to death for wearing a immodest dress.
These objective morals of yours they IF they are the product of a higher power, they don’t seem to be communicated all that well. Almost as if the communicator didn’t exist. Because these universal morals are communicated so imperfectly, then by your own definition they don’t come from god.
Sunny Day,
You are putting words into my mouth. I didn’t say, “I know what is right and wrong, you don’t.” On the contrary, I have vehemently affirmed that atheists, agnostics, and everyone in between can know and apprehend morals. I have been very, very clear in this assertion throughout this post.
Have you interacted with the argument I posted earlier? If you will, you can see that I am not saying anything derogatory about atheists or agnostics. I am merely making an assertion about the existence of objective morals and the theistic implication of their existence.
I did not say that these morals have been “communicated to us,” I only said that objective morals do exist, and that their existence points towards God (whomever he/she/it might be – this argument does not give us information on its specific identity).
Please interact with the original argument before assuming I’ve said something you disagree with.
“You are putting words into my mouth. I didn’t say, “I know what is right and wrong, you don’t.”
That’s probably why I didn’t say that in the first place. If you are going to be indignant about something don’t you think you should pick something I actually said?
What I did illustrate is how people’s beliefs in morals change. Hundreds of years ago you wouldn’t think the same things about morality as you do now. Either there is no objective morality or your “perfect” higher authority has imperfectly imparted the knowledge of morality to its creation.
“I am merely making an assertion about the existence of objective morals and the theistic implication of their existence.”
As I just did.
“I did not say that these morals have been “communicated to us,” I only said that objective morals do exist, and that their existence points towards God”
So just a bald assertion, with a stamp of the foot, that objective morals do so exist and somehow people just “know” about them without any transmission from the ultimate author of those morals.
“(whomever he/she/it might be – this argument does not give us information on its specific identity).”
That must be why I didn’t even address that point.
“Please interact with the original argument before assuming I’ve said something you disagree with.”
Please engage your reading comprehension before taking me to task over something I never said. As an added request you might want to respond to Kodie, she wasted more time and eloquence on you with her reply than I did. It’s ok though I understand the need to go after the low hanging fruit, its just a shame that you failed at that too.
@ Sunny Day
I was indignant that you implied I would be the first to throw a stone at an immodestly dressed person because I lived a few hundred years ago.
And you DID put words into my mouth. You wrote: “Brian is saying, ‘know whats right and wrong, that means I’m in touch with a higher power from whence all morals spring.” all the while they are lecturing someone about their immorallity.’” I was arguing against your assertion that I believed my ability to discern morality came from my belief in God and that without this belief I would not be able to comprehend morals.
So, because people’s gradual understanding of morals develop over time, objective morals don’t exist?
How does it logically follow that because people’s perception of morals change that, “there is no objective morality or your “perfect” higher authority has imperfectly imparted the knowledge of morality to its creation.” The development of morality fits perfectly under the umbrella of gradual revelation.
If we had an infinite number of past events, then yes, we would be right in arguing against God based on our imperfect perception of morality. We don’t have an infinite regress of past events and therefore haven’t had an infinite and sufficient number of events to have developed morality perfectly.
So based on your first explanation for why our understanding of morality develops (that objective moral values don’t exist) is shown to be fallacious – for the fact that our perception of morals has developed does not logically lead us to believe that there are no objective moral values. Your statement that our perception of morals have changed (based on your belief that I would have done our something so barbaric as to stone an immodest woman in a previous century) proves that you believe that they have progressed towards something better.
Either morals are like a curve approaching yet never reaching its limit (which necessarily requires an objective point of reference – the limit), or you have some subjective moral code which you believe is objective (based on your belief that our morals are getting better).
The reason why I did not respond to Kodies comment is two-fold.
First, I don’t have time to respond to every comment every person makes on here in response to what I say. However, I try to do so anyway. Secondly, some comments aren’t worth responding to either because I’ve already responded to the objection in a different post or there is nothing coherent to respond to.
Since you think her comment is worth responding to, I’ll go ahead and do that now.
Kodie,
Concerning your question as to other arguments for the existence of God – I have posted other arguments for the existence of God – each one provides different information about the nature of God.
Since you brought up the physical laws of the universe, I’ll mention the Teleological argument for God. This postulates that:
1. The fine tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, the fine tuning of the universe is due to design.
I think debating this argument at a later time would be better, but I just wanted to show that I have reasons for God’s existence outside of the moral argument.
Regarding your main sections:
I’ll stick with the morality of rape, since it seemed to be a major vein of your argument.
I would argue against it being OK to have raped somebody in past years. Just like Sunny Day explained, a few hundred years ago we would react differently to perceived immoral acts (like immodesty, sex outside of marriage, rape, misogynous behaviors, etc). However, we all (those of us involved in this discussion) would agree that it is not OK to stone somebody for too skimpy a dress, raping someone, or being misogynistic. Just because people approved of these things in the past doesn’t mean that it was morally right – all it means is that they were mistaken. Which, as I posted in response to Sunny Day, the gradual development of morality fits perfectly under the explanatory scope of gradual revelation.
I also discussed how, if we had an infinite number of past events, then we should not expect morality to require development. Since we don’t have an infinite number of past events, gradual development of morality is exactly what we should expect (just like we expect gradual development of medicine, mathematics, science, and the like)!
Finally, your assertion that we have been never been as kind to each other as we have over the last few decades is, IMO, wrong. More people have been killed in the last 100 years than any other century in the history of humanity. Two world wars, countless U.S. and international wars, apartheid, genocide in Africa, child soldiers… the list unfortunately goes on. It seems blatantly obvious to me that most of the world isn’t a very “neighborly” place.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
That’s an unsubstantiated claim. You base your argument on the fact that life as we know it can survive only if the basic physical constants are within a narrow range, The actual physical constants of the universe are within the range fit for life therefore the universe was designed to support life. However it could be argued that you’re looking at thing backwards and that life evolved in its current form because that what fit the fundamental physical properties of our universe and if the universe had a different set of physical constant then life would have evolved in a different form that would fit that altered universe.
“Since you brought up the physical laws of the universe, I’ll mention the Teleological argument for God. This postulates that:
1. The fine tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, the fine tuning of the universe is due to design. ”
Douglas Adams Puddle Logic. Greaaaaaat.
Here’s where you start off wrong. You need evidence of design before you can make your second assumption. You conclude design, you need to prove it to eliminate the other options. I am leaning toward “chance” of your choices, but it could be physical necessity, and I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive. I might be wrong in how it occurs to me, but “fine-tuning” follows by the physical necessity that that’s how things work, which may have occurred by chance, or may be the only way things can happen — because that’s how physical laws work.
There’s a hard and a soft here. Science and mathematics is a gradual revelation, to use your words (that doesn’t imply “god” to me). It exists and works with or without discovery or knowledge, and it is only by human endeavor that we know what that is.
Morality, I think differently. Different things work for different groups of people who agree this is best for the group. Smaller groups do not have the same needs as larger groups. There is more of a cultural and technological progress that takes place that causes society to re-assess what works and what doesn’t, and to redefine what is fair, and what isn’t, and who needs to be considered part of the group in order for the group to thrive. That’s not a gradual revelation, and it doesn’t “point to” a designer or creator or a moral law at some transcendent being. That is human course of history. There can be no valid reason a transcendent being would withhold this revelation from his divine creation if it were true. Look at it this way – if you knew everything that was right or wrong in the world and kept billions of people from knowing right or wrong, let them be mistaken for thousands and thousands of years, does that seem like the best example of the maker of that moral law? This points to “no god,” or none that matters.
You have also sneaked in some “umbrella of gradual revelation,” that we’re supposed to assume. While it is a useful explanation for human progress, it in no way assumes or points to a creator who is gradually revealing it to us.
I don’t know where your stats are on the killing business, but humans have a long history of justifying the waste of populations they don’t think are as good as their particular one.
As for the increasing kindness of humanity, and how far we still need to go (oh, how very far):
Slavery seems objectively wrong, but slavery used to be ok if you think black people are in the same category as an oxen. OMG, they’re people now? Just like me? Resentment of the fact, to this day. Some people still don’t accept it. What about child labor? Some people still think that’s ok, and not just in China or wherever we get all our cheap goods. I know an American that thinks a child ought to have the right to work if they would rather than go to school, and he didn’t think of that idea himself. Cheap labor? Many if not most American manufacturers would rather pay someone less money than more to do the same job: outsourcing. Most people in those countries are happy to get any work, but their conditions aren’t as strict as the US. If someone is imprisoned, it’s not against the law to pay them minimally to do hard labor. I used to work at a non-profit that got away with paying people almost nothing and getting a lot of extra “volunteer hours” out of them, and getting all that sweet help from the justice system, dozens of teenagers cycled through on their community service sentences.
Do not tell me slavery is wrong, people are doing it all the time, and nobody says it’s wrong. Not too many people. You still get these fools who want you to “buy American” if you are rich enough to afford it, which you should be able to keep that job if everyone is, but they’re not. Oppose child labor laws by not buying goods from China and other countries on the list. It’s wrong to enslave human beings, but it’s fair to pay them not enough and work them too long and screw them out of benefits. How else does anything get done in this world? People can be replaced by machines much more cheaply! And then not draw any pay. :(
Is this the gradual revelation of anyone who knows the ultimate difference between right and wrong? This being seems like they are just figuring out over time at the same rate as the rest of us, and need not exist, I mean doesn’t explain what you think is so obviously demonstrated, not even a little. It’s imaginary. You’ve seen something and you added a cause that’s not there. If you take away this superfluous explanation for anything, everything runs exactly the same.
I think that so-called teleological argument made me hurt myself from cringing my toes. Is that seriously one of your main “arguments” for the existence of God?
if (sample size) = 1 then FAIL.
Kodie,
I think we disagree at a major juncture in the moral argument (apart from the conclusion, obviously!) – namely, the existence of moral values which don’t change, regardless of what other people believe about them.
I would say slavery is wrong. I would wager a good amount of money you wouldn’t go out in public and say slavery is alright.
For the most part, I really wonder what most of your diatribes are pointing out. It’s just a random smattering of soapbox comments about child labor, tortured babies, slavery, and the industrial revolution effect on cheap labor.
But, you have at least been consistent in your belief concerning morality. You don’t believe in objective moral values, and you think that morality is illusory. You can’t have your cake (not believe in objective morals) and eat it too (think that certain things are wrong). Your intellectual position is certainly not enviable, though (I don’t mean that as an insult – i seriously think it would be more difficult to convince anybody of your view than anything else.)
Certainly you do have to have evidence to provide plausibility for the second premise, but one also has to eliminate the other two options.
I can’t think of any other options outside of the three I gave for the fine-tuning of the universe – if you know of any, let me know!
We know its not physical necessity, because all of the cosmic constants are independent of each other. Chance is certainly possible, but the odds are so astronomically outrageous that the multi-verse idea had to be invented.
So the implausibility of two of the three leaves only one option, unless i am sorely mistaken (if I am, tell me where in this first premise)…
Yoav,
I think this is what you are saying:
That even if the constants were different than what we now have, there could still be different forms of life in the universe other than the carbon-based life we are familiar with.
Hopefully that is what you’re saying! If I’m totally off-base, sorry in advance…
As a quick caveat – by “fine-tuning” I don’t mean “designed.” I mean that the constants and qualities of nature fall into a very small range which allow our universe to permit life. Regardless of how life appears because of evolution, if some of these constants (or even just one of them) varied even slightly, life in any sense of the word would not be possible. Hopefully that has answered your objection.
in addition, I think that it is a bit improper to throw out a bald option like I think you have done. To assert the possible existence of life that we have no idea about, or evidence for, other than a dislike for the alternatives, is inconsistent. You would be guilty of the very thing that atheists claim of theists – believing in something to rationalize one’s stance without any evidence (philosophical or empirical) to support it.
TRJ and Sunny day,
Do you have an objection to the argument?
I have concluded that you just can’t read and your skull is concrete! You can try to dismiss a list of real examples where slavery is pretty much a matter of how far away it is, or mentally define some idea what the threshold for a comfortable existence is, I mean, do you shop at Wal-mart or you know, anywhere?
I not too long ago spent about 8 months working for 60 hour weeks making $150 cash per week. Beyond 46-ish hours, I was daily begged to fill in for missing slots on the volunteer schedule in the evenings Thursday through Sunday (which meant I volunteered under duress and shouldn’t expect my “pay” to cover those hours), and the boss was not just mean, he was insane mean. Live, non-profit theatre “marketing” — yeah, I wasn’t picking cotton in the hot sun, breaking rocks, or tilling fields; I just traded my life for an artsy line on my resume until I felt like I was dying, until I realized they wanted me to work my ass off to help raise a MILLION dollars when I didn’t clear $10,000 for myself in a year. You could say I was complicit in slavery for not reporting him to the Board of Directors or the IRS, and I mostly feel ok about that. I mean, hey, I wasn’t literally chained to anything either. Just that everyone I knew, my friends and family, gasped in horror that I should leave a job I hadn’t had a full year, or quit without finding another job first (what spare time to do that?)
Oh, but slavery is w-r-o-n-gggg, because we’re defining it very narrowly to mean what we think is wrong, allowing things which we don’t currently define as the kind of slavery that’s obviously WRONG! You and your objective morality. It changes, dummy, that means it’s not objective. Some people think enslaving animals is cruel and immoral. Black people used to be considered in that category too (for white people’s service, chattel, not a person). Are children people? Is an ox people? Why do you think it’s ok to hire children to make your household goods or eat vegetables grown in a field tilled by an ox? Ignorance? Preference not to see it the same way as someone else? Strong desire not to give it too much thought and be horrified that you actually do think slavery is ok? Does the ox not suffer, nor the child? Are they paid as well as you to do harder work for longer hours?
Re: Fine-tuning. I had to read up on this because it didn’t even register what you were talking about, ah, mostly another assertion for intelligent design. I think you really like it because it fits well in your brainspace with the other things you think, i.e. “tune” as in, “design,” which is why you assert premise 2 with a lot of confidence.
Intelligent design tends to have some appeal by trying to look like science, and morans who believe in this tend to pull premises out their ass like you do, and show impressive examples like the banana (which was bred to its current state by humans) to conclude god exists.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html
http://www.skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html#dover
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf
What?
More astronomically outrageous than a god made it all so one species on one planet can be nice to each other and go to heaven when they die? I think you misunderstand the multiverse a lot. Chance it is then.
http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/fine-tunings-fatal-flaw.html
I think while the bible is primitive, people cling to this idea that there’s a god, and the more into science that you get and away from the bible, the more you see like, god has made everything so it is the way it is. That’s delusional and/or creative seeing. Tell me why would god exist? You are projecting your unsupported “reasoning” on everyone else, and you are incredulous that what happens in your brain could have emerged from biology. Why would your god exist? Because you made him up to fit what you see.
Carl Sagan/Cosmos – Cosmic Calendar v.1 History of humans
Carl Sagan/Cosmos – Cosmic Calendar v.2 History of life
I think the time scale of the “creation” of the universe, had it come from god, and been so concerned ultimately with the behavior of only humans on only earth, it might have thought of a more efficient way to get there. I mean, he has divine powers or not? Why would the way things are require a god to describe it or make it possible?
You pretend to find god the only likely conclusion based on faulty premises because you want it to be true, like everyone who believes in god. “It points to god’s existence.” It doesn’t.
It’s so amazing because it is, how is that so hard to believe that it doesn’t need some transcendent explanation to take billions of years to tweak it so you can morally choose against enslaving someone, which was lawful and generally acceptable in the US, a supposedly civilized country, 148 years ago. That’s not gradual revelation, that’s just a long time to get here. You also seem to suggest by “fine-tuning” that we’re done. It’s fine-tuned, we’re here now. Ask the dinosaurs, where is their god, because they thought this was all fine-tuned for them.
Not guilty of the same thing as theists. We can observe life on our own planet as it adapts to variable conditions and consider it a model. We cannot observe god. You don’t like Yoav’s assertions because they’re not the same as yours. You say the stupidest things sometimes. You bring your shaky premises and expect to impress anyone with your, but it’s valid logic!, and the second someone comes up with, well did you ever think of it this way, you attack them for doing what you’ve done. I didn’t see Yoav make any bald assertions or state any beliefs without evidence like you do, but it’s not ok for him, but it’s ok for you. You assmunch.
@Brian:
Yes, I have an objection: You have absolutely no basis for your second premise, reducing premise and conclusion to one big unfounded assertion.
You talk about how improbable it is for the natural constants to be “just right” to support life, but we don’t know what the alternatives to our current definition of life are.
Neither do we know if the constants are unrelated. When people talk about how the tweaking of some constant would make life impossible they invariably put one changed constant in relation to the remaining unchanged constants. We don’t know if they have some relation (which seems plausible considering they all come from the same initial pre-Big Bang state) that influences their possible limits or their range of possible combinations.
And then there’s the whole post hoc fallacy of arguing that the universe was created to suit us rather than us developing from existing conditions (the anthropic principle).
But these three points are really just minor compared to the inherent self-defeating flaw of your argument. You use the alleged improbability of the universe to argue that there must be some divine creator. Well, arguing from improbability goes both ways. How is an eternal, self-created, extra-universal, infinitely complex, infinitely intelligent being in any way less improbable than natural processes? In your haste to embrace a theological conclusion you forget to apply the same criteria you just used to dismiss natural processes as the answer. That is what makes your teleological argument useless. It is internally inconsistent.
Brian.
1.- An assertion can be proven or not proven, those options are mutually exclusive.
2.- If it would be a logical proof for the existence of god, then her existence would be proven
3.- Existence of god is not proven.
4.- So… any “proof” in a logical structure you can provide us, has been previously debunked.
The teleological argument has a problem in your second premisse. Probably they are not, but we don’t know enough about the structure of the universe yet, maybe -and only maybe- physical constants are tied in some way. That is a possiblity but there is a greater possibility: chance.
Add in a secuence all the lottery numbers in your country. The particular secuence of numbers had a very low probability, so the last winner must have cheated – or he was choosed by god. From all the possible outcomes, that one in particular…
That’s stupid, isn’t it? With that idea of probability chance does not exist, even as a simplification.
You are saying pretty much the same: life exist, so physical laws have to allow life to exist. With a sample of only one element (our universe) you are assuming that you can derive a rule: that universes have to allow life; whereas life may be accidental and secundary in the universe.
@Brien.
The point I was making is that your second assertion is not indisputable. I didn’t claim to have evidence as to how the universe will be if the constants were different but to point that there is an alternative to your assertion that it can’t be chance or physical necessity and therefore that your conclusion of design is invalid.
“I wouldn’t have any solid philosophical reason for believing it, but I couldn’t ignore those moral obligations either.”
Wouldn’t the understanding that wrongs would be acts that cause some sort of pain, whether emotional, mental, or physical? That seems to be a philosophical reasoning: pain is a sign of harm and thus a sign of wrong doing; except for pain, harm and wrong doing seem to be semi-abstract concepts in the least. Does any god have to exist for you to see someone suffering and think, “Gee, they really don’t like what’s being done to them… I probably shouldn’t do that to others” ?
Which brings us two your 3 point argument. The entire thing hinges on case 1, which is nothing more than a lemma. What is the evidence that completely proves case 1, that is, what evidence do you have that objective morality requires the existence of a deity?
This is why your argument fails, but I would also have to say that your first case is out right wrong. I recently read an article by Steven Pinker about how we have 5 axioms of morality, from which all of our moral and ethical understandings stems: Fairness, harm (lack of), purity, loyalty, and authority. These seem to be hard wired into our psychology, and present within every culture on the planet. Now, we can certainly explain these occurring without invoking any deities, let alone the singular god of Abraham. It really seems that your prime stipulation, that “if god does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist,” is fallacious. We are starting to see that there is some objective truth to morality, it is always wrong to kill or rape or whatever other bad thing you’d like to add to this list. Now, I’m not saying that god doesn’t exist (although I personally do not think he does), just that he doesn’t have to exist for any objective moral system to be present.
“Which brings us two your 3 point argument. The entire thing hinges on case 1, which is nothing more than a lemma. What is the evidence that completely proves case 1, that is, what evidence do you have that objective morality requires the existence of a deity?”
… and what’s the evidence that it must the the single diety he believes in?
No idea.
… because it is so stop persecuting me!
Jabster,
You were wondering why I came to the conclusion that the Christian God is the one true God.
Ignoring the evidence for a Theistic universe, I’ll focus instead on why I believe in the Christian God. There are several reasons, some of them you might not like, but I’ll cite them anyways so I can at least show that I am being sincere.
First and foremost, I was born in a Christian home. My parents are Christians, as are my grandparents. However, that simple fact isn’t enough to destine me for Christianity, as I did ignore/castoff my Christian faith for quite some time in High School. The historical accuracy of the Bible, including the prophecies which were fulfilled in the person of Jesus, have since brought me back from not being a Christian.
In addition, I have found that the Kalaam Cosmological argument and Teleological arguments both outline a timeless, space-less, personal, omnipotent creator – a set of characteristics which the Christian God fulfills. The only other viable, monotheistic religions out there aside from Christianity were Judaism, Islam, and various cults of the “Big 3.” Islam has, without attempting to offend anyone, a very vengeful God whose idea of grace is conditional. Since I found Jesus to be the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, I suppose one could say I chose being a “wild branch” grafted into the house of Abraham.
I hope I have shed some light on myself, as it is not my intention to be less than generous and transparent with my beliefs. Hopefully we can continue discussing these issues respectfully.
@Brian
“Ignoring the evidence for a Theistic universe, …”
On the grounds there isn;t any good evidence for it that’s probably a good thing.
“First and foremost, I was born in a Christian home.”
… and there’s were we have the key point which explains why you think the Kalaam Cosmological argument and Teleological arguments point to your god not a different god.
” Hopefully we can continue discussing these issues respectfully.”
I respect your right to hold those views it’s just that I think they’re complete and utter bollocks. I presume you will also respect my right to hold this view?
Given that most Christians believe that only people who accept Jesus are going to heaven, Christianity also has a deity whose idea of grace is conditional. You may be a Universalist, but most Christians (both today and historically) are not.
The Bible is hideously inaccurate as a historical record, and the semantic twisting and deliberate misinterpretation you have to indulge in to believe any of it’s “prophecies” have been fulfilled in any way render them utterly absurd.
The problem being that both are based on flawed premises and make utterly absurd steps which do not follow the rules of common logic. In fact, even if they were well thought out and based on sound reasoning (which they certainly are NOT), neither of them necessitate God – and taking the absurdity one step further, they certainly don’t necessitate your God.
You keep parroting this crap while apparently being blissfully ignorant of its meaning.
Custador,
I’m not going to argue for the historicity of the Bible, I can simply allow scholars to do that for me. We could sit on our computers all day and throw proofs back and forth without anyone making ground. So, for the time being, I will agree to disagree with you instead of discussing for days on end only to determine that we still disagree.
As for your critique of the arguments.
They are logically valid arguments (meaning that the conclusion follows NECESSARILY from the premises). You can argue that they aren’t sound, but not that they aren’t valid.
For example, I could say that:
1. Either the moon is made of cheese, or God exists.
2. the moon is not made of cheese.
3. Therefore, God exists.
This argument is valid – that is, its conclusion follows logically from its premises. Obviously it is not a sound argument because the first premise is false – the moon’s being made of cheese and God’s existence are not mutually exclusive (like the premise “If humanism is true, then God does not exist” – for humanism and theism are mutually exclusive).
The arguments I’ve posited are logically valid and (I think) sound. I have ample evidence to reasonably believe the premises are true and are more plausible than their contradictories/negations. Any atheist or agnostic who professionally debates won’t deny the validity of the argument, just the soundness of it.
Individually, no, they don’t point to the Christian God. I wasn’t presenting a comprehensive case for Christian theism – in this thread I have only presented 3 of 5 arguments for the existence of the Christian God. I have not sought to argue to Christian theism in this thread, just that belief in god is reasonable.
You haven’t done anything like that. You make up premises and arguments and conclusion, but you can’t really face this discussion with the validity of your arguments. It’s time to present logical arguments for your unsubstantiated premises. You are asserting too much and we’re to assume the premises that you assume in order to reach the same conclusion. That’s how you’re explaining logic should work with your stupid green cheese argument.
We’re not agreeing with your premises. Who the hell cares if you can build a valid argument if your premises are from your lower colon area?
Brian, you’re wrong. If you can’t even grasp simple logic, I can’t see any point debating you.
Well honestly, I don’t see any real foundation for objective moral values outside of a transcendent anchor point.
You wrote:
“Wouldn’t the understanding that wrongs would be acts that cause some sort of pain, whether emotional, mental, or physical? That seems to be a philosophical reasoning: pain is a sign of harm and thus a sign of wrong doing; except for pain, harm and wrong doing seem to be semi-abstract concepts in the least. Does any god have to exist for you to see someone suffering and think, “Gee, they really don’t like what’s being done to them… I probably shouldn’t do that to others” ?
I think you may have misapprehended my contention – I did not say that “Without God, people cannot know objective moral values.” I said that “Without God, people have no intellectual grounding for believing in objective moral values.” Your final statement in the above paragraph also supports my second premise – objective moral values do exist.
You also cited Pinker’s axioms of morality, “[Which] seem to be hard wired into our psychology, and present within every culture on the planet.”
His statement really supports my second premise. I believe the same thing that he does! In Romans 9 we get a very similar picture of morality being ingrained in humanity, where God is said to have written his moral law on the hearts of all men.
As for the support of my first premise:
You cited how it is wrong to cause harm to come on another human being. If, as you claim, morality is hardwired into us by evolutionary psychology, then it really isn’t objectively wrong. It is wrong only in the sense that it does not help the herd or community.
When a lion kills a zebra, it isn’t murder; nor does a seagull snatching a fish from another steal, because the concept of murder and theft are just sociological constructs which exist only in our collective imagination.
For if we are just relatively advanced primates, then we are simply animals, and animals are not moral agents, as I explained above. Our idea of morals would then be herd instinct guiding us into the path of least resistance. Morality would be ephemeral – it would not be objective in the sense that it is valid and binding regardless of the circumstances.
May I ask why you think we should even follow Pinker’s 5 Axioms?
IMO, They do nothing to advance the idea that morality is objective, for they are merely sociological evolutionary constructs. In Pinker’s view it’s not wrong to hurt someone because of their intrinsic value as humans, it’s just improper to rock the boat and cause social unrest.
“May I ask why you think we should even follow Pinker’s 5 Axioms?”
I’m gonna begin with a clarification of the citation: the article I read was written by Steven Pinker, but was a culmination of various studies and research, and is more of an overview of the work. These axioms are, according to Pinker, from the work of psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Haidt, along with other scientist, discovered these 5 after conducting surveys into how people morally view different circumstances. From across the globe, they noticed a pattern in how people viewed each scenario, and that pattern was built upon those 5 values (with other values being composites of those). Now Pinker does mention that these are not set in stone– our understanding is beginning and different scientists have longer or shorter lists, but the consensus is around Haidt’s 5.
If you’re interested, here is a link to the article:
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/The%20Moral%20Instinct%20-%20New%20York%20Times.htm
So it isn’t so much that these are I want to follow, it’s more that these are what everyone uses to decide the morality of an action or event (Of course, this is the how, each individual, due to beliefs, environment, and society will each prioritize and apply these differently). But there does appear that some central objective truth can be found for the question, “Is this moral?”
“I don’t see any real foundation for objective moral values outside of a transcendent anchor point.”
The classic argument for this was presented by the Greek philosopher Plato.
If morality is divinely inspired, by any omniscient being whom I will refer to as god, then it is either an absolute that god must also follow or morality is arbitrary rules god decided upon. If the former is the case, and god is confined to adhere to this moral code as are we, then why should we even suppose he/she/it is a god, let alone follow this god and give credit for this morality? If god decided upon this structure, then why should we adhere to this code as opposed to any other code, which god may have just as likely have decided upon?
Another reason that case 1 does not work is that: Once you have proven that the two conditions, as you stated them, do correlate, you are still left with nothing more than another lemma. This time, what is still require to show is an existence proof that a god exists, whatever god that is that fits your claim. So far, there exists absolutely no evidence for either that proof, or a proof for it’s contradiction.
And no, you didn’t say that people wont be able to intellectually ground beliefs in moral values, you said “For if God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.” Meaning there is no moral values without god. I’ll assume you did mean that without god, we have no intellectual basis for moral values. Well, again, we can now explain moral values without god; we have psychology, sociology, biology… basically, science. Whether or not there is a god makes no difference to science, but so far, everything in science does not hinge on there being any god or gods.
The reason that the 5 axioms are objective is because they are present outside our species. Pinker briefly notes studies that showed behavior in other primates that followed this pattern. I have also read (though not recently, so I have no specific articles to refer to) articles where these show up in other mammals (i.e. dolphins), as well as some of the more socially evolved insect species. So yes, these may be social constructs, but they are social constructs for any species that evolves to the point where morality becomes an issue (do we consider moral issues of trees and grass?). So once any species evolves to that social critical point, they should have that same moral axioms that we have; implicating that the moral axioms are objectively universal.
Furthermore, it seems that morality, once you get above the basic level of social structures, does become more ephemeral. Granted, according to these findings, the moral axioms are a result of evolution and natural selection, but that is no longer the case. The moral issues that these axioms are being put to use include subjects like abortion, gay marriage, pollution, government spending, legal battles, various freedoms; basically, any third rail issue would be the tip of the iceberg, descending into a sea of myriad contemporary issues. Things like segregation, should we allow black’s and white’s to share a public fountain, participate in interrace blood transfusions, or be taught under the same roof were all once hot button issues that had people divided (and still do in quite a few places) as to whether or not a yay or nay is morally acceptable.
These issues are far more than mere worries of primates being swayed with their herd instincts. But yet, these axioms, which are bi-products of evolution, still apply to these very-much-so non-evolutionary and non-natural-selection issues. The way that it makes most sense for me to think about it is this: We evolved into a state where we could understand issues and circumstances with the aid of morality, and morality helped us in our species survival and evolution; now the moral axioms are moral instincts that evolution hard wired into us through repeated generations of use. I do not know if scientists in this field have this explanation, nor have I heard any explanations at all (I’ve just become aware of this field).
Darn misplaced / in the italics command….
haha, I started reading the first set of italics and they kept going – I thought you had quoted my entire post!
Thanks for the comment back, I appreciated the link you sent too.
As for your quote of Plato:
“If morality is divinely inspired, by any omniscient being whom I will refer to as god, then it is either an absolute that god must also follow or morality is arbitrary rules god decided upon. If the former is the case, and god is confined to adhere to this moral code as are we, then why should we even suppose he/she/it is a god, let alone follow this god and give credit for this morality? If god decided upon this structure, then why should we adhere to this code as opposed to any other code, which god may have just as likely have decided upon?”
Concerning Plato’s first objection:
If the Christian God is a “maximally great being,” which he necessarily is or else he wouldn’t be God, then “limiting him” to follow perfect moral codes isn’t really a limitation at all. If his morality is perfect, then being unable to do anything less than perfection isn’t a limitation at all.
Concerning Plato’s second objection:
If I am not mistaken, Plato questions whether we have any real obligation to follow God’s moral codes, especially since they may just as well be completely different in a different world – as in the moral code we have now is arbitrary.
I suppose I would cite the idea of divine command. God, being the creator of the universe and everything in it, has a certain amount of authority, just like a police officer has a certain amount of authority to tell you what you can and cannot do (forgive me for not including the executive branch of our government in this analogy!) on the highway. When he commands “thou shalt not murder,” we have a moral obligation to not murder. When he commanded Jonah to go to Nineveh, Jonah had a moral obligation to do so. The fact of the matter is that we have no reason to believe that the divine commands are arbitrary. Regardless if we think a police officer’s command to not go over 70 MPH on the highway or God’s command to not murder is arbitrary, we are obligated to honor the authority of the command giver.
Unfortunately, I can’t respond to the entire post at the current moment, I have to take out my contacts and make sure my dog doesn’t scratch or bite out his stitches from the deer that attacked him! I’ll respond tomorrow for sure! Cheers.
Take your time, and I hope your dog makes a swift recovery.
Paul,
In response to the second part of your post which I was unable to discuss yesterday…
I suppose I would question why biological evolution would generate morals which aren’t beneficial to survival… For example, rape can be quite beneficial in the animal kingdom, as the strongest in a group can spread their progeny and increase the overall strength of the community. Certainly the same could be true of human beings – if the strongest males impregnated the females they wanted, our species would be stronger from a physical perspective. The weaker individuals would be killed off, thus leaving only the strongest to procreate. This would certainly go against several of the 5 axioms (purity, fairness, (lack of) harm, and loyalty (for monogamy wouldn’t be beneficial).
Secondly, I would not be too quick in anthropomorphizing social constructs.
The thing about social constructs is that they are created by human beings. We don’t have a “natural environment’ in the sense that penguins, monkeys, or other animals do. We create our own world around us – morals, religion, the division of labor and schools of thinking (hunters, gatherers, philosophers, scientists, etc), et al. Animals don’t create meaning and a social environment for themselves like we do – if we accept social constructs as being true.
Mostly though, I would wonder what benefit primordial man had in evolving into moral beings? In the primeval world, the less you had to think about taking life, not having sex, and not stealing would have been better than thinking more about the rightness or wrongness of an action. I see multiple biologically beneficial reasons for not adhering to morality (which I cited in the first paragraph) – I can’t, however, see any biologically beneficial reasons for adhering to an arbitrary moral code which would be put forth by evolution. And yes, the moral code which would have evolved blindly would have to be arbitrary, for evolution is a blind process.
So why adhere to a blind moral code? Once again, morality becomes merely ephemeral and arbitrary under this view – not objective.
To be safe, no italics this time.
For the first of Plato’s arguments, I am not seeing any resolution. You’re argument is completely valid in the case of morality already existing; then yes, a perfect being could do nothing but follow these morals perfectly as well. But in order for these morals to form, the fact that an omnipotent and perfect being can’t choose any other set of moral codes is contradictory to the definition of omnipotence. I do understand the validity of your argument in the case of creating the moral codes, and am now seeing this first proposition by Plato as much more of a paradox as both arguments seem equally valid but unresolvable.
I am not understanding how Divine Command resolves the issue. With this, anything, so long as it is ordered by god, would be acceptable. This appeal to authority doesn’t make sense as god could then order unmoral acts, such as genocide. For the police officer analogy, we are capable of contesting the speed limit in court (or if you want to go the command route and stipulate a more fascist society, we are capable of contesting the speed limit by a revolution). The speed limit, because of being able to redefine it, makes moral sense. I do not think that any moral truth will be obvious to us, each will be something we have to figure out one at a time. The speed limit would be something we’ve figured out that makes sense, if I go to far over this limit, I wont be able to make the turn and others, along with myself, will be in danger. Therefore, it is in fact morally acceptable to follow the command (as opposed to a speed limit much higher).
I also do not agree that Jonah was morally obligated to deliver the news to Nineveh. Sure that would be the decent thing to do, but why was it Jonah’s duty to perform the task (outside of being commanded)? The only real reason that Jonah has to do so is that if he doesn’t, god will kill him (it is Jonah’s pleading with god, in which he agrees to deliver the message, that makes god decide to let him out of the belly of the fish). So it seems that Jonah wasn’t so morally obligated to do so, the only reason he had to was that god would kill him in punishment, and god certainly could have chosen another means of delivering the message. This is pretty much akin to following the commands of Hitler; if you didn’t follow the orders, you’d find yourself in one of his camps. The obliging force was fear, not moral obligations.
For your example of rape in the animal kingdom, it does happen and it is beneficial, but it doesn’t happen the way you proposed. Typically rape happens as a way of contesting power and asserting dominance over rival males. Rape, like in our species, is not about reproduction or sexuality, it is about power and control. I don’t think that any of the axioms are in contention here, but, since we are going into broader aspects of social dynamics, I don’t feel all that competent in the subject to really proceed. Keeping within just the realm of those 5 axioms, I will venture that this is in the realm of authority, and it happens to stabilize the community so the moral authority can form a clear definition.
Also, to preemptively strike the command rebuttal, we once again have a system whose authority is able to be reconstructed. With that said, I think you have inadvertently convinced me that moral objectivism does not exist in full (In some cases there would indeed be truths that we could potentially figure out, but in other cases no solidity is ever possible as it would be relative). Funny how debates can precede.
I still however feel that the objective morals out there will be from what has been evolved and not from a transcendental point. For biological evolution to produce morals that we do not need for survival would be weird. I think it’s our current sophistication as a society that has us apply these evolved morals to non-survival premises. After all, third rail issues didn’t exist when the most pressing issue was how to take kill enough gazelles to feed the community. One way of thinking about our current society is that everything is still those basic contentions of survival, just on a more evolved, or macroscopic, extreme. So it still makes sense that these evolved morals are not only useful, but also are being directly applied to what they were evolved to do.
Why primeval man would evolve morals?
Well, morals would help within our society (Pinker touches on morals and social dynamics at the end of the article). Drawing from the article, imbuing the idea of purity being a morally agreeable idea would help combat disease vectors; health of the community. Authority would help maintain social stability and organize group action. (Lack of) Harm I think is fairly self explanatory, although if you’d like I could elaborate. I like how Pinker explained fairness:
“Trivers, the biologist, showed how natural selection could push in the direction of true selflessness. The emergence of tit-for-tat reciprocity, which lets organisms trade favors without being cheated, is just a first step. A favor-giver not only has to avoid blatant cheaters (those who would accept a favor but not return it) but also prefer generous reciprocators (those who return the biggest favor they can afford) over stingy ones (those who return the smallest favor they can get away with).”
And loyalty, being tied closely to authority, but also having to do with reproduction. Originally loyalty would be between close relatives, helping them survive so they may eventually reproduce is just as good as making sure that yourself survives to reproduce. You and your sibling are quite similar in the genetic code. If your sibling reproduces, it will be as good as you reproducing when looking at it from the perspective of passing on desirable traits.
“Secondly, I would not be too quick in anthropomorphizing social constructs.”
I’m not sure where I anthropomorphized social constructs, and I don’t disagree with the rest of that paragraph.
“And yes, the moral code which would have evolved blindly would have to be arbitrary, for evolution is a blind process.”
Well, evolution is a blind process. In my previous post, I noted that other species, even outside of our phylum, exhibit behavior that follows along with these 5 axioms. What I was getting at with that observation was that these axioms would be universally formed by any evolutionary process. If we only get one set of axioms evolved, then wouldn’t this be a universal set, and not an arbitrary set of axioms?
Yes, your argument is in a logically valid form, thank you for pointing that out to those who haven’t taken Philosophy 101. However, premises 1 and 2 are false, and thus the argument is unsound.
Care to argue for the truth of your premises?
Chris,
Above this comment I wrote on why I believed the first premise to be true.
I think that it is fairly obvious that the second premise is true.
For example:
You would most likely agree with me that the Holocaust was wrong.
Even IF the Nazi’s had won WWII and successfully brainwashed or eliminated everyone who disagreed with them, the Holocaust STILL would have been objectively wrong. Thus, objective moral values do exist.
That’s sort of a Godwin. Everyone objectively agrees Hitler was an asshoIe, therefore objective morals exist, therefore there must be a god because we’re incapable of recognizing such heinousness without the help of a creator to label as such. Genocide=Heinous. OK!!!
You have one famous example, let’s see you test your theory on other moral or immoral behaviors. There is no absolutes. If one guy came after me and tried to kill me, I would try to kill him first. This is not a universally agreed-upon response, it is nature, it is animal survival, and yet it also seems sensible, as if moral enough. Thou shalt not kill, but you’re excused if someone is trying to kill you because that’s the natural fight response. Is it moral because it’s natural (what any animal would do?) or is it excused moral enough, because most people agree they would act the same way and can’t hold it against anyone? The excuse being that it’s only fair. Many places will prosecute the killer in the memory of the one who couldn’t kill back in time, and serve him that justice later, and well talked over and adjudicated, agree to kill him because that’s what he deserves. Not universally agreed upon.
If a very large group of people were trying to kill me and I had the means to wipe them all out before they could, I would. If 6 million of the same kind of person came at me, I would try to prevent them from doing so by any means necessary. It’s probably unethical (if not impossible) to save myself (1) by wasting 6 million people trying to kill me. Not without a sizable army, but I’m talking about me and Hitler. He had help and the Jews weren’t out to harm him. But for me, it’s the same natural, aforementioned approved “moral” response to one person trying to kill me. What if the 6 million were fire ants? What if they were aliens from another planet? Still living things, but we place different values on them. That isn’t proof of god that people are better, it’s just people thinking people are more important than other life beings (usually). Again, not a universally agreed-upon concept.
Kodie,
I don’t need any more examples to make premise two plausible. However, I’ll throw a few out there: Killing and torturing babies is objectively immoral. Raping another human being is objectively immoral. Lying, cheating, and stealing are all objectively immoral.
The fact that all the actions that occurred in the Holocaust are admittedly evil solidifies premise two (unless, of course, you think that there is no difference between Hitler and Mother Theresa from a moral perspective).
You cited a rather large number of gray moral issues. The existence of gray areas in morality doesn’t usurp premise two – it only strengthens it further by implying that objective moral values do exist.
If any objective morals exist, it’s not very many, and they’re all pretty common sense — common in the terms that humans have the intelligence to recognize when things aren’t right. Still yet..
On the topic of killing or torturing babies. Do you have any idea what’s going on in the rest of the world? If god exists, how many babies do you think starve to death because god has no ability to step in and fix that, because he doesn’t exist? If it’s morally wrong, objectively moral according to god and not just you and a lot of people, how is it that we haven’t solved this problem? We TRY! We care. We’re unable to come up with a humanity-induced fix for the torture and killing of many babies and people at the apparent approval of this god you suppose exists. God should step in, no? Or at least write on the hearts of people some kind of effort that would actually work. Or did the tip of his pencil break after he wrote the laws he breaks so casually?
Furthermore, do your Mother Theresa research. She used the donations to build more churches, not feed more of those same suffering babies or cure their diseases. On a relative scale to Hitler, maybe not as bad, but make no mistake, she was an asshoIe who didn’t accomplish what you seem to think.
Actually you do need more, infinitely many more. Logically you can’t prove anything with just one example, you have to prove it with the general case.
Raping another human being is objectively immoral. Lying, cheating, and stealing are all objectively immoral.
No, they’re not. I could say they’re all wrong, but we’ve already seen examples where everyone doesn’t agree, and exceptions. You are deluded by your argument, you are clinging to it but it’s rapidly taking on a lot of water and sinking. What you make up in your mind to be true, and what you’re shown to be untrue, you don’t believe, you still go with your argument. Even without examples proving you otherwise, you were demonstrated the unsoundness of your argument. Try to be open to learning something here and not so willfully ignorant. Thx!
@Kodie
The whole “objectively immoral” argument becomes very poor when you considered the amount of cases that it certainly doesn’t count if it’s “not one of your tribe”. I think I can now safely mention WWII as this thread has already entered Godwin territory … the German state actively encouraged the classification of a superior race to which others (noticeable Jews and Slavs) where inferior allowing acts to take place that would certainly be considered immoral in any other context. This doesn’t of course mean that every single German agreed but large number at best seemed indifferent (this seems a relatively common occurrence i.e. you have a minority that will willing participate, the majority who will be passive and a minority who will actively resist).
Keeping on the subject of WWII the Western powers “morals” dictated it was ok to team up with Russia, which was as least a bad as German from a moral point of view, and left countless millions under a brutal Russian rule for the sake of our freedom – I’m not sure where the objective morals are in that act!
Kodie,
I’m confused as to what your position is in this thread? In one response you admitted the existence of objective moral values:
“If any objective morals exist, it’s not very many, and they’re all pretty common sense — common in the terms that humans have the intelligence to recognize when things aren’t right. Still yet.. ”
This is exactly what premise 2 states! Objective moral values are obvious! It is obviously wrong to torture a baby. it is obviously wrong to murder for fun or rape – these are common sense claims I’ve made and you’ve agreed with.
Then you recanted your confession of the existence of objective moral values, saying that objective moral values don’t exist because not everyone agrees with them. If someone thinks it is Ok to torture, rape and kill a baby, why should that matter to me? The person who thinks that torturing babies is a delightful way to spend a Saturday afternoon is morally handicapped – and I have no reason to think what they are doing isn’t objectively wrong any more than I would think a blind person wouldn’t make the best driver.
The question you have to answer (regardless of what a morally handicapped person claims – would you allow a man blind from birth get in the driver seat of your car and claim with all confidence: “I’m OK to drive”?) is whether you think objective moral values do exist.
How am I deluded by my argument? But first – do objective moral values exist?
@ Jabster.
I’m not really sure what your argument does? It shows that you think there are objective moral values – namely that the U.S. shouldn’t have allied with Russia because Stalin was horrible and that a minority group of Germans didn’t agree with Nazism, a minority did, and most of them didn’t care (which I would disagree pretty strongly with all of those demographic assumptions).
Could you clarify what it is you are trying to posit?
@ Kodie,
I wasn’t putting Mother Theresa on some pedestal, I was just trying to find an individual whose morals would contrast pretty strongly against Hitler’s.
However, I haven’t heard too many people call her an asshole. That seems to be a bit of red herring regardless.
“I’m not really sure what your argument does?”
I couldn’t really give a shit whether you do or not … why don’t you go and play you every so boring words games somewhere else. Maybe someone where the objective is to prove that you’re “right” at all cost. You’re fit right in there …
@Brian — I do not think objective morals exist. I would agree with you that your few extreme examples are repugnant to most people if you asked them, but they are not universally true, nor objectively moral or immoral. If objective morals were to exist in your extreme examples, you conveniently overlook all the exceptions and point to your god, and you conveniently overlook your god’s morals. If they were objective and he wrote them on our hearts, or whatever, (gross), he wouldn’t break them right in front of us.
There are a lot of tortured babies on the earth. They starve to death, live in filth, have diseases, etc. This is nobody’s fault but your god’s, if he exists. For the privileged, a problem that we try to solve, we give money, we send packages and doctors and try to get those children and their communities out of poverty. They want help, we try to help, all around, this has become humanity’s problem.
If something is objectively immoral, I would expect the god you describe to make it possible to obliterate it. He is just as a sicko parent who tortures their own child. Humanity has addressed this ostensibly with god’s help, which is to laugh if it weren’t so sad.
Why does god allow the torture and unnecessary death of millions of babies and keep humanity from ever reaching a solution to end it?
@ Jabster.
Isn’t your goal to prove that you’re right too? Or at the very least, isn’t your goal to show that you are least reasonable in believing what you do?
As VorJack’s most recent post suggests, it isn’t fair to assume religion has some special place in the intellectual world and has immunity, if you will, to logical arguments. Neither should your worldview have special treatment, IMO.
@Brian
Which bit of “I couldn’t really give a shit whether you do or not …” did you not understand?
@ Kodie.
I pointed out earlier that gray areas in morality don’t negate the existence of crystal clear areas (like the “extreme” example which we’ve been discussing).
What you’ve brought up is the existence of evil and suffering, which, coincidentally, requires you to believe in objective moral values. For you to condemn God of being immoral, you have to acknowledge that objective morals are there to be used as a plumb line for judgment.
What answer do you want from me? I know if I cite what I believe, which is that this world was created perfect, but with the introduction of sin through Adam, it became less than perfect, you will immediately reject it. However, your question assumes the existence of objective moral values for reasons cited immediately above this paragraph.
My question to you is this: Do you believe in moral relativism?
Have you proven you are right yet or have you proven you don’t care what makes a valid argument valid? You can keep repeating yourself, but you’re wrong, you’ve been wrong since you started.
You cannot say there is absolute moral objectivity if you think it’s wrong to torture babies, and god demonstrates otherwise. Either it is ok to torture babies objectively, or we have more compassion to the world morally than the god who has written on our hearts, which negates the “moral law.” You think it points to god and you use a lot of stupid arguments to act as though you have intellectual credentials beyond the dumb moron creationist, but you’re ignoring everything we say, you’re not worth trying to have this discussion with because you already have the answer you like and trying to impress us.
It is stupid. It is not a valid argument. Nothing “points to” god, nothing “points to” any moral law written on our hearts. You have a severe inclination to conclude what you like and find the arguments to convince yourself it’s true, and a severe impediment to understanding how logical your arguments are not.
“You cited a rather large number of gray moral issues.’
If objective morality is created by a perfect being, there are no Gray issues.
Is it moral for me to stand close by and watch from utterly safe vantage point someone be tortured and murdered while not taking the least bit of action to intervene, or cry for help? If it’s not moral for me, would it be moral for god?
Kodie,
Ok, let me first direct you above, where I define what a valid argument is and what a sound argument is. A good argument is both valid and sound.
I’m not sure where you got the impression that I think God tortures babies? I think humans torture babies. I don’t operate under the impression that God tortures babies, or that he causes babies to be tortured. Regardless of my belief of the Christian God, this argument does NOT require the Christian God – it requires a maximally great being, someone who is all good. If you think that the Christian God tortures babies, I’d ask two questions: why do you think that, and how does that refute the argument itself (when it really only eliminates one option for the identity of this maximally great being)?
What have I ignored? You say I ignore you, yet I respond to nearly every comment, and every aspect of the comments which I do respond to.
@ Sunny day
Your argument is not logically valid – the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premise. Even your reasoning for it, “Is it moral for me to stand close by and watch from utterly safe vantage point someone be tortured and murdered while not taking the least bit of action to intervene, or cry for help?” is fallacious – Christians believe that God became immanent and put himself in harm’s way in Jesus – this hardly constitutes standing from a safe distance.
Based on the laws of argumentation and logic, your argument is both invalid and unsound.
@Brian – I missed a lot of your comments over here. Let me get this in first:
Facebook group, Mother Teresa was a villain and an asshoIe
I didn’t start it and I didn’t join it. It only has 12 members, I just found out about it in a google search. Here are some others:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI8A0VsgeuY
http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featpostel_56_p.htm
http://www.readplatform.com/mother-teresa-bitch/
In case you thought at least the Dalai Lama was still cool, think again.
NEXT:
Glad you reminded me about these tortured babies. I think you are missing the point.
I never said you think god tortures babies at all. To the contrary, I pointed out to you that if there’s a god, he certainly tortures babies. I am not talking about a person torturing another person which we’ve agreed is sick and wrong, I am talking about civilizations living in squalor, hungry and diseased and dying, on the earth, right now, and I am talking about humans not able to succeed at solving this problem to any satisfaction, despite wanting to and thinking we should be able to, and trying to.
You spend a lot of time slapping some shaky premises together to build what you consider a valid argument. It’s wrong to torture babies, everyone knows this, therefore there’s a god. Where is the moral objectivity of a god who allows babies to suffer while we run around down here caring and failing to transform these societies into thriving communities with less suffering? See: your mother teresa video again. She fucklng loved it. Suffering was beautiful to her. See: missionaries to the third world bringing bibles and believing to convert them will take care of the poverty. Do they think, really think, god overlooks them because they don’t believe in him? Many have converted and yet, no food, no clean water, no penicillin, no schools — not enough to turn a corner here, a drop in the bucket. Are these people being punished for some reason? I would like to hear your guesses on that reason which exempts god from adhering to his own moral law.
Yes, what moral law writer can come up with an unknowable reason that objective morals exist, and yet he doesn’t have to adhere to them? Either god doesn’t exist or the objective morals do not exist or both. A sick god with no moral law could exist.
How could you miss that the several times I tried to explain this to you? I am trying to stay within the parameters of your argument and illustrate where it fails and you miss the really big clues that your premise is objective morality, therefore god, when plentiful examples of no such thing as objective morality have been demonstrated to you. Please pay attention to them.
Another thing I thought of re: torturing babies. I don’t want to lose track here and debate the acts or events, but I was thinking of people, usually mothers, who torture or murder their children as a result of some form of mental illness. Is it immoral to be mentally ill?
It hardly constitutes not standing from a safe distance. I was tortured and murdered last week and yet, today, I sit here in my comfortable apartment with no cares as to what is going on in the world. Jesus isn’t on the ground today getting his hands dirty now, when people need practical help, and neither is god. One man, Jesus, did nobody any good. Using the premise that he is also god, he didn’t use his time on earth to help mankind. His sacrifice hasn’t managed to help anyone in any practical way — it hasn’t solved poverty issues, especially when missionaries bring bibles instead of medicine to impoverished communities.
I want to make it clear that I don’t believe in Jesus, but since you only like your premises and nobody else’s, I’ll attempt to beat you about the brains with them.
Where do you say this argument is unsound? It’s unsound because you don’t like anyone else’s premises. The existence of god has managed to evade detection since the dawn of his creation (by people). He doesn’t have any morals to put into law. He may be watching from heaven while we try to figure out this fucklng stuff ourselves, he doesn’t actively do anything. He cannot take credit for anyone having morals.
Mm, I’ve been reading these posts, not commenting as I’ve nothing to add compared to the much more apt debaters around, but this:
This maximally great being, according to your theology, created everything. Everything. Including the world-as-it-is.
Including every single illness and flaw in “design” there is. So when I was eight months old, and I started to spike a high fever, and my (very Christian!) mother didn’t know what to do, because her baby girl wouldn’t stop crying from pain, she prayed. Of course, she also took me to a doctor, but she prayed. She begged. She does it to the day, twenty-five years later, when her daughter still feels pain.
God, if such a creature existed, created everything. Good and bad. He might have created morals in your p-o-v, but my mother, who is human, was compelled to take me to a doctor, do something, anything, to help her baby girl in severe pain. She took me to several doctors until one found a way to help me.
Her prayers weren’t answered. Not once.
So if your god does exist, and he created everything, yes, he does torture babies. He tortures babies every time a baby is born with an illness that destroys his or her attempts at a normal life, forever. He tortures babies every time he doesn’t lift a finger to stop the torture, even if he did not cause it. He displays worse than human morals when humans do something and he – who could do it instantly, easily – doesn’t.
Brian,
1. Where have you argued for your first premise? In another comment you mentioned “divine command.” How is this “objective morality”? I do not see how the existence of objective morality (if there is such a thing) depends on God’s arbitrary commands. Using words like “transcendent” doesn’t change this fact. Also, your description of God as “omnibenevolent” (among other things) isn’t very clear. To evaluate something as good, loving, etc, you need a standard of what makes something good or loving outside of the thing being evaluated. If you don’t have one, then your label of good, loving, omnibenevolent or whatever is arbitrary. However, if you do have an objective standard of goodness outside of the thing being evaluated (God), then you have only proved that standard does *not* depend on the existence of that thing (God or his commands).
2. Again, how is it obvious that objective morality exists? You mentioned the holocaust. First of all, you seem to be saying there is total agreement among humanity that it was wrong. Obviously this is false. Hitler didn’t think it was wrong, nor did many Nazis, nor do many modern neo-nazis and Islamic fundamentalists. Second, even if you could prove that everyone had the opinion deep down that the holocaust was wrong, how would that be anything other than a universally held opinion? Note: I’m not saying I approve of the holocaust! But I’m not so deluded as to think I can prove that it was *objectively* wrong, regardless of the existence of God.
Chris,
I did discuss the first premise, albeit the discussion was rather brief. It ends up being an argument from a lack of other viable options. This discussion is quite lengthy and can be found above in my thread with Paul.
I would argue (and you agree with me in your post) that Hitler was wrong, that the Nazis were wrong, and that Islamic fundamentalists were wrong in their bombing of the WTC.
What’s amazing is that these groups all believed in objective moral values – they weren’t moral relativists – their morality was just based on a completely different value system (namely, that Jews/nations who aren’t in submission to Allah are intrinsically bad and worthless).
There appears to be a discrepancy in how you are asserting what you believe… Now, I’m not asking the “So when did you stop beating your wife,” question, but i can’t seem to figure out what you are saying about objective morals.
You wrote: “I’m not saying I approve of the holocaust!”
So do you believe that regardless of the outcome of WWII, you would morally object to the holocaust?
My intention isn’t to argue from universal approval. For even if nobody admitted the horrendous nature of the holocaust, it would still be objectively wrong. I simply think that in the absence of any really good evidence to the contrary, I am perfectly rational in trusting my moral experience.
“For even if nobody admitted the horrendous nature of the holocaust, it would still be objectively wrong. (Stamps his wittle Foot.)”
Fixed that for you.
“The Gospel of Judas wasn’t introduced into the canon was for multiple reasons.
It contradicts many of the teachings of the 4 Gospels and Paul’s letters as well. The authenticity of the authorship is also undetermined.”
Wouldn’t that also disqualify all four of the canonical gospels?
Where are their contradictions in the 4 Gospels? Bear in mind there is a difference between a contradiction and discrepancies.
Well, the authenticity of the four canonical gospel authors is such that we don’t know who (or how many) they were, the same as the Judas gospel. And the gospels and Paul don’t agree whether Jesus abolished the old OT laws or not.
He fulfilled the law in his Person, fulfills it in us now, is the literal fulfillment, ‘for the ‘law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and death’ (the old mosaic law). Romans 8:1-4 (just cuz I know how much you love holy writ TRJ! j/k)
Moses represents the law in us, the duality of natures, the knowledge of good and evil, that (dreaded thing we call morality) but notice that Moses had to die before they could ‘cross-over’ into the ‘promised land’, ie into Christ (in us) so that only One Tree (life & nature, ie His) is left growing in our (inner) garden as was before the fall of man, this is what Christ came to do, to RE-store that One, true Image in us which have ‘lost’.
This leaves us ultimately single-natured if we will journey with Him all the way…home, allowing Him to do what He longs to do in us, trusting our heavenly meaning spiritual Father (the Father of spirits, Heb 12:9) who is a ‘consuming fire’ meaning he destroys everything in us that would keep us from Him ultimately leaving us with the nature of a son (he whom the son sets free is free indeed) who was originally created in the ‘very image and likeness of The Father’.
The only way to bridge the chasm of this glorious ‘mystery of the ages’ is to take a giant (but child-like, trustingly, foolish) LEAP of faith into…Him who IS our (only) true and original…Life, the life of the ages. All the best.
You can choose to interpret the scriptures as some giant allegory of spirituality and mystic god-essence or whatever you prefer (or just skip around the issue in question as you seem to do here). It doesn’t change the fact that according to Matt 5:18-19 Jesus said quite vehemently that the old laws still apply, while Paul said they don’t.
“Moses represents the law in us, the duality of natures, the knowledge of good and evil, that (dreaded thing we call morality)”
So Adam and Eve became morals being by sinning against god when they were not? John, do seek help with your bible study asumming you do read your bible.
If you love your religion, at least get it right. Don’t waste your life with the rubbish you now carry in you.
Yes, it depends entirely on who it is that’s doing the living in you, Him or you. Jesus said what He said about the law prior to the cross, now Paul (who says in Gal 2;20 that’s its no longer him that’s doing the living but Christ is now the one living through him) reveals the post-cross implications and reality of our having died along with Him (our Adam life, who we thought we were and old natures having died on the cross in Christ, Romans 6:6, Gal 2:20, Col 3:3&4) and now Christ fulfills the law in us and as Paul says regarding us believers that ‘he who has died is freed from the law’ (meaning from having to keep it since we never could anyway and the Christian life is not about keeping rules and laws but is all about love, a new creature and creation in Christ and fellowship with the Father and the Son).
Since He is my life, He fulfills all the requirements of the law in me, since He is the law (the life and nature itself necessary to live it out).
Now the only remaining law is the law of love, all others-related (kindness, charity, mercy, etc) fall naturally under the One beautiful Bough.
It makes me feel like I have aliens in my stomach and I want to vomit them up before they cause more gastro-intestinal distress.
John C is why they invent things like Alka-Seltzer and Pepto-Bismol and kaopectate and Phillips Magnesium and ipecac and Poison Control Emergency numbers. I also feel a little poison ivy on my brain, but having a hard time applying the calamine lotion.
Yes Kodie, but what you don’t (yet) understand is that the truth of the gospel (the good news) is far, far better than most of us (including most believers) ever imagine, so most of us simply don’t….but if we did.
I don’t think so by your understanding of the bible. You don’t live like bible paul by your many funny interpretations of the bible. You do not help yourself here, maybe because you believe you should not because of you funny reasonings. That’s not love and related. That is something wrong with your faith.
We do have extra-biblical sources from the late first century which agree on the authorship of the Gospels.
Such as?
Just be a ‘living epistle’ that’s the truth of the gospel, His life in you, not historical ‘proofs’ which have no power to inwardly transform. All the best.
Debating the proper channels to access this imaginary Jesus is really giving me liver damage and ingrown toenails. I’ve developed the strange ability to shoot fire out of my nostrils like a dragon, but it’s melting all the plastic. I haven’t been able to control it. Maybe an antihistamine or cut my nose off.
Do you think casting John C out of your liver in jesus’ name helps?
I don’t think that will help. I ate Jesus in my heart and my chair picked me up and I hovered in my room for the last 10 minutes. No longer able to snot fire, and I think my liver is going to be ok. I tried an experiment for John C so I wouldn’t throw up his baby Jesus aliens, but it’s not working as he promises. I think I’m also going to have to take an Imodium or just cry a lot and let it pass, drink a lot of gatorade tomorrow.
Up until 185 AD, the Gospel now attributed to John was known as The Gospel of the Blessed Disciple. Eusebius was the first person to attach the name of John to it, claiming that his teacher had told him that.
If you can find a first-century reference that attests to John as the author, I’d love to hear about it.
“It contradicts many of the teachings of the 4 Gospels and Paul’s letters as well. The authenticity of the authorship is also undetermined.”
Wouldn’t that also disqualify all four of the canonical gospels?”
Does it also count that mother mary had 2 husbands?
Whether he existed or not the myth of Jesus is bigger than any actual individual from which the myth derives. If by mythicism you mean the debate over whether he existed; that is non-important. The myth itself, however, and the fact of it being a myth similar to earlier myths are extremely important.
I find it more than sufficient to simply point out that Jesus is the supposed son of the maniacal god of the OT, whose behavior is impossible to defend. IF this god is the real deal, why would I want to worship him OR his son?
“But he LOVES you!”
*gag*
that got me *giggling*
Glad I could make you laugh!
If Jesus did exist, what is more probable?
a. He was the son of a god
b. He was deluded
c. He was a charlatan making a living off people’s ignorance, gullibility and self-serving fears
d. He was a deluded and making a living off people’s ignorance, gullibility and self-serving fears
IMO, looking at both historical and contemporary events that bare remarkable similarities where human behaviour is concerned, C and/or D is more probable.
@ ryedo.
C.S. Lewis formulated a set of options about Jesus similar to yours. Jesus was either who he said he was, a deluded man “akin to a man who considers himself a poached egg,” or the worst of liars.
He could not have been a charlatan because he was dirt poor. His family was too poor to afford the typical temple sacrifice. There is simply no evidence to think he was wealthy. Certainly televangelists fit into this category of charlatan, but you cannot intelligently defend the claim that Jesus was making the big bucks.
So D is right out, in part because it repeats and elaborates on b, and the final preposition of D is clearly incorrect.
His sayings and teachings are clearly not the product of a deluded, insane man.
His death and crucifixion certainly wouldn’t be worth the gain of becoming a relatively wealthy male in Palestine.
That leaves you with one option – that he is who he said he was.
If you grant the non-mythological character of the NT, these are the only three options for Jesus’ identity.
No, that does not follow at all. Things are not ‘right out’ because you say they are, and trying to control the outcome by dictating what the valid variables are is really just you talking out your ass.
Brian talking out of his arse … what you mean like this:
“Christians believe that God has written his moral laws on the hearts of all men. The very existence of objective moral values gives us a strong reason to believe that God does exist.
1. For if God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values (when something is always morally wrong – i.e., the holocaust would still be wrong even if the Germans had won WWII and successfully brainwashed or exterminated everyone who disagreed) do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Logically, this is an airtight argument. You can argue the first 2 points, but until you refute them the conclusion is necessarily the only option we can come to.”
All I can say is that if he believes this is an airtight argument then don’t let him build a submarine …
@ Jabster,
Logically, it is an airtight case – each premise follows NECESSARILY from the previous one. You have to refute the first two premises to avoid the conclusion.
**sorry, it’s not an airtight case – it is an airtight syllogism.
Apples are the colour orange
Oranges are the colour orange
Apples and organges are the same colour!
It rather easy this game isn’t it .. ?
p.s. How’s that “airtight” submarine of yours going?
Your premise at 1 is false. Objective moral values do not require the existence of a deity. Your “logical” (it really isn’t) step at 2 is venturing into “bullshit you’re making up as you go” territory. Morals are not objective in any way, shape or form. They’re entirely subjective on the society and Zeitgeist of the time and place concerned. This is why Christians fail miserably at modern life. Four thousand years ago in the Middle East, the ten commandments were a pretty good moral reflection of the society. Hell, in some places in the Middle East that still haven’t advanced past four thousand years ago, they still are. But in the 21st century Western world? Hardly! I’ll covet any ass I damned well like, I’ll worship any idol I choose and I’ll work any Saturday I feel like. All of which leads to your conclusion at 3 being utterly demolished. You can’t prove God through logic. Logic does the exact opposite for supernaturalism and denies it every time; you can try to reinvent the rules, but don’t do it in a community of people who all know the taste of bullshit already.
@Custy
Move along … move along … nothing to see here. Well except yet another Christian apologetic who claims to be open minded.
@ Ty,
I was eliminating his fourth option because it was redundant. If Jesus was a charlatan, then it would only follow he was making a living off of other people – ryedo didn’t need to say the same thing twice. I was just trying to simplify the argument for brevity’s sake.
Brian – Lewis’ trilemma is possibly the weakest argument in a flimsy philosophy. There are two ways to attack the ‘mad, bad or Lord’ argument – one is to show mad or bad are possible, the other is to present a fourth (or further) alternative.
There is no reason to suppose Jesus was not mad. Anyone running around today making similar claims would be in a padded room forthwith. Just because someone is delusional does not make them non-functional, or even incapable of coming up with some amazing sayings. I’m not saying Jesus WAS mad, just that we cannot dismiss the possibility on such evidence as we have.
A similar argument applies to ‘bad’. Maybe he was a charlatan – just not as good at extortion as his church. Or maybe he got off on attention rather than money. Again, not likely maybe, but we can’t dismiss the possibility to come to the ‘Lord’ conclusion.
As for other possibilities beyond Lewis’ three – how about ‘deluded’ or ‘misreported’?
I find it amazing how Christians keep quoting this argument without seeing its inherent flaws.
“There is simply no evidence to think he was wealthy.”
Firstly, I never said he was wealthy. I said he was making a living off people’s ignorance, gullibility and self-serving fears. It doesn’t mean he was wealthy. He could have simply been free-loading. For example, going from town to town threatening people with hell and damnation for free lodgings, food, expensive oils, etc – similar to how Indian eunuchs threaten people with curses for donations, etc.
As far as I’m concerned C and/or D are perfectly plausible. And much more probable than Jesus actually being a son of a god – or, considering Christianities Greek roots, a demi-god. Which, IMO, that’s all the biblical Jesus is: just another Greek invention – mixed with a big splashing of Judaism.
“His sayings and teachings are clearly not the product of a deluded, insane man.”
Well, you can’t be too sure about which teachings were actually his – if any. Still, being deluded or a charlatan doesn’t mean you can’t whip-up some useful sayings; especially sayings or teachings that serve your agenda. Cult leaders, deluded or charlatan, do it all the time.
He could have been a weird guy that nobody liked in particular. You ever know someone who talks about stuff and wonder why nobody else gets them? I don’t know, there are a lot of credible personality traits he could have and still be a real guy or not a real guy but a composite of some legendary figure.
On a local scale, when someone important dies, people start talking about them as if they had the superpowers, like that movie Big Fish where the dad told the stories, only it’s not a movie, don’t want to spoil it for anyone. But I think Jesus is like that movie only we are in reality, so it doesn’t have the cute ending. He might have been larger than life or just talked as if he was, wanted his life to mean more than just his simple drudging life that everyone gets.
The theme of Jesus as a storybook figure is so typical a theme in a lot of people I know, books I’ve read or movies I’ve seen. He wants it to mean more! This can’t be all there is! A lot of stories have a character just like this. Makes up something to agitate about, goes a little over the top and hits sort of a “crime spree,” he’s gone too far he can’t look back, dies young and tragic. At least he got a little excitement in his life.
I can’t believe then that it took on all the importance that it has. I can sort of think well, he died so he kind of missed how much bigger his legend even grew. How many times do you ever wish you could know what people say about you after you die, if they really remember what you want them to, or if they just say generic things about you. The former is, your life has meaning, and the latter is it didn’t. If the former gets some feet, people might be talking how great you are for many years. Wouldn’t everyone like to have hit such heights and we don’t, most of us don’t get out of the fence we live inside.
I think people believe in Jesus somewhat arbitrarily this way. He has become a placeholder, like the tomb of the unknown soldier, for all who die or sacrifice their lives without knowing how much of an impact they had on other people. Of course this is inventive of me. Who was he? Did he exist? It doesn’t matter, because although his alleged death was tragic, it wasn’t unique, and I don’t need a figurehead to remember these things or put life in perspective.
I agree with some of what you are saying. That said, I really think the Jesus legend only became popular because, through politics, it was forced upon society. If Christian politicians, and Church leaders, hadn’t threatened people with imprisonment, torture and execution for not conforming, then the Christian cult would have been lost to history – just like countless other cults. Of course, the story may have survived – like many Greek myths and legends – but it wouldn’t have become as popular as it did.
I’m not a believer, but I just don’t see how a big religious movement could have occurred if it was based on someone who never even existed. Vorjack is right. There are so many other problems with evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity. The myth argument is a road leading to nowhere.
I just don’t see how a big religious movement could have occurred if it was based on someone who never even existed.
So you believe in the historicity of Odin then?
I doubt he believes in Odin. And he is not being inconsistent in doing so. If he believed in Yahweh (the Judeo-Christian equivalent to Odin), he would be inconsistent.
No, That is absolutely incorrect. Odin was ruler of Asgard, which was considered by some Norse pagans to be a real place, specifically Asia. He is also attributed as being the 2nd king of Sweden, and of course, after being deposed from his rule, wanders the earth as a sorcerer until he sacrifices himself to himself by hanging himself on a tree until he dies. It’s true that he is also credited with having created the earthly world, Midgaurd. The thing to note about this is, just like all religions, the stories aren’t very consistent with each other.
Still, just to stick one more dagger in the idea of Odin only being a mythological being, here is an archeologist who thinks that Odin was in fact a real person. <a
Wow you pwned me on that one! Not being sarcastic- I didn’t know all that about Odin. Mighty interesting stuff! I respectfully withdraw my statement :)
Now that you see the truth, will you accept Odin into your heart as your personal Lord and savior? If you are, just say these words: “Odin, I know I’m not perfect. I have coward in the face of battle. But I want you to come into my life. I want you to give me the strength to smite my enemies, their parents and their parents friends. I want to drink with you in the halls of Valhalla, and laugh with you over the bloody corpses of our fallen foes. Help Me slay my adversaries for all the days of my life. In Odin’s name, Amen.”
Sacrifice himself to himself, now where did I hear a similar story?
The awesome part is, Odin sacrificed himself for wisdom – not to save anyone’s sorry ass.
I like Odin a lot more.
it should be noted that even to mythicists, Paul and the authors of the Gospels did believe in Jesus – just a semi-divine Jesus who wasn’t present on earth. If we could, through masterful debate and sound reason, push believers back to that point, we still haven’t really gained anything for atheism.
That’s as stupid an argument as saying that Evolution doesn’t erode people’s faith. Religion is based off of an emotional attachment, not reason. Evolution demolishes the notion of a personal creator. The loss of that emotionally satisfying premise is a blow against religion. In the same way, the elimination of a physical Jesus demolishes the emotional satisfaction for the notion of a god you can see and touch. It’s a huge blow against Christianity, which is why Christian believers push back against it so hard.
I thought the problem was not that a Jesus existed, but that during and shortly before his supposed lifetime, there were a bunch of itinerant preachers and Jewish rebels with names that were close to, or variants on Yeshua. That’s why I’ve never exerted much effort on trying to ferret out the “real” historical Jesus.
Just to amplify a bit- here’s an article by Dan Schneider that lists 20+ Jesuses, mostly based on ‘The Fabrication of the Christ Myth’ by Harold Leidner, as well as a roll call of pre-Jesus saviors. http://www.cosmoetica.com/b125-des76.htm
Don’t ask me about original sources, I dunno.
the quest for the historical Jesus ends in historical fiction
The quest for the historical Master Kung (Confucius) ends in historical fiction. The quest for the historical Mohamed ends in historical fiction. The quest for the historical Buddha ends in historical fiction.
The fiction / history dichotomy obviously is a false choice –
The fictional enlargement of Siddharta Gautama from the Buddha of the Dhammapada into a much later transcendental Buddha figure of the Diamond Sutra should be a less anxiety fraught mental journey for post-xian minds to deal with. Teachings and sayings in the Dhammapada are known to be early writing from the Pali canon and function as indicators of what the Enlightened One may have said.
Neither Master Kung not Buddha suffers from divinization in early texts — they are and remain human beings. (And their early views are completely non-theistic).
As for the xian religion, the Jesus figure may have left behind teachings or sayings which maybe authentic — but Jesus cannot be separated from a context of divinization even in the earliest of so-called gospels, “Mark.”
Calling Jesus a mythological figure already gives his divinized persona too much weight. (Try reading the so-called gospel of “John”.) Behind the divinized persona there need not have been any real person at all.
Before there were any xians, or members of Jesus cults within Judaism — Jewish writers constructed texts which were intentionally what we would call political propaganda. The Book of Daniel — and Judith, always shown cutting off the head of the oppressor general, Holofernes, are complete fiction. Putting a human face on an ideology is nothing new. We remember Daniel and Judith — not the historical period of their creation.
Jesus, when coupled with the hellenistic Christ persona, belong solely to mythology. Jesus the man seems to be a convenient fiction — like Judith or Daniel. A propaganda persona able to “get up and move” out of context, who becomes open to vastly differing interpretations.
Whatever his origin, Jesus’ persona is not as humane and noble as Heracles’, not as smart as Sherlock Holmes’, not as campy as Batman’s.
There are no supernatural phenomena; only supernatural interpretations of phenomena.
the anti_supernaturalist
Note: while Achilles and Hector, Helen and Aphrodite never existed. Troy did exist. And using the geographical and topological descriptions in The Iliad, Schliemann located the ancient city’s site!
Historical fiction, like the Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, need not have a geography out of this world, as say, does the Lord of the Rings.
No, Muhammed did exist. Quite a lot is known about his life. He was an illiterate camel trader who married a twelve year old.
If you think of the jesus story in the sense of tactics then it completely makes sense as to why the Romans would be such a strong supporter of the story.
I think there is value in questioning every assertion; especially, when the assertion is based on traditionally accepted premises that have no real evidential merit.
We are told that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man who was also the Son of God. How do we know this?
A writer named Paul wrote about him sometime in the First Century but his details are rather fuzzy. He seems oblivious to any of the Gospel details of the Jesus biography. His Christ matches some celestial non-physical entity much more than any real person and seems to have no real connection to the Jesus of the Gospels. He tells us he derived his knowledge of His Lord & Saviour from no man but from personal revelation. His letters (the authentic ones not the canonical forgeries in his name) are all about the intricacies & details of the belief system & very little concrete detail about the Christ he worships.
The canonical Gospels are undated, anonymously written stories derived from the oldest of the works – the book we call Mark. A midrashic story blending of Torah themes and verses into a contemporary setting. (Jesus fulfilled prophecy because the story was created to make it look that way…) Despite the confident datings of conservative biblical scholars, in the 60-70′s CE we do not have any third party evidence of the existence of this book until the middle of the second century at the earliest. The anonymous authors of Luke and Matthew appear to both have had copies of Mark on their laps when they wrote their versions of the story. (Both authors altered & embellished the story for their own purposes – contradictions didn’t seem to bother them. The author of gLuke appears to have also had access to Josephus’ writings & cribbed details from him to improve the verisimilitude. These authors could very well have been writing in the second century for all we know. Clearly, none of them were eyewitnesses to what they recorded.
There is no valid third party evidence for a miracle-working man called Jesus of Nazareth in the extant literature (Josephus’ Testimonium Flavum is not evidence of anything except early Christians being willing to falsify & fabricate their evidence…) We have very little outside evidence for the Christian movement before the 2nd century & virtually no other reference to the notion that Christians followed the gospel Jesus until mid-second century
The Mythicist position is that such a magnificent miracle worker should not have escaped the notice of contemporary historians or observers. As it happens, the evidence for Jesus’ existence is no better than that for Paul Bunyan, William Tell or King Arthur. Unlike these legendary figures, your eternal soul’s fate rests on whether you will accept the claims of this unique savior of all mankind.
Can anyone believe that the most important story of all time would have been documented in such a sloppy fashion by the same god who designed the genome & the supernova? Either he wants you to think he’s hiding behind a facade of incompetence or he’s the creation of some very human fiction writers. My bet is on the latter.
The Mythicist position is important because even though one cannot prove a negative; one can show that the Christian historicist position is very fragile & based on some rather wild assertions. Would you believe a supernaturally embellished biography of a man based on Hebrew scripture themes and predating the author by 40 – 80 years as accurate? No. I wouldn’t either. Could it be a fiction? You bet.