Sheltered Objections

A strange Quora encounter

2011-07-18T04:05:00.000-07:00

I love Quora, one of those Q&A sites, where all manners of questions are asked, and people vote up and down the answers to get to the best ones. A question asked a little while ago was this ;

What are some of the greatest speeches in history?

I love history, so I followed along the answers with great interest, and then I hit this answer;

Bradley Voytek, Ph.D., neuroscience Neuroscientist at...I'm quite surprised that the Sermon on the Mount isn't here yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ser... This speech contains the most often quoted (though under-practiced) sayings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, such as the Beatitudes, as well as the "woes of the Pharisees), which is (simplistically) a denunciation by Jesus of the hypocrisy of "religious ornamentation" without belief or faith. The importance of these issues, of course, cannot be understated in terms of their effect on the Western world.

Needless to say I wasn't quite convinced one could make a case that that speech was historic ;

Nobody has mentioned it because the question asks about speeches in history. There is no evidence that this speech was ever performed, so unless we also accept Mel Gibson's speeches from "Braveheart", I'd say the sermon on the mount disqualifies.

Then the fun begun. The following (rather long) comment battle is the discussion between me and a believer about whether or not Jesus could be considered historic, and it went in all sorts of directions. Grab your popcorn and try to follow along, and for maximum authenticity I haven't bothered to fiddle with links and formatting, warts and all (including some slight misunderstandings that always pepper up any boring stew) ;

I believe Alexanders assertions can be answered here based on the historical record: http://www.garyhabermas.com/

Nathan Ketsdever • Jun 17, 2011

Ugh, now we're heading down the path of religious prozelyting. Here's some anti-dote about the accuracy of Jesus, his asserted existence, and how historians really work (rather than what religious people assert without evidence) ; http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Alexander Johannesen • Jun 23, 2011

Well, I'll answer that in turn. Initially, the Gnostic gospels sound nothing like the New Testament. Not even close. They don't belong. That so-called scholarly people use this as an criticism fails to come to grips fundamental issues of authorship.

And the comparative evidence for Jesus is better than almost any other contemporary and some established rulers who lived later. For instance, these quote on the historical Jesus are on point:
http://compassioninpolitics.word...

Also, much of our history books is written "after-the-event." Does writing about 9/11 or any of our military invasions of the past 15 to 25 years mean that I can't speak to their historical. Also, that historical scholarship happened in a different manner during the life of Christ doesn't mean that its invalid--that erases history rather than uncovering it.

The apostles were eyewitnesses. Also, we don't need an eyewitness to demonstrate the truth of an event.

And dollars to donuts I would bet that Gary Habermas has better historical groundings than this essay-esque piece.

As for examining the nature of the historical evidence, Greenleaf at Harvard University did a pretty extensive job of looking at the evidence from the perspective of a judge in a court room--a pretty high standard.
http://y-jesus.com/blog/simon-gr...

Nathan Ketsdever • Jun 23, 2011

Nathan, I admire the speed of your comeback, but really, your links are all by believers, apologists and bible scholars, all of whom share the faith, all of whom share the bias. Nothing in your post sees this from a neutral stance, it's all dedicated religious people making a case for what they take to be true by *faith*.

Try looking for Bart Ehrman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar...) who was Christian turned Agnostic who actually use the same criteria for authentication as historians use. Once you seriously go down that path, your outlook will change. And there's tons of others out there, too, that when one apply actual reason and look for evidence, there is none. There's only your faith.

Btw, your first link is just a terrible page, even trying to quote-mine Einstein for the cause (something Einstein himself actually wrote about ... why not quote that?), and goes a long way quoting the worst apologetics book I've ever had the displeasure of reading, Case for Faith and the equally bad Case for Jesus. How far are you willing to overlook the *actual* inadequates of historicity? How much serious non-biased scholarship are you willing to overlook?

Oh, and Greenleaf? Really? Apologetics based on law "practice" from 165 years ago, that's your medicine?

Sorry, you are a very biased apologetic trying to claim hear-say as evidence, but actual *evidence* for Jesus being real - and even less that Jesus ever actual said the sermon in question - is simply thin, vague and non-existent.

Alexander Johannesen • Jun 23, 2011

Alexander,
Kudos for your quick response as well. CS Lewis, Alister McGrath, and Greenleaf all fall into the category of converting from atheism or skeptic to Christian. Lee Strobel, Francis Collins, Hilary Putnam, and Mortimer J Adler did as well. Admittedly, Strobel's criticism of darwin may be off, but he's not an unintelligent guy.

Barts argument primarily hinges on the problem of pain, but thats a rather simplistic indict of the Christian faith (although more convincing than anything I've heard from the New Atheists who have trafficked in overgeneralization, stereotype, and received criticism from their own groups)

The evidence of a historical Jesus is comparative with other contemporaries (see the list of quotes).

On the issue of non-biased literature, most of its "biased" on both sides. And bias alone is not reason to overlook it--again that would leave us without literature to debate from (also the list of conversions above suggests a lack of bias in their assessment--in fact Adler, Putnam, and McGrath are all philosophers who are grounded in the fundamentals of argument and logic). And certainly the agnostics of the day, did cite Jesus, even if they did so at a later date.

Nathan Ketsdever • Jun 23, 2011

All of those guys were never convinced atheists, they mostly fall into the deist or agnostic buckets, and the few of the who do have rational leanings loose them as soon as they try to aply it to their faith. It's a good reason it's called faith, and not facts. let's just leave it at that.

As to reducing all of Ehrmans books down to "the problem of pain" is ridiculous, you really don't *want* to know if that's your take on it.

As to Jesus historicity of other contemporary characters from history, I again want to ask you for actual historians making the claim, not from heavily biased religious people. And also a pointer to why, say, Augustus (which is the normal example the religious bring out) have less or equal historic pizzazz than Jesus, again using normal historical criteria.

As to bias, you're forgetting that "the other side" isn't an other side from yours alone; we just simply look for things that are evidence-based. We in the evidence camp just happen to lump you in with all the other thousands of religions and conspiracy theorists and myths, and you need to convince us that your claims stand out on better epistemic grounds than the others of that large group. And so far you're not doing too well, that's all.

By all means, have your faith. But for you to claim it to be true, you need evidence, you need it rooted in proper epistemology. Everything else is just opinion, hear-say and - well - faith.

Alexander Johannesen • Jun 23, 2011

I can't speak for Putnam and Mortimer J. Adler, but I'm pretty sure the rest were converts.

I'm not being fair to Ehrman--I meant to say his original disbelief or conversion rested primarily on the problem of pain or at least thats what he said in the debate I watched.

In terms of the other side, I have watched a number of scholars debate the issue. So, yes, I've listened to the other side. I've also read a decent amount online on mainstream atheist sites. I probably should read more.

Also, comparative evidence that subsumes your criticism:
“The contradictions [in the gospels] are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthiers–e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates–would fate into legend.”
–Will Durant in the second volume of the History of Civilization

Nathan Ketsdever • Jun 23, 2011

Your quote from Durant is just silly in this context; I asked for evidence of the historicity of Jesus, not about the contradictions in the NT (and I find it beyond revealing that he names them the synoptic gospels; you are familiar with *why* they are called such, no?) and how some guy think they're great, and therefore Jesus is supposed real as well.

Where's the evidence? Actual evidence? You know, from actual historians and neutral scholars?

If you haven't got it, stop making truth-claims; you are epistemologically challenged.

Alexander Johannesen • Jun 23, 2011

Alexander, I'm making claims which reference other claims. Sorry, I don't have access to original texts. That doesn't deny that I'm making historical arguments. I don't need to have declarations of war to prove various international conflicts took place--or at least I can reference but not directly quote those original documents. James Kennedy turns your epistemology question in the other direction below.

Also, the majority vs. minority text distinction seem to answer most of textual criticisms beef along with Ehrmans beef:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/nt...
Discrepancies can be resolved.

After listening to more of Ehrmans' speech on Misquoting Jesus, his arguments hardly consider that the core message is preserved. One example he gives is "as it says in Isaiah" vs. "as it says in the prophets." Thats hardly a big difference. Further, there are various ways of getting at meaning, even if the transcription or translation is in error.

Also the Durant quote does two things:
1. Historical Jesus compared to other people in history.
2. Speaks to supposed discrepencies (differences)

Additionally, James Kennedy's analysis is pretty compelling (he also points out that 3 Jewish historians/scholars reference Jesus):
“There are, very clearly, at least nineteen early pagan writers who refer to Jesus Christ as an actual, real-life, historical figure: Tacitus, a great historian of Rome; Suetonius, also a historian; Pliny the Younger, one of the leaders of the Roman Empire; Epictetus; Lucian; Aristides; Galenus; Lampridius; Dio Cassius; Emeritus; Annianus (or Anianus); Marcellinu; Eunapius; and Zosimus. Some wrote entire works about Jesus, such as Lucian, Celsus (the first great antagonist, who wrote a whole book attacking Christianity), Porphyry, Hieracles, and Julian the Apostate (p. 75)
–D. James Kennedy, doctorate in comparative religions from New York University, Skeptics Answered: Handling Tough Questions About the Christian Faith, 1997

Nathan Ketsdever • Jun 23, 2011

Hi Nathan, you don't give up easy, do you? :) Ok, let's dive in ;

" I don't need to have declarations of war to prove various international conflicts took place"

No, but you must admit, they would be helpful? Actual documents are always better than hear-say and references to them. The closer to the event it is, the better.

"the majority vs. minority text distinction seem to answer most of textual criticisms beef along with Ehrmans beef"

No, they simply don't, and saying so is to not understand what that distinction mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New... it's not a major nor important theme), nor to what Ehrman actually writes, including his own take on this distinction. Neither is the view expressed throughecclesia.org non-biased nor always shared.

"his arguments hardly consider that the core message is preserved"

Nate, not even Christians agree on what core message is preserved. There's 38.000 Christian denominations in the world; do the math.

"Also the Durant quote does two things: 1. Historical Jesus compared to other people in history. 2. Speaks to supposed discrepencies (differences)"

Yes, and it does it really badly. What's your point?

About James Kennedy, plenty are pointing out the bizarre claims he make, even bizarre by Christian scholars; http://www.infidels.org/library/... And a quick review of the book on Amazon says "Some of his claims are absurd, his logic is filled with gaping holes, and his tone is arrogant and condescending." Not the best embrace of what's supposed to be a serious answer. But let's look for more.

Kennedy is also an apologist. When we look into basic historic research and his stance on it, say on Josephus, the fraud that Christians propose as real is simply presented as such, even when it is demonstrably a forgery. WTF? This isn't serious rebuke; this is blind faith.

You can list a whole bunch of names like that, but what do these people say? If 100 people through antiquity writes about claims of the reality of Greek or Roman gods and heros, does that make them true? Then, why not? All of the people listed writes about Jesus in the past tense, descriptive of the followers who make claim about their leader, and the three best sources are all at a minimum 40 years after the event (!!). There's no contemporary writings, none at all, zilch, nothing. If all the dead of Jerusalem were awakened and wandering the streets on the day Jesus died, why are there no contemporary writings of such an incredible event? The answer is rather obvious.

Alexander Johannesen • Jun 23, 2011

I'm confused, your link didn't give a refutation of what Kennedy said or answer the reasons Kennedy gave to support his conclusions. Also, the Amazon reviewer you referenced was mainly concerned with:
1. tone and style (ie the language he used)
2. the science issues (ie the reviewer was a paleontologist).
He didn't seem to take issue with the history portion of the book specifically or the groundings of those specific arguments.

To be fair, my linking to the Ecclessia was a little premature--my main point is that statistical consistency could be used to attain a manuscript which was generally trustable.

Most Christian faiths would fit into the following categories, although I'm sure you could easily double the size of the list:

1. Catholicism
2. Baptist
3. Lutheranism
4. Methodist
5. Prespyterianism
6. Anabaptism
7. Church of Christ
8. Nondenominational
9. Anglicanism

Differences of opinion about faith doesn't invalidate the faith in the same way that differences of opinion about science or history or any other academic subject don't invalidate that area of inquiry.

And your myth argument is answered by:
1. Kennedy
2. Durant
3. the fact that Jesus was fulfillment of hundreds of prophesies in the Old Testament which spoke about his nature
4. other external verifications (including Jewish and atheist/agnostic scholars).

I don't know where you get this--as this refers to Jesus' second coming, not his first:
"If all the dead of Jerusalem were awakened and wandering the streets on the day Jesus died, why are there no contemporary writings of such an incredible event?"

I can't tell you why historians of the time didn't write about it. Its not really my burden of proof to do that. It seem odd, yes. But odd doesn't disprove the 4 lines of argument above. Again, the issue of comparisons to other historical figures like Napolean and Socrates is pretty compelling (sorry, I don't have the Napolean quote on me)

Nathan Ketsdever • Jun 23, 2011

Sorry, my bad, wrong link. Try this one; http://www.atheist-community.org... with choice quote; "Skeptics Answered doesn't.Skeptics Answered is a ridiculous work of apologetics" So no, the book has not convinced anyone but the already converted.

Here's another, from a Christian; http://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-A... with choice quote "This book is intended to convince people of the truth of the faith and the validity of the Bible; if you have any background in science, history, or religion, it will probably do neither."

Again, pure apologetics, no evidence.

Your list of broad categories of Christians doesn't even cover that of my wife, nor of her sister (two different). I think you're trying to make a better case for yourself than reality would suggest.

About all the dead of Jerusalem; Umm, no, don't you know your bible? This is not the second coming (although I'm sure they claim it for that, too), this is Matthew 27:51-53. Enjoy.

"Its not really my burden of proof to do that."

Yes, yes it is. You make a claim about something being true. Prove it. Show us. Give us convincing evidence. One thing to remember in all this is that the absence of evidence very often *is* evidence of absence, even if most apologetics claim otherwise. The reason no one wrote about this event is that it probably didn't happen. The burden of proof is on you.

Anyway, this comment section is well exhausted, and I take my leave as this will not go anywhere but down into your apologetics and theology vs. my rationalism and want of evidence.

Peace be with you and yours. :)

Alexander Johannesen • Jun 23, 2011

I'm sorry that I excluded your sister and wife. It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list, just the main streams that I could remember at 2:06 am.

I'm sorry reviews on Amazon by Lonely Girl 014 (or whatever the guys name is) don't even begin to cut the mustard. Why?

1. Specificity. Please refer to my distinctions above. The review from Amazon = fluff and 100% name calling, with zero specific mention of what I'm talking about.
2. Reasons given. If you compare the quote I provided had no warrants or data (aka reasons) in sharp contrast, I provided multiple reasons. Its hard to provided fluffy sweeping criticisms vs. substance.
3. Credentials and Experience. Doctorate in comparative religions from New York University. Also, he is a best seller on Amazon.
Each serves as an independent reason to prefer my evidence over yours. Also, you've yet to provide a real indictment of the Will Durant evidence which establishes history and overarching consistency, except generic name calling (generally "weak").

Oddly the arguments you are using about holes in the historical record is the exact opposite arguments you would make in terms of holes in the geographic record with respect to evolution. I'm not taking a position on that, just pointing out a likely inconsistency in burdens of proof. Also, just like a trial we aren't in a position to do on site interviews or time travel. That it took a particular author until they published their first novel could have any number of reasons which we don't know. The time period between publication and his life is peculiar, but not all that different from non-governmental historical figures of the day.

Nathan Ketsdever • Jun 24, 2011

Nathan, this is getting a bit out of hand, and I find it odd you harp on the Amazon review (which doesn't seem to be the one you think it is) rather than the more serious one, but I guess it makes it easier for you to shrug away challenges.

The whole concept of "your evidence" is terribly and utterly faulty. You don't have it. Referring to James Kennedy is a joke, he's been refuted and corrected so many times over the years, without changing his tune. He's the leader of a church, an apologetic, a true believer, and heavily biased so. His arguments are based not on evidence, but on experience and theology (there's something to be said about both, but it isn't evidence), and that is the way most apologetics work;

1. Something is written in the Bible that must be true (argument).
2. Use other parts of the Bible to prove that the Bible is true (premise, circular argumentation).
3. Find anchors in history, and flog them to death under the pretense that trivial evidence also proves complex evidence (conjecture).

This is faulty thinking. If there is no contemporary writings about Jesus, there simply isn't any, and no amount of retrofitting will change that. The Romans wrote down everything that happened in their empire, everything! But apparently not these most amazing things. And that is *telling*. Jesus simply had no impact in his time beyond his disciples, he wasn't written about or even mentioned anywhere until way after his followers as a group grew to the point of being noted. These are the facts, these are the things we can back by evidence. Everything else is projection, speculation and conjecture which is fine amongst friends, but simply not accepted in a serious examination of evidence.

And not only that, but we're talking about the *historic* Jesus here, and all of the above is as if he truly lived. You don't have evidence of it. There's nothing written about him that makes it more true than stuff written about Achilles; no contemporary accounts from neutral sources, which would be *evidence*. Evidence. That's what this discussion is about. Evidence, no conjecture, speculation, projection, gut feelings and possible scenarios. Evidence. And as such, there isn't any. It's *likely* that there was a Jesus, but no *evidence* of such. It's *likely* he was a preacher and the son of a worker, but no *evidence* of such. It's *possible* that he was crucified by the Romans, but no *evidence* of such a thing happening. It also sounds highly speculative that the dead wandered the streets on the day he died, and there most definitely is no evidence of that.

Either you have evidence for the historicity of Jesus, or you just have to admit that the evidence is lacking and that we're talking about potentials and conjecture. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

Finally; "Oddly the arguments you are using about holes in the historical record is the exact opposite arguments you would make in terms of holes in the geographic record with respect to evolution."

What the bloody hell are you talking about? The geological record is chock-a-block full of evidence, from fossils and prints to structure, complexity, compounds, layers and erosion, chemistry and physics (you know; hard to argue against-stuff). And importantly, rocks don't have a bias, and neither does instruments and epistemology. So what hole are you talking about in terms of evolution?

Is this the old "there are no transitional species" canard, because it's a very, very stupid one debunked so many times it's not funny, an argument put out by creationists who don't know crap about what they're arguing against (neither geology nor evolution), and surely you're not that stupid?

Alexander Johannesen • Jun 24, 2011

The Achilles comparison makes no sense, because you later say Jesus did live. The difference between Achilles and Jesus is found in the evidence you seem to deny. Irrespective of your maligning his ability to write (which is just hyper-generic mud-slinging and name calling P.S.)

I answered the review so extensively because thats your only cited piece of evidence to date [and you really didn't answer any of it--you should have posted the review you were trying reference if I somehow got the author, the quote, or his credibility wrong]. And its borderline silly when compared to you chastising someone who has 10x your knowledge on this issue....10x the experience in research on the issue....and 10x the data (the historical citations of 21 specific authors who wrote about Jesus). You say those authors were biased. Nope. Some of them were pagan writers and some were Jewish--I believe it was 19 of the former and 3 of the later (I'll have to chase down the exact quote for the Jewish historians). Thats 21 pieces of hard evidence of the historical Jesus and you've got goose egg. Sure we're talking about probabilities--but probabilities that swing heavily in my direction--because you've got no counter-evidence.

Further, we could take the issue of eyewitness account in terms of the apostles and think about how they only had something to lose (i.e. life or time in prison) by telling the story of Jesus. Also, why would their story tell both the good and the bad instead of painting an overly rosey picture of what faith was about. Someone who was a snake oil salesman would just have whitewashed the story like so many televangelists, not told about the suffering and imprisonment.

You can't have it both ways. Its not that their aren't transitional forms, it just that as an argumentative choice you are in a double-bind of sorts, either you say odd gaps that I can't explain aren't my fault in one space.....or your concede the 30 year timeframe to history about Jesus isn't that big of a deal. They are functionally very similar gaps or omissions in data followed up by available data.

Nathan Ketsdever • Jun 24, 2011

Nate, you're getting ridiculous now. "The Achilles comparison makes no sense, because you later say Jesus did live." No, I didn't. I'm giving contextual consent to the probability of Jesus being based on a real human, but stating plainly that the evidence for the actual existence of Jesus and Achilles are the same.

"I answered the review so extensively", No you didn't. You picked the Amazon shortie rather than the larger review by Martin Wagner of the book, and your refusal to pursue it is telling.

"And its borderline silly when compared to you chastising someone who has 10x your knowledge on this issue"

Oh, brother. Why 10x? Why not 20x? or 3x? And on "this issue"? What issue? One of the many, all of them combined, epistemology (which was the angle I came in on), or none? Your sentences are falling apart.

"the historical citations of 21 specific authors who wrote about Jesus"

And *NONE* of them were contemporary writers. Is this fact really that hard to grapple with? And *ALL* of them write about characters from the past, like Achilles. What is the difference between talking in the past of Jesus and of Achilles? What are they proving to you?

"you've got no counter-evidence"

I think this is at the core of your confusion. I don't need counter-evidence; these are *YOUR* claims. You claim he existed, you claim him to be true. Well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not second-hand myth-wielding decades after the proposed event.

"issue of eyewitness account"

There's tons to be said on this topic, including all the written materials throughout history that has eye-witness accounts of all sorts of stuff that simply didn't happen. People claim to see weird stuff all the time, so by this logic we must also accept UFOs, conspiracies, ghosts, lephrichorns, fairies, bigfoot, Loch Ness monsters, you name it. They're all eye-witness accounts, and one can argue for what they lose (respect, dignity, honesty, humanity) in the process till the cows come home. It's conjecture, and really, really bad ones at that.

"They are functionally very similar gaps or omissions in data followed up by available data"

They're not even kissing-cousins in relation, you banging on about this proves to me that you have no real idea of what you're talking about. In my last comment I was explicit on the difference between geology and human bias, but to spell it out to you further;

Geological time is measured in millions of years; human time is measured in minutes. 30 years in a society of crap cultural capture is a good billion years in geological comparison. And if you cannot understand this, then you're not after truth, you're after filling your holes in your knowledge with comfort rather than facts.

Alexander Johannesen • Jun 24, 2011

The problems of eye-witness accounts hardly indict the story--the only access we would have would be primarily eye-witness accounts or history--and your criticism of history is that its not eyewitness. You can't have it both ways.

Also, its multiple eyewitness accounts plus the historical record. These multiple check each other. For instance, in a criminal trial, more witnesses are better than one. While eyewitness accounts may not be perfect, they are one of the best pieces of evidence we have in this context. The same could be said about our grasp on various theories of science from the environment to evolution. The same could be said for our hybrids which may get closer to 90 mph in the near future. They aren't perfect, but for now, they will have to do.

Imperfections in the historical record or eyewitness accounts are not reasons to reject--just reasons to be cautious.

Your author could rightly be criticized for:
1. blatant name calling, which never really calls into question the historical record he draws upon
2. traffiking in conspiracy theory consistent with the Jesus Seminar. Criticism of possible intents is not an indictment.
3. never providing a refutation of the evidence I provided.
I wouldn't be surprised to read his other reviews and find them equally incomplete--and only defensive rather than offensive arguments against the historical arguments outlined in the books he criticizes.

This article refutes the Jesus was a magician book your author attempts to reference: Barry Crawford, Journal of the American Academy of Religion (1979), 321-322 [Its available via Project Muse or universities which have a subscription to the journal.] I would have replied with an actual quote, but the article you linked to only made a passing comment, so I'm responding at the level of your author.

I will admit that geographic time vs. human time is different, but it is the case that modernity put a higher emphasis on time and efficiency than would have been culturally present from AD 30 to AD 60.
This is unfortunately for you your best rebuttal of an argument--but a defensive one at that.

Nathan Ketsdever • Jun 29, 2011

You keep going on about eye-witness reports and how important they are, say, in a court of law. But even there they are 1) not the best evidence, and b) made by real people who claim to see it for themselves. The four Gospels were all written by people who were not there, never saw the events, and often referenced or based their story on each other. There are *no* eye-witness reports of anything Jesus did in a historical light. None. Zilch. Nada. The *best* you've got is second-hand information from second- and third-generation people written down by scribes and assistants, where the earliest story written down at least 30 years after the event.

This is like trying to make a historical case from a story told by a cousin of Sally Ride about what space was like, and then written down by that cousins friend. Do you know and realize just how far removed from reality such a chain really is?

I'll leave it at that. It's projection, hear-say and fantasy, but you accept it as truth. However, historians do not.

Alexander Johannesen • Jun 29, 2011

The writings of these five [witnesses to the Resurrection] contain some of the highest moral and ethical teaching the world has known. If these men were not honest, then they represent a baffling contradiction of what they themselves were proclaiming.

This in addition to the first 5 or 6 paragraphs of this essay from Clarrie Briese, B.A., Diploma of Criminology (Cantab), A.O., is a former Chief Magistrate (judge)1 of N.S.W., Australia (now retired).

http://creation.com/can-we-belie...

And this one is even quicker to read and comparatively better:
http://www.christiancourier.com/...

I haven't had the opportunity to read the text, but its available online atArchieve.org and begins on page 15 (the other pages are advertisement & otherwise unnneccessay)
http://www.archive.org/stream/hi...

Nathan Ketsdever • Jun 30, 2011

I will concede in advance that the writing in “The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records” is both long and dense.

Nathan Ketsdever • Jun 30, 2011

"The writings of these five [witnesses to the Resurrection] contain some of the highest moral and ethical teaching the world has known."

This is absolute nonsense, and I dare you to actually read more, including especially early Vedic and classical Greek writings which contain far more complex models of thought on the human condition, and lends themselves easily to also be called better models of ethics. Your comment simply is astoundingly naiive, and perhaps stands as an example of someone who hasn't read much yet claim superiority to the little he has read. I am not impressed.

Anyway, you use and link to creationist sites - the inverse Godwin's law! - and by that siding with certified cooks and irrational crazies, and it's time for me to exit as you're peddling lunacy. I just don't have the time to deal with *that* level of crazy.

Alexander Johannesen • Jun 30, 2011

You've clearly straw-personed what the quote was saying. The quote was suggesting was that if we assume the people who wrote the text had the intent of just teaching ethics....the ethics of teaching falsehoods doesn't make sense.

Correspondingly, if they were bad, they wouldn't have been so forthcoming about details like Peter's doubts, perhaps even Sauls conversion, or Jesus' struggles with his role on earth before he died.

To answer the second layer of argument. I have read a decent amount of ethics and political philosophy. I don't doubt that these systems may have some value to them. I'm not sure what substance I'm supposed to take away from them. The ideas of grace and forgiveness on the one hand and the Golden rule and living with virtue and character on the other are themes which run through the New Testament and are referenced by social reformers from our Founding Fathers to Ghandi (love & nonviolence) to Martin Luther King.

I'm not sure Godwin would want his name tarnished by an attempt to avoid debate or the attempt to name-call. Thats all your reference does.

Nathan Ketsdever • Jun 30, 2011

"You've clearly straw-personed what the quote was saying"

No, I did not, I was pointing out the absurdity of the statement. Claiming that "these five witnesses" contain any such thing is a stupid statement (because there is so much other and earlier writing of the sort that can safely be argued to be of an even higher ethical standing) and ignorant (for the lack of knowing about these things). You can call it straw-manning all you like; you use the quote as your argument, and that makes you the same by fiat.
"The ideas of grace and forgiveness on the one hand and the Golden rule and living with virtue and character on the other are themes which run through the New Testament and are referenced by social reformers from our Founding Fathers to Ghandi (love & nonviolence) to Martin Luther King."

And the *same* thing can be said of Vedic writings and of classical Greek writing that both *predates* the new testament. It makes your point moot; The golden rule is not uniquely Jesus, in fact, it is not even uniquely human. I don't why this is so hard for Christians to understand.

"I'm not sure Godwin would want his name tarnished by an attempt to avoid debate or the attempt to name-call. Thats all your reference does."

Godwin knows perfectly well why his name is invoked, and you can ask him, he's still alive and well. However, I said the *inverse* Godwin's law, which you seem unfamiliar with. I'll explain it;

Just like mentioning you-know-who (Godwin's law), linking to creationists material in any religious debate makes it abundantly clear that all rational thought has been thrown to the wind, and further intelligent debate is futile. Rational people are less and less inclined to engage with creationists, simply because they have world-views so far fetched and removed from the real world and science that it makes it impossible to find a middle ground where even logic can stand as a guide. Creationists will proudly and firmly stand on batshit crazy ground and proclaim it to be a virtue of their belief to go against ... well, nature and science and most people everywhere. These are not people who want debate; these are people who think the Earth is 6000 years old. It's simply batshit crazy, and if you don't understand why that is batshit crazy, then why are we having this discussion? Trying to have a rational discussions with people who think the Earth is 6000 years old is pointless. That is what the inverse Godwin's law is all about. If you want to be taken seriously, don't link to batshit crazy people as your argument.

Alexander Johannesen • Jun 30, 2011

The problem of knowledge through science and religion

2011-06-14T20:34:00.000-07:00

I love being an online harpie, ploughing the rough dirt of these them tubes so it can later squirt new life. And my honest self proclaims ideas and thoughts about how to better harvest that which will be beneficial to all. I'm of simple farming stock, you see, like pretty much the most of us, thinking hard about how to get the best yield, and one of the best means of doing so I have found to be engaging with people at the other end of whatever opinion spectrum I find myself on. I am a feminist, so I go talk to misogynists. I am a rationalist, so I go talking with irrational people. I am a misnomer tribulationists, so I go discuss existentialism with sarang optimetriloquists. It's a good thing to pursue your opposites if you are honest about your thirst for knowledge; fresh opinions you may not automatically agree with always makes you re-examine your own. This process is gold.

However, every once in as I engage in online discussions, mostly by commenting on blog posts (because it's cheap and fast) my feeble prose lead to bigger and bigger discussions that in the end undermines the argument and the discussion itself by its very nature. Some times the medium simply needs to change. This time I am a naturalist atheist, so I go discuss with Cory at Joshia Concept Ministries, a theologically inclined Christian of Calvinist leanings. The size and complexity of that online blog post discussion has become too big for the inner peace of comment-systems. No, of course I could ignore it and moved on, but it was about especially a two-step topic near and dear to me;

How do you know?

Yes, how do you know what you know? Or even, why do you know? How did you get the knowledge? How did you keep it? What's stopping you from losing it? That's step one. Second step is;

How do you know that your knowledge is true?

Indeed. Not surprisingly, as a huge science buff and hobbyist historian / occult philosopher of such, I can't begin to list the thousands and thousands of years of trying (and often failing) to create knowledge that can be separated from hear-say, opinion and outright lying. Knowledge is a dangerous sea of deception where just because you call it knowledge you think it is true. You won't believe just how hard it has been to get bias out of the domain of knowledge, bias you often don't even think is there to distort the truth aspect of it. Thousands of years have passed just to get society at large to even dare question bias and authority in nuggets of knowledge, there's just tons of general knowledge that simply isn't true. Not true by virtue of people actively lying, most of the time, but by how hard it is to just get rid of the stuff, to understand that anecdotal evidence is not evidence, that that story you heard is probably not true even if your grandma told it, and that even if we'd like there to be an Area 51 conspiracy involving aliens doesn't mean there is one. It's toxic. It infects everything around us.

One of the more pertinent concepts of it is that crummy word Epistemology. (Don't worry; you follow the link, I'll wait here until you get back) Lots of concepts enters into this subject, from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to pragmatic vs. formal version of what is Truth, mathematics and different orders of logic, basic tenants of philosophy and the state of mind, group think, cultural context and psychology, and possibly various notions of neuroscience and the distinctions (yes, plural) between consciousness and cognitive operations. I could go on, but let's keep it reasonably simple with our two questions above while we dig into the meat of the actual discussion. I'm only here replying to Cory's last reply which hopefully will bring enough context (and if not, go and read the whole thing linked above. Again, I'll wait here for you). Let's also create some color: I am green, Cory is blue ;

My tone and venom are generally proportionate to the intelligence level of the argument. I re-read my post, however, and failed to see any venom or scathing tone in the post itself [...]. If the argument is dumb, then I can get a bit mean [...].

All of this is subjective, of course, and not humbling in the least. However, tone and venom is normally not something I disapprove of, in fact I can be quite the filth-bucket myself if I feel proficiently self-justified and self-righteous enough about something. I love a good rant, too, often when directed at people I find stupid or misguided. However, I require one thing for it to be the Right Thing [TM] in my book;

A large degree of truth.

It's more than fine to lampoon and make fun of people's opinions except when you do it without any real meat to it, without a certain degree of accepted truth (even if controversial). Racial or misogynist slurs are easy examples of such, and comedians know how to utilize this well. It may indeed be funny, at least for some, but there's a cut-off point where funny becomes unfunny, where the joke you told isn't so much a joke as it is a revealing truth about you that, in fact, might sit a bit uncomfortable with your audience.

So in our context, I thought Cory wanted to engage in intelligent discourse about the topic of knowledge. He even included words like epistemology, and went on a big spiel about methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism, which are big words in almost any normal conversation, and for me no more than an invitation to talk about these things a bit deeper. Cory is a Christian claiming to have knowledge about these things, and I always find it interesting to hear what people of such a label has to say, I perk up and listen, especially considering the epistemological weak ground I find they base their whole world model on (more on that underneath, of course).

However, claiming people have a huge amount of ignorance about something (not once, but several times), calling them out, requires that your comeback or argument has serious meat to its bone. But when it doesn't, when it isn't obvious you yourself have the required deep knowledge of the subject at hand, well, the message comes across as snarky, mean and, well, venomous.

You write that someone is ignorant about methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism and some split down the middle, creating two camps in which you place constraints on the original statement so that they fit with your argument. It's like William Craig Lane when he is refusing to argue against a combatant's argument on the grounds that it is epistemological, he will only address the ontological ones, even when it doesn't matter which way you define certain arguments. In other words, an artificial split has been inserted into an argument so that it becomes easier to refute or dismiss it, even if it was asked for by the other side and still a good argument. Let's keep that in mind while we look at the original statement you criticized ;

Evolution, Physics, Astronomy,etc. describe reality as it is, but do take some effort to learn – theists just want quick answers: god

And the meat of your post is this ;

Monica fails to make two important distinctions

No, no she doesn't. She doesn't have to define anything to make her statement. There's nothing wrong about it as it stands, no philosophical legs broken, no need for an analytic breakdown of its various semantic parts required, no breach of empiric context, no violation of general knowledge. You may argue about the validity of "quick answers" (I know people who went for years to seminary, and those years were far from easy, and that would have been a far better reply), but you don't (at least not here; there's a possible jab at it later). What happens here is that you're reacting to something and so demand that she makes some distinction (which may or may not only be only your own requirement, not the rest of the world) in order for you to accept it. And that is very, very different from your bold assertion which we'll look at next ;

The first distinction is between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. This is a mistake most atheists make.

No, this is a mistake theologians require of others, nothing more. In the field of natural philosophy (the original name for science, or Naturalism, if you prefer) you will find many, many different definitions, constraints and opposing views of what goes into or should stay outside that bucket we call Science. Let's make a few simplifications for us to follow ;

Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge, or the scientific process, if you like, where observation, testing and evidence loops as a means of epistemic statements approaching some sense of Truth.

Metaphysical naturalism is the notion that there's nothing more than nature, that all states of consciousness and being are reducible to natural phenomena.

I don't think many dispute methodological naturalism as a brilliant means of getting to the truth of things. The amount of joint success and prosperity it has brought to the human context is beyond any alternative ever ventured, and I think you'd be quite foolish to claim otherwise (that's not an accusation), and I think most Christians (bar the Creationists and overly literally religious) are happy with this part.

However, it's the second one that is problematic. The theist will always argue it being false, while an atheist will always argue it true. You cannot claim it a mistake atheists do; it is in fact the very thing for atheists to do, it is the definition of what it means to be atheist. Unless you have evidence that shows it to be false, you're just projecting your own wishes unto a definition that doesn't include your opinion, and that's exactly what you're doing. The definition of metaphysical naturalism do not stand in the way of the original tweet message and an acceptable notion of truth; only your opinion does.

But let's dig further. Next you brush against the point I was making at the top; you're not really caring too much about the distinctions you feel she needs to make;

The tweet is ignorant because theists are not lazy and we do not just punt everything we don’t know to God. We simply leave God as a possible explanation for things, especially things that appear to have no naturalistic explanation.

I could go on for days about the fallacies with that short statement, but I'll make it as short as I can. The main hint lies in this part; "We simply leave God as a possible explanation for things", which, when you look at it should makes us ask a couple of questions ;

1. Simply? I would say whether a person believes in God or not totally and utterly changes that person's life and of those around them, and it certainly changes the mode of thinking. These are not simple things. I understand that's not what you meant (certainly not completely) but you don't simply think God is a possible, you assert that your god is responsible. And here's the clincher; In the presence of alternative explanations, to discard the pragmatic or natural explanations require you to provide some pretty good reasons and / or evidence to the opposite, and to do that is not simple.

2. "we do not just punt everything we don’t know to God". Yes, yes you do. Anything that you don't understand (and this includes swaths of what theology itself comes up with), anything that seems to need or have a divine answer, you attribute to God, usually in mysterious ways. Not sure why you want to claim otherwise, as most of your posts do exactly this; invoke God in the holes of your knowledge. Don't fully understand why your god had to sacrifice himself to himself without it being a true sacrifice? There's god staring back at us. Not sure about the meaning of the trinity? Let theology fill the gaps with god. I'm sure your argument here is that theology isn't worthless, that it provides some degree of epistemics into the dogma of your choice, but I'm inclined to point to 2000 years of historical Christian doctrine as a counter-example of how Augustine still today is perhaps the most important Christian escapologist throughout time and the 38.000 denominations that has come through it (although, to be fair, it's not always through Augustine, but I dare say half of those denominations are directly linked to his thinking).

The universe itself, life, consciousness, and intelligence. None of these things have natural explanations, or has science finally explained how I can create an original thought and I missed the memo?

What, exactly, do you mean by a natural explanation? All of these things have natural explanations (that is, rooted in naturalism or natural philosophy) with tons of epistemic knowledge to back it up that reaches far, far beyond anything any religion would ever hope to come up with. What is your measuring stick? I'm starting to suspect that your 'natural explanation' isn't how scientists would use the term (or normal people, come to that), and we have perhaps more a problem of language than we have of evidence or explanations.

What science can ever explain how I can just construct a story?

I'm puzzled by this assertion. Neuroscience, of course, the science of how the brain works. Very interesting field which I follow very, very closely. (It's no accident that some of the most high profile atheist have degrees in or around neuroscience, like Sam Harris and Michael Shermer of experimental psychology, or PZ Myers as an extension to embryology and brain development)

I suspect (but feel free to correct me) that what you mean is some level of explanation that we simply do not yet have, like the edge of current scientific knowledge where complexity of the brain reaches outside of what we currently are able to figure out. Note, however, that I do not accept God of the gaps, the notion that our holes in our knowledge can be filled with god; it has been proven over and over throughout time to be simply wrong. Why is it that every time science reach a limit (of understanding, of instrument, of observation, whatever) the religious are fast to shout "God!"? I kinda understand that you don't agree with God of the gaps either, but when we really scrutinize theology, what apart from God of the gaps is there on any important religious doctrine?

I don’t see how there could ever be a scientific explanation for Stephen King having a flash of inspiration, working with it, and then churning out Carrie, or The Dark Half, or the story collection Four Past Midnight.

Is this assertion based on your knowledge of neuroscience, or the lack of it? In other words, could it be that you "don't see how something can be" some way simply by virtue that you don't understand it? The opposite end require that you have deep knowledge about the subject before you can reject its premise.

The point of my entire rant is that the metaphysical naturalist precludes even asking the question “why” by eliminating the supernatural on a mere definition rather than investigating it.

Okay, so we're finally coming to the meat of it; the never-ending why vs. how question. However, there's some glaring problems with this notion which we'll soon see, but first we're heading back into knowledge land;

As to your second point, I am not attacking anything imaginary. These distinction most certainly exist. It is you, the metaphysical naturalist, who doesn’t want them to exist. As hard as you fight to rid even the possibility of anything supernatural existing, it is clearly your side that seeks to suppress any voice of reason from my side.

This paragraph is lush in problems, but you're simply missing the point; I wasn't claiming that the distinction was imaginary, I said the constraints you make through them were. I'm not fighting hard to keep the supernatural out of these categories; they are by their very definition supernatural-free (that's pretty much the definition of Natural). It is your job to provide evidence that there is such a super thing in addition. Don't put the burden of proof on those who don't see what sounds like your imaginary things.

Another problem with this is that you make claims that your super-natural domain seeps into and reacts directly with the natural world. At that point the super-natural enters the natural world, and it can be measured, tested and prodded to see if the super-natural indeed has any effect. And this is the problem; when we do measure, test and prod, we do not find anything but that which exists in the natural world. This is the constraint you are trying to break down, so I'm not suppressing your voice of "reason", I'm not trying to get the super-natural out of the bucket of answers for things, I'm saying that you are making claims of a category that don't show up in that category. What does it even mean to be super-natural when the effect is claimed to be in the natural world? If its effect is in the natural world, it belongs in the testable domain of metaphysical naturalism.

In other words; what is this super natural domain of which you speak? Seriously; what is it?

An argument from ontology would point you to the fact that this is how we came about the knowledge of the Big Bang, quantum states of the universe (positive gravity energy counters out mass of the universe, etc.) and the red-shift origins and direction of the universe, how it began and how it probably will end. Your argument is just not very sharp; knowledge in science is a string of connected pieces of evidence and further knowledge, and trying to make everything black and white is not going to make you understand much, if anything. The understanding of something – almost anything! – will lead to understanding of something else. There is no finite knowledge in science, only in religion.

I don’t have a clue what you’re tying to say with your jab on religion.

It wasn't a jab. Finite knowledge, absolute truth, is what religion is all about. It says in the bible that X and Y are so (Was Jesus the son of God? Yes, or no? Very absolute, and not open to discussion), therefore it is so. You might argue that theology tries very hard to make biblical knowledge more plastic and flexible, but it certainly doesn't lead to a unity among Christians (rather the opposite), and it seems only to be able to shift dogma in the very outer reaches of faith and hardly ever on core parts of it, so you can have theology challenge the meaning of Psalm 129, but no theology can alter the meaning of John 3:16 (although we atheists do, much to your chagrin and invocation of the dreaded 'you don't know theology!'). Within science on the other hand, there is no dogma; that would be hunted down, and rooted from the system of knowledge very fast; bias is shunned; opinion is bunk. If Einstein said something dumb, no scientist would claim it otherwise. Newton was a genius who shaped much of modern math and physics, but he also meddled in alchemy; he's not remembered for the latter, nor did the latter become true or respected because of him. Opinion is truly bunk. Theories change with more evidence. Scientific knowledge is always moving, until they become so undeniable that we call them laws, however, even "laws" are nothing more than strong theories for which there is no counter evidence. But we're still open to them changing, and that is the beauty of science.

But here’s where I think you’re wrong with the rest of what you’re saying here: the Big Bang, quantum states, and red shift can tell us things like what happened at the moment time began, how the universe consists, and how old the universe might be. None of these pieces of evidence can explain why any of this is in motion. That is where theology comes into play.

I can only assume your "why this is in motion" here has nothing to do with actual motion, but more about the reason they exist, yes? I'm sorry if I've missed some important sermon of late, but what does theology in fact tell us about the purpose of any of those things? Or even why your god created humans, or anything else. Or why he or she did X over any Y.

The distinction between why and how is bunk and bogus, a linguistic construct. "Why does the Earth orbit the Sun?" has a ton of empiric knowledge and evidence that doesn't discriminate using the question "Why?" If you're going to proclaim that theology ponders why something is, you need to explain what that actually means, what specific thing you require a Why for, and how theology answers it better than Science.

Why did I have chicken for lunch today? I have good empirical explanations for that. Why is there a universe? I have good empirical evidence for that, too. You may not like or understand those reasons, but I think this is again more a failure of communication and language than of the meat of the discussion. Theology doesn't answer any why's at all, when you think about it; it speculates, ponders, tries to explain stuff in a framework that's already on shaky epistemic ground, that usually only works within its framework but not when applied to science and the natural world. Theology is nothing short of speculation and opinion, and does not give us answers to Why. I dare you to provide Why questions theology solves that Science have nothing on.

Some scientists probably are pondering the why, but philosophy gets them there, not science.

I'll let this stand as a testament to your knowledge on what science is. Like why it used to be called natural philosophy.

Science can inform or shed light on philosophical musings, but will never actually provide a why answer. God of the gaps covers “how”–we don’t know how DNA got there, so God did it! But that’s not what I’m saying here at all. I’m saying that we can know how DNA got here through science, but we won’t know why without philosophy or theology.

Show me the Why. What Why? What Why compel us to reach for theology? The more knowledge about anything that is accumulated, the complexity of the knowledge-base gets funneled into a narrower and narrower definition of explanation, and it matters not whether you call it a "why" or a "how" question.

No, what needs to happen here is that you need to come up with a category of questions that theology only can answer that isn't religious-specific (so, questions about the world to which only religion has an answer) that do not rely on the linguistic definition of it.

James Hannam’s blog is dedicated to debunking myths about the Middle Ages, especially the myth that the Church is anti-science. A longer, more involved primer on this would be The Victory of Reason by Rodney Stark. Here’s a post from a Christian lamenting the hostility between Christians and atheists over science; both use science to support their respective positions and it gets ugly. That’s not necessary.

Science and scientists do not care what other scientist think, feel, or opine as long as good science is performed. And good science is backed by evidence. Inside that process you can believe whatever you want, and Christian scientists - as well as atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan or any other belief system person scientist - are lauded for their science, and not for their other thoughts on stuff. And that's the rub, isn't it? Science within the domain of science is what we all agree on is good and well. This is the methodological naturalism we talked about earlier, the process that - as long as we all abide to it - creates good, trusted, evidence-based science, a uniting force for the betterment of mankind.

It's when the Christian scientists stops being a scientists we say that their purported science isn't science anymore. It's when their faulty logic or reasoning seeps into their science we proclaim it to be wrong. And this is especially noticeable when scientific evidence and theories rubs against religious dogma and doctrine. When we finally all agreed that the planet we lived on was round and like a ball, theology came along to tell us that the mountain in Matthew 4:1-11 really was an allegory, or that the expression "all the kingdoms of the world" was, or many other versions on the same topic, trying to fit the words of the bible fit with new scientific knowledge, no matter if that's the word written in scripture. Christians then needed to make a choice; accept theology, or stop believing (because, what is it that compel us to accept that one part of the bible is true while some other part is allegory or just wrong? Surely Christians wouldn't pick and choose that which suited them ...). This process is happening in Christians all the time, especially among those who actually cares about the truth rather than care about their religious belief.

As to the original point that many Christians were scientists, and that science came out of a Christian society and culture, I'm sorry but you need to back that up with some well-founded rhetoric; all the evidence - all the writings of thousands of scientists throughout history - lament religious rejection as evidence appears in varying degrees, with few exceptions. You cannot argue that Newton was a Christian even if he believed in God, because in his time there was not an option not to believe it. Societal allowance of your own religious beliefs - or lack of any such - is a fairly modern invention.

So the old canards that scientists are scientists despite their religious background, the Catholic Church suppressed science in the Middle Ages, and faith is antithetical to reason are just bogus.

Galileo Galilei's struggles were bogus? You're perpetrating a myth.

There are plenty of reasonable religious people who aren’t reasonable despite religion, but reasonable and religious. Strange to many atheists, I know. But it is true. And church history is filled with such folks.

You got this backwards. Some good scientists are Christian, for sure, but they a) probably didn't become Christian after they became scientists, and b) we humans have a cunning ability to hold both rational and irrational thoughts at the same time. I have an irrational fear of darkness, but also have a rational stance on spiders. I have an irrational view on the meaning of love, but I have a rational way of dealing with it. If people who have irrational beliefs are able to make compromises in their heads that do not interfere with their science, I won't protest, it's their own business.

“Indeed, only theology is capable of establishing why.”

No, what you really mean is “Indeed, only theology is capable of establishing a religious-framed, dogma-based why.”

Don’t tell me what I mean.

As as rhetorical device, I think you understand well what that phrasing is supposed to mean;

I disagree with what you're saying
Here's a revision to emphasize where you're wrong

And as such, let me make this glaringly clear; theology only works if you accept the tenants of religious belief. Saying outright that everybody else who don't subscribe to your faith-based model of thinking is wrong, and that your theology is the only option for truth (or the nonsensical "why" questions), then you are far beyond arrogant and reasonable; you've entered the waters of the lunatic religious who can't tell the difference between your opinion and evidence to back it up, or between a rational argument and a religious one.

Theology is making the impossible seem plausible in the light of contradictory evidence, and is not something anyone should be proud of (not to mention the implications for just how loud and clear your god’s message in the bible really is, needing an army of theologians to explain and ponder and postulate and theorize and channel and project and often just make up stuff in order to make sense of the bible and often to try not to look too embarrassed about what it actually says …)

And your rumination on theology is totally misguided. Theology is gaining knowledge about God, which we do through the study of nature and Scripture.

Where is the evidence of this? And what do you mean, knowledge about God? You've got the bible - a book, a finite set of scriptures - and a culture of religious belief and doctrine. From this you try to make compromises between the doctrine, the scripture and the real world, and this is called theology; explaining to people how these three fit together. Most of the time theology tries to explain scripture in lieu with developments in the real world, be it societal or scientific (ie. how does the story of Job fit with the notion of unnecessary suffering or fairness? Or, what do we think about God's commands of genocide in the old testament, and the Geneva convention? [or, you know, just our ethical inner lives]), but where does this constitute knowledge about God? It is just your opinion! You may proclaim that it's the holy ghost that leads you down the garden path of this knowledge, which is, as you well know, another statement based on a severe lack of evidence, just like all "revealed truths."

You claim to understand epistemology, that thing I started with at the top, yet as soon as you find yourself or shaky epistemic ground, you shun it and leap straight for theology as if it was some kind of safe harbor? Theology is opinion. Prove me otherwise.

Perspicuity of Scripture is a central tenet of Christianity, and (as both Indy David and I have been attempting to explain to Boz) Scripture is abundantly clear. I know this because even the dimmest atheist can turn on the TV and realize that televangelists like Joel Osteen and TD Jakes are full of it.

I'm sure we agree that they're full of it, but they use the same methods as you (theology), same source as you (scripture), over the same culture as you (doctrine), bent over the same epistemological anvil (faith).

How do you explain this? As far as I can tell, what sets you apart is your own opinions (which you may or may not attribute to the holy ghost, or revealed truth, which both are ripe with epistemic problems) and rationalizations, that the person you are will weigh the outcome / theology of your process.

Because even the atheist, allegedly unable to grasp Scripture (Ehp 4:18), can still—based on Scripture!–see that these people are selling something different than what the Bible says. I’m betting you, or any atheist in this thread could refute Paula White using the Bible.

Oh, absolutely! But that's because we understand theology, and we can refute both her and you and any other Christian that has their own theology about something or other; the Bible is so full of contradictions, vague notions and concepts, stories and ideas that, frankly, any position on almost anything is possible through it. What makes me different from Paula in regards to you is that I don't use faith as part of my reasoning, I don't allow irrationality in. However, it unites the two of you far stronger than it unites you and me, to put it that way. Theology is that point where you accept the irrational into critical analysis.

Christians agree far more often than we disagree. We may get to those same conclusions by different ways, but the point is we do get there. But so what? Does disunity necessarily disqualify from truth? Science isn’t unified at all, and changes quite frequently everything it says. Is fast food harmful or good for you? Scientific studies that support both can be found. Is Ida the missing link in human evolution? A best selling book said yes, but a panel of other scientists soon concluded no. What about global warming? I’ve seen both sides argued convincingly. What’s the point? That scientists argue methods and conclusions can’t be used to know objective truth. Yet, when theologians argue methods and conclusions about the Bible, it somehow becomes proof that theology is nonsense. What a fantastic double standard!

I don't think you understand science. Now, I'm not saying that to be mean or to lament to make a stronger argument, but simply state it from reading your take on science. I've written before about the difference between science and scientists (and I seem to come back to that all the time), where we humans are biased and fallible (hey, we agree on the basic tenant of sin, although disagree wildly on what it is and why it is there). We all are tempted to make money, to gain power, to get our faces or names known, to be at the center of controversy, to lead the way, and the sad fact is that some of us humans are simply better humans than others, despite being scientists, atheists, Christians, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan or otherwise.

And isn't this what you say about the televangelists above? You are a better Christian than them? There are good and bad scientists. But here's the difference; science, as methodological naturalism, has tons of methods and mechanisms in place to root out the bad, and preserve the good, by focusing on evidence (the opposite of opinion), and allow bad theories to die away, to always be ready to update or revise current thinking in lieu of new evidence. A lot of the examples you bring up is just scientists acting badly (or stupidly), like Ida being some kind of missing link (no serious scientists believes there's missing links, that's purely a media construct) which was ferociously debunked, not by clergy, or politicians, or normal people, or otherwise clever people, but by other scientists! This is how Science always wins out over scientists, and this distinction is vital to understand. No one fights new evidence in science as hard as other scientists. This is what leads to strong trust in fallibility, predictability and evidence.

If we mutually respected one another and left the questions each is equipped to answer in the domain it is meant to stay (science = how; theology = why) there would be far less problems in this area. Problem is that scientists are trying to venture into areas that theology is better equipped to answer, and our fighting it is caricatured as our “knowing” that science will disprove God and wreck our faith. Nope. We just know that science cannot answer questions of why we are humans with the faculties we have, and moreover it can’t tell us a moral use of these faculties. Science has its place. But so does theology. One will never unseat the other.

Spoken like a true faith-based religious theologian. Your assertion "science cannot answer questions of why we are humans with the faculties we have" is demonstrably false, and holding on to this nonsense is exactly why people like me needs to engage with people like you; for some reason you are weaving yourself into a model of thinking that is two steps removed from reality, where your language is semantically disjoint from a discourse than can happen between your lamented mutually respected parties. If you insists on opinion having any truth value, then you've got the wrong idea about how to engage with rationality and - dare I say it? - the real world.

There's just too much space between us to make it to a rational level. The How vs. Why distinction is not real, theology is mere opinion to the rest of the real world (even if you think it's truth or valuable or knowledge in your head), science answers far more questions than you care to admit, and the categories you give each team is artificially disjointed by constraints of faith.

Lastly, "Science has its place. But so does theology. One will never unseat the other" is damn true; Science proves itself again and again to have actual results and empirical values of truth, while theology makes the religious cope with the onslaught of scientific knowledge upon a frail epistemic faith-based world view. Theology will never take over science, by virtue of being opinion not based in anything close to empiricism, and science will never take theology's place by virtue of its definition;

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions.

Note those two latter; can you test it? Can you make predictions on it? No? Then it isn't science, and you can call it whatever fairy name you want. Like, religion, and that's fine, but don't insert your own criteria into a debate, don't serialize and split apart natural philosophy in order to shoot it down with theology. Calling that a straw-man argument is being far too polite.

How do you know that your knowledge is true? You claim theology to generate knowledge, but how do you know your knowledge is true? It has no value if it isn't true, in fact I'd say it has some pretty clear disadvantages if it isn't true; it means your life is based on a fantasy, on knowledge that isn't true. For every statement ever made from the Bible, how do you know your knowledge is true?

How do you know your knowledge is true? Methodological naturalism. QED.

Homo!

2011-03-27T18:09:00.000-07:00

(reposting an older post from a few months ago, from a different blog I ran to collect them all in one central place)

Had a church break this weekend, but I want to talk about something that has occupied my mind a lot of late.I suspect most Christians don't know what the word "homo" means. And I suspect, they don't want to know, either. Lately I've had plenty of discussion, in a hidden, arbitrary kind of way, with people of the cloth that thinks that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

My initial reaction to this has always been "why?", and their initial answer has always been "because the Bible says so." I suspect they're saying this because they really haven't read their Bible properly, only skimmed the version they've got on hand. So let's talk some facts even most Christians seems to either not know or choose to ignore ;

There's several official Christian Bibles out there. The Catholic Bible, the Protestant Bible, the Hebrew Bible, the Greek and Russian Orthodox Bible, some Eastern Orthodox Churches Bible, the Syriac Orthodox Bible, the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible, the Anglican Bible, and the Georgian Bible. all with slight alternations to what they consider canonical (meaning; the stuff that we think is right) and all varying in doctrine (meaning; that which the church teach you). And then there's the many, many different translations of each of these, more than 70 translations of English bibles alone.

Also something most Christians tend to glaze over is how the Bible became the Bible, ie. how lots of different scriptures from lots of different authors became collected into one single book, into that one thing called "canonical." The Bible as a concept didn't exist until well into the 2nd century BCE, and even hundreds of years after it much debate and killings of heretics entailed.

Here's how canonical is described in WikiPedia ;

The word "canon" etymologically means cane or reed. In early Christianity "canon" referred to a list of books approved for public reading. Books not on the list were referred to as "apocryphal" — meaning they were for private reading only. Under Latin usage from the fourth century on, canon came to stand for a closed and authoritative list in the sense of rule or norm.

Take note; approved for public reading. Approved. By clergy, powerful men in powerful positions with their own and their collective bias.

None of these translations were or are from the original scripts. They can't be. The Bible (whichever one you choose to think is the right one) has a 3500 year history, and none of the original scripts exists, not even for the New Testament. We've got old fragments, tiny scraps of papyrus for some small parts, but nothing substantial until way into the 3rd to 4th Century. What you've got is hundreds of translations of thousands of religious texts that are themselves copies and translations of earlier scripts. At what point will one word transform with the cultural baggage of either the society, sect or person doing the transcribing of that word?

And through all this modern Christians think that one word such as "homosexual" stands on firm ground? And not only that, when you consult the translations, there is no Hebrew word for homosexual that does their bidding. It's vague, at best, and shaped by human persecution and whim in general. Unlike the law that says you should kill your children if disobedient. Why are you killing homosexuals, and not your children?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Could it be?

2011-03-24T19:25:00.000-07:00

Quoting Archbishop Silvano Tomasi (via the always wonderful Butterflies and Wheels) ;

"People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex."

Could it be because you have offensive opinions and actions, and that you constantly persecute people you don't agree with? Could it be that people are getting fed up with your hypocrisy of attacking people of a sexual orientation you yourself so obviously are filled to the brim with? Could it be that science is shedding a more reflective and correct light on what the alternative sexual orientations are all about, that biology shouldn't be dictated by doctrine and opinion?

The mind boggles at religious people's stubbornness to change, to just understand that more knowledge through unbiased science renders you old and outdated, that unless you embrace change it will render you pointless but to the crazy fringe. Merge new understanding into your fold, by all means, it's your only avenue of hope, but people around the world are less and less willing to let unadulterated doctrine have precedence over facts and ethics.

Luckily, the Catholic Church - in my opinion one of the vilest large-scale organisations in the world, shooting themselves in the foot on numerous occasions where their bigotry and hatred has a direct relation to people's suffering, like denying condoms to AIDS-ridden Africa (!!) - is in decline in most parts of the world. Let's hope more and more people pay actual attention to what the Catholic Church are saying, the implications of their doctrine, and their willingness (or not) to clean up and apologize for some of the worst scandals in distant as well as the near past.

Why do people still think these people's opinions should have impact on societies, again?

A conversation with a Christian : the secular society

2010-04-21T21:37:00.000-07:00

A preamble : For some time I've chatted with a Christian friend of mine from Sydney about lots of different things. One of those discussions were about the secular society we have shaped, and whether that's a good or a bad thing, especially in contrast with religious freedom and how that impacts things like our educational system.

I must note to my foreign readers that in Australia there are Scripture classes in primary and high schools that are run by volunteers in the community, and you'll usually find some guy from the local church who comes in and teaches about the bible and bigger issues such as life and death. You can opt out of it, and even though it's mostly Christian scripture, there are other instances of other religious as well.

So far there has been no non-religious alternative to this, but lately the New South Wales government have pushed through an ethics course that people can choose instead.

For some bizarre reason this has gotten lots of Christians up in a tiff. My conversation here started on Facebook, but due to limitations of how long I can write there (and based on the promise that this might be the last one of these we do), I decided to post it here. Enjoy, and I'm sorry you're missing out on some context from previous conversations; I think you'll get the gist.

First of all, I'm sorry these chats bore you and that you feel we're not going anywhere. Let me know, and I'll stop interacting with your Facebook, that's cool. The problem for me is finding a time free to talk, but we could give that a try. I prefer the beach, of course, but I'm not fussy. But I'll make this last (and possibly too long) stance here to clear up a few things.

“The entire school curriculum and ethos is secular!!”

You say that as if that's a bad thing, even from a religious view point. First we need to define secular, I think, before we leap into song about its horrors. The word comes from that part of your Christian life that takes place here on Earth before you go to heaven (or worse). It has developed into the important notion of treating all people on earth under equal terms, first from all the denominations of Christianity (38.000 and counting) that couldn't agree on which doctrine was the true one, and much later added that other religions also have their views that might be right since no one can make their God demonstrate the real truth without any doubt. So, we must all agree to at least a platform where we can all agree on the premises, and add our own private religious beliefs on top.

Surely this is a good thing? The only people not happy with this are people who think their opinion should trump everyone else's, but luckily most Christians I know and meet are not of this kind. They seem to be understanding of the common platform, probably understood through their own denominational bickering through the last 2000 years that state pretty clearly that the absolute truth is relative. And when truths are relative, it is hard to agree, to get along. Failure to see this leads to extremism, and success leads to, well, secularism.

Is there some atheist connotation attached to the term these days? Some non-Christian direction hidden in the bowls of creating this neutral platform? That might explain things, just like there are bad connotations attached to the very word “atheist” which means nothing more than “non-believer”, that there is agendas and meaning attached to “secular” that you don't agree with? Let's anyway make it perfectly clear that I use the word in the neutral way based on Christian tradition.

The other way there's something wrong with secularism in the educational system is if you think science somehow is wrong, and that is a slippery slope, and can get ugly real fast. It could be based on a faulty understanding of what science is and what it does, or confusing science with what scientists do, or even confusing it with what some scientists do which aren't scientific (there's a good reason in academia scientists make a clear cut between Bob the scientist and Bob the person). The options here are as many as there are fallible people involved in science.

“Religious Scripture occurs in some schools only where there are volunteers willing to provide it.”

Yes, of course. Religion is in the private sphere.

“One reason it is provided is so that people of faith, who don’t have enough money to send their students to private schools, can still have their children receive religious instruction.”

Teaching your children private messages of religion is not the responsibility of the educational system. Religion is a private matter. End of story. Don't even understand why you go there.

“This is an issue of equity. In the 2006 census 63.9% of Australians identified themselves as Christian. Only 11.2% said they had no religion.”

Let's take it even further, and look at the development of the last100 years ;
abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701e/bfdda1ca506d6cfaca2570de0014496e!OpenDocument

In only a few years there'll be as many atheists as there are Anglicans, or Catholics, or all the rest of the Christian denomination put together. There's also an increase in “other” religions on a logarithmic scale, which means they'll surpass Anglicans alone in (calculate, calculate) about 15 years (but I'm sure it'll flatten out slightly, so maybe 20 years). Christianity has gone from 96% to 68% (almost 30%) in 100 years, and within the Christian figures we can still argue culturally vs. devout Christians as well. There is a very wuzzy line that's well-documented in statistics and cultural history. The numbers are telling stories.

These are all world-views, and they can't all be right as a lot of them are mutually exclusive. We need a platform that caters to all these people, and to all the people of the future. You may not like this sharing, but any well-functioning society depends on it.

Oh, by the way, my wife's a teacher, I'm an occasional teacher, my family is full of teachers, my wife's family equally so. Some of my best friends are hard-core teachers (one of them even teaches philosophy! The horror!), so no need to think I don't know the educational system, neither here or in other parts of the world.

“Check out through the Department of Education website – every policy is there. Millions of words to excite your secularist sensibilities.”

Secularist sensibilities? Hmm, you must have woken up in a foul mood this morning. You're not seriously fighting against a common and neutral platform on which to build our common future and on which you can place any religious idea you like on? Religion is a private matter. What other option than secularism should the common neutral platform possibly be?

I'm sorry, but to me you're sounding more and more like a grumpy old man who's upset that things aren't they way they used to be, that they don't do things the way you like them, in complete disregard for other people's opinions, rights and choices.

Me: ‘Everyone in our society shall have equal choices, even if the choices dropped doesn't like it.’

You: “Everyone accept people of faith if you had your way. Despite the fact that people of no faith make a small minority of the population.”

Now you're being mean-spirited, and blind of reality. I could hash through the statistics again, their future prognosis and the implications they show, but I'd rather focus on something that seems to be sneaking up on our conversation here right now;

“if you had your way” is an insulting non sequitur ; if I truly had my way, you would be better off, as I am a stronger believer in the pursuit of freedom than you'll find in any political or religious agenda. And it's easy to demonstrate the power of this freedom; imagine any other religion being in the position you want to be in. Let's pretend we're a Muslim country, and Scripture classes are not the bible, but the koran. I'm fairly convinced you'd prefer my platform of not having neither rather than the tyranny of some.

I am not your enemy. I might agree that some other secularists might be, atheists even, that would love nothing more than getting rid of all religions if they could, tear down every single church, and be gone with it. But I suspect very strongly you have me mistaken for someone else.

Me: ‘But at the same time I would remove any religious subject that wasn't scientific (ie. Teaching about it, rather than teaching it).’

You: “So which other ‘non-scientific’ subjects should we chuck out at the same time? English? History? Commerce? Your precious ethics classes?”

Why should we chuck out something else at the same time? I said “any religious subject”, not things that are non-religious. I think you're jumping the gun again; I want a secular educational system, nothing more.

“Scientifically prove, that if you can’t scientifically prove something, it can’t be true! Your views on this issue aren’t scientific, they are philosophical. There are other ways of knowing truth, apart from the scientific method.”

This is slippery ground again. What are you expressing truths about? You can always prove truth within a context, but it always comes down to that context and its definitions, constraints and boundaries. If your context is “phenomena in the real world”, then no, there is only one way to express truths within it. If you context is “God”, then sure, exegesis and theology to the rescue. But neither of these systems of context have dichotomological definitions of truth. You cannot impart a truth about God in the real-world. You could have a stab at meta physics, but you'll quickly find that there is different levels of meta before you reach the other boundaries of supernatural (you'll find human logic in there, amongst other things). God as a truth statement in the real-world is nothing but mere opinion. Just like the other way; I can't make truth statements about God, they would be mere opinion. These models don't overlap. So when we talk about science, it has a very specific definition of what truth means and a framework to verify that truth within. Religion has no such thing. You're trying to make a joke using religious reasoning on top of scientific logic. It just doesn't make any sense.

Me: ‘[..] religion is clearly separated into the private sphere, where, even in this country, it belongs by law.’

You: “So because something is in law that makes it right.”

Gee, I thought you opposed to ethics classes? :) This is exactly what they are all about; makes us think and learn about systems of right and wrong, why we make laws, how we enforce them, and whether they are fair, balanced and equal for all.

“All those who have challenged unfair laws in the past should have shut their mouths then. Naughty Gandhi, naughty Martin Luther King, naughty feminists, naughty aboriginal activists – didn’t you all realise that if something is in the law – that makes it right?”

Again you're hopping away on silly assumptions. What is this but a poor attempt to make me look like an ignoramus or something? C'mon, mate, in my last two responses I've explicitly talked about progressiveness, remember? That's what it means; question the status quo, always. There is the law, there is enforcing of it, and then there's ethics to question if they seem right. Surely, truly you're just not concentrating in an effort to score cheap points?

“Given that most people in this country have a faith, and they are equal citizens – who are you to tell them that their views do not count, or their belief systems don’t merit study?”

Again, what you say makes no sense. I'm the one banging on about an equal platform for all, I'm the one pushing for progressive ethical processes, I'm the one pushing equal rights. At what point have I said anyone's view or opinion doesn't count or merit study?

But hey, I bet you wouldn't even agree with the postulate of your own opinion here, either. I know, rhetoric tricks and all, but you yourself have opinions that state that others opinions don't count. You have your platform as well, a platform that lots of people do not agree with. Are you saying their opinions don't count? That we should keep scripture as is because your opinion is that it is best to keep it that way?

“Well you do have a right to say what you think, even if you are in the minority. But you should have no right to impose your will on others. We should all be allowed to express our worldviews freely, without bigots seeking to silence other voices.”

Where on earth did this tirade come from? I suspect from someone who is overly frustrated with not having his opinions rated higher than that of progress. You may not have noticed, but you are talking freely. However, talking freely doesn't mean that what you say must be agreed with, or even have a valid point. I meet people on corners who have very strong opinions on what politicians should be killed, and the funny thing is that under the banner your proposing, his opinion is as valid as yours and mine. No, I don't think all opinions are valid nor should be equally treated, but I'd protect your right to say so with my life.

Me: ‘Are you saying rules of conduct signifies ethical understanding?

You: “Yes discipline does signify ethical understanding, because when a child is disciplined they are told why what they did was wrong, and are shown the consequences of their actions.”

Wow, I think you're showing off how you live in a bubble of blissful Christian discipline. But then, maybe you are perfect, and every time you discipline someone you also explain what they did wrong, why it is wrong, and explain how the consequences are just. (And perhaps your idea of what discipline is cut clear, as well) Seriously, I'm not buying it. As a utopian dream it might have merits (although I'd struggle with the core sentiments in other ways, but that's a psychological conundrum), however I call outright horse manure on “discipline signify any ethical understanding.” Most people have no clue as to what the ethical implications of their actions are! People are driven not by what they think, but by what they know. Knowledge is often too close to dogma (which is why science don't claim absolute knowledge, unlike religions who claim it all the time) There's a reason the expression “practice what I say, not what I do” is my favourite pogrom of all times, and it stands as an example of human fallibility.

At this point I'm sure you'll tell me that that is the struggle between sin and the holy spirit, and perhaps there's a certain Cartesian truth to that (well, Spinozzian, actually). But it's still not satisfactory. Do you kill people who work on the Sabbath? No? But that's the ethical thing to do, don't you know? Yes, that's the good old “what part of the bible are you agreeing with, and why” postulation, but I say it here for a reason; what is Christian or biblical ethics? Let's pick on something less obvious: Do you allow female preachers? What would you do if you caught one preaching? The bible doesn't tell you what to do, so how do you discipline that woman (I can assume stoning would be biblical culturally acceptable, but what now these days?), how do you tell them that they did wrong (Paul wasn't keen on it, but Jesus is silent on the matter, however Jewish culture is definite), how do you explain the correctness of that discipline? How do you, in fact, even talk about definitions of Christian ethics in such a blatant modern phenomena? Not sure about Australia, but Norway has female priests. Yay, or nay? If nay, how does your ethic work out discipline and the knowledge you claim is there behind it?

“Of course I believe in religious freedom. I don’t believe in forcing anyone to believe what I believe. People should be free to say what they think on these issues. But, I’m not the one trying to silence the religious voice in public schools or the public domain. And once again I will remind you that Scripture is not exclusively for Christians – even Bahai run scripture classes.”

Then it's all good. We all have choices. Even Bahai's, right? And now, even atheists or those who don't have volunteers from their favourite religion come in have a choice. That should make us all happy. Yet you are unhappy.

“From our discussions your dogma is very clear: 1. Secularism is superior to religious faith, 2. Scientific knowledge is the only way of truly knowing something, 3. People of religious faith should not have a voice in public schools or discourse"

1. No, 2. No, 3. No. How can you have missed all that?

“You have been very consistent and unwilling to change your viewpoint Alex.”

I'm sorry, but you need better arguments first. There are some fundamental differences between our world-views. Personally I think I'm fairly balanced already; I demand the middle ground for all. That's it. No more. Middle ground, a neutral platform. And if you feel that I should compromise those views, then this whole discussion thing is down the gurgler. I'm not piling on my political views, nor my religious views, just my views on what the middle of society needs to be so that it is FAIR FOR ALL. And that I won't budge on.

“Yet you have given me no convincing reason to abandon it. So why should I change?”

Well, I haven't argued that you should, so now you're just grasping at straws thinking anybody who's not with you are automatically against you. Sorry, but the world doesn't work that way, but I meet a lot of Christians who have been taught that this is really so. I blame doctrine, of course, but your mileage may vary.

“Paul was unwavering and uncompromising when it came to the truth of who Christ was – the resurrected Son of God. It was Jesus who defined Paul’s worldview, as he does mine.”

Happy to go into theology and exegesis, if that is what you want, but I doubt it. You again bring up concepts such as “the truth of who Christ was” as if stating it as a truth makes it a truth. Remember we're both stuck here on planet Earth for the time being, here in the natural world. This is where we have our conversation. Truth statements made here do not apply there, for good of for worse.

I'm sure my understanding of Paul would baffle most believers, because I don't take it for granted that the written word or fantastical story in any shape or form have truth value all in of itself. And that is, sadly I'm sure you think, science in a nutshell.

“I find these long typed chats tiresome Alex.”

Ok, this was the last one, then.

“let’s discuss these issues on Skype some time.”

Ok, but finding the time we both got time is going to be a pain, I guarantee it.

“I would rather deal with one issue at a time. Preferably, I would rather discuss the source of both our worldviews which is the underlying cause of our disagreements.”

Sure, sounds good. Until a possible next time, take care.

Outrage and offense

2010-04-10T01:58:00.000-07:00

There's a few things I don't actually understand, but one thing in particular. And by that, I mean I understand roughly what they're saying and how it happens, but I don't understand the ontological implications of what they're saying, or more specifically, the human self's epistemological problem that comes from it. And the thing I don't understand is outrage and offense over various degrees of blasphemy.

The most recent example is a cartoon frontpage of some German funny magazine, but the recent years of the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad is an example as well, where people are being outraged and deeply offended by something, screaming and yelling and burning stuff and worse.

How does that actually work? I understand why people find these things disturbing on an ideological level, perhaps enough the feel outraged about it, but not so much on a rational one. We are all rational beings, apparently, so why are we letting our irrational outrage take over the rational being? Why do we feel offended by something that mocks or poke a stick at our idols?

Because they're idols, of course, I get that part. There is this sense that if something deserves our idolation, then it follows that anything criticizing that idol is intrinsically criticizing the idolater.

Ideas are funny things. Ideas or conceptual models we create in our heads, be it moral codes, a business proposal, an act of determining ethic behavior in a given setting, whatever they are, because they are ours, because they are something we have embraced, any criticism of that idea becomes defacto criticism of the person holding the idea.

So, I understand how people gets offended and display and act out their outrage from a rational view point, I just can't for the life of me understand why people would want to embarrass themselves like that. Surely the thought must have crossed their mind that if their ideas or idol is so fragile as to making you outraged of criticism of it, perhaps that idea isn't as strong as your devotion deserves it? That perhaps if you allow yourself to be outraged then perhaps it isn't the criticism that is the problem, but you?

Oh, who am I kidding!? Of course people don't think this way. And that is what I truly don't understand.