Why Don’t I Spend All My Time Reading About Church History?
Thorn-in-my-side Ken B. made a comment earlier in the week that I’ve seen in several places, in varying forms. So I will quote him here, but realize the point goes beyond Ken B.’s particular question. Here’s Ken:
So a question Bob: I refuted the historicity of the story of the woman taken in adultery, showing it does not belong in the Gospel of John.
I cited several links.
What steps have you taken to investigate the issue?
You certainly have not directly addressed the issue on this blog.
When I first arrived on this board I made points about Jesus of Nazareth as an apocalyptic prophet, quite unlike the stained-glass Jesus.
In particular I argued that the early sources conflict, that these sources are best seen as representing the beliefs of divergent faith communities rather than as accurate history, and that the ‘stained-glass Jesus’ is a strained attempt to harmonize the synoptics, John, and Paul.
These are mainstream views of critical biblical scholarship.
I cited several well-known scholars and provided links to several books.
You admitted you had not read enough to refute me.
What concrete steps have you taken to determine if or where I erred?
In what way, in short, has your behavior here not vindicated Hitch’s insight?
Note that your past snappy dismissive comments count against you here.
I submit that this is a terrible argument. If any of you who read this when Ken B. first wrote it, were nodding your heads in agreement at how Christians “don’t really believe this stuff after all,” then it shows you are very biased when it comes to theological arguments.
As far as Ken B.’s recommendations in particular, the short answer is, I trust him as far as I can throw him. In case you are not familiar with Ken B.’s rhetorical style, here is something very recent. The beauty of this one is that it’s self-contained; you can just read a few lines to see what I am talking about.
To set the context, someone had pointed me to the debate between that Spanish professor and Krugman. Naturally, every Austrian who’s told me about it, thought the Spanish guy crushed Krugman. Here’s what I said in reaction:
[Bob Murphy:]FWIW, I watched the first 10 minutes and thus far I can see why Krugman would think, “I’ve answered every one of these points, numerous times, on my blog. This guy doesn’t even know my position.”
I haven’t watched the rest of it yet, but I am prepared to say, “Krugman won that debate.” Don’t get me wrong, I’m not yet declaring this, because I have to see what Krugman says in response.
(I didn’t volunteer this because it would look so petty. “Oh boy, this guy knocks out Krugman first, and now Bob is jealous.”)
Then about 10 minutes later Ken B. writes the following, in reference to someone’s theory about what Krugman meant when he complained that Pedro (the Spanish guy) was pulling rank:
I wasn’t sure what Kruggers was referring to, since Pedro said many nice things about him, but this [the other commenter’s theory] has to be what PK was talking about. And Krugman is right on the substance too.
Maybe that’s why Murphy says PK won the debate.
This is par for the course, for Ken B., and it’s why twice now I’ve literally had to just stop talking to him in the comments on posts. He makes carelessly false statements of others’ positions, and he’s smart enough to make me think it’s a big joke to him.
So, do I drop other things in my life to go read books that Ken assures me will blow up my religious faith? Absolutely not, and I don’t feel any need to apologize for this.
However, let’s generalize it, and not make it about Ken B. Gene Callahan, for example, has sent me at least one historical book, and I would love to read it. But, during the last 3 months, I have not made time to do so.
So, does this mean I don’t really believe in the afterlife? I mean, if I claim that my soul depends on getting these things right, then how can I choose to work an extra hour and pay my mortgage this month, rather than reading more from a book on religion, if there’s even a 1 in a million chance that I’m worshipping the wrong God?
The answer is pretty simple, and any economist should get it: People make decisions on the margin. Look, there are all sorts of comments people leave on blog posts, talking about vaccines causing autism, 9/11 was an inside job, cell phones cause brain tumors, etc. etc. If I choose to work an extra hour and pay down my mortgage, does that mean I like my house more than my kid? That I am naive about my government? That I must not really prefer to avoid cancer, after all?
For what it’s worth, I have made inquiries to people whom I really respect about these sorts of historical claims. And their answers were enough to reassure me that confident statements such as “there really is no historical evidence that Jesus existed” (not saying Ken B. made that claim, but others do here, repeatedly) are balderdash. They have indeed given me further reading, but I haven’t gotten time yet to see for myself.
One final point: I imagine people might say, “Ah, but your soul is infinitely valuable. So marginal analysis breaks down.” No, I don’t think this is right. Jesus gave the command to go and spread the gospel. If His disciples ignored that, and instead spent all their days studying history books and theological tracts, they would not be striving for the best way to please God, which is what their religious beliefs say is the highest end in life. So you can look at it from a secular or a heavenly viewpoint. Either way, spending every waking moment studying books, trying to become ever surer of your personal belief in Christ is not what a good Christian necessarily should do. If you feel called by God to a monastery, okay maybe you should do that. But it’s not what all Christians need to do, by virtue of their professed metaphysical views.
“As far as Ken B.’s recommendations in particular, the short answer is, I trust him as far as I can throw him.”
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…. You don’t gauge the prima facie plausibility of his inquiry based on whether you trust him. You gauge it based on whether you think he would give misleading or careless arguments.
I think the cost of Ken being wrong is quite high for him, cus he’d be smacked down and lose a lot of credibility on your blog. Therefore, I find it prima facie unlikely that there are any obvious weaknesses to his claims.
“I have made inquiries to people whom I really respect about these sorts of historical claims. ”
Respect is a sufficient but unnecessary criterion for trust. It shouldn’t matter if you respect Ken because there’s another reason his claims probably have merit.
“People make decisions on the margin.”
You’re right that there’s a pretty much bottomless can of arguments for you to answer about religion. So you outsource to the experts. And the experts disagree. What then?
“You’re right that there’s a pretty much bottomless can of arguments for you to answer about religion. So you outsource to the experts. And the experts disagree. What then?”
You’re kidding right? You realize there are going to be experts on both sides of this. In fact, I’m certain Ken B’s position is the minority among scholars.
“You realize there are going to be experts on both sides of this. In fact, I’m certain Ken B’s position is the minority among scholars.”
It’s actually Bob’s position that is in the scholastic minority. Almost no one is a biblical literalist. See Exodus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark#Historicity and Noah’s Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark#Historicity
But you’d have to do some statistical declustering anyway, since you probably get pretty extreme self-selection bias in “biblical scholarship”. 🙂
Right, I’m more referring to the claims that Jesus never lived and such.
Nathan, you said “In fact, I’m certain Ken B’s position is the minority among scholars.”
But my position is not that Jesus never lived, which is indeed a minority opinion I do not hold.
My position is that Jesus lived and was an apocalyticist; see the long quote above.
I even quoted a book demolishing the ‘Jesus never was’ argument.
This really is a frustrating blog sometimes. I don’t just assert and ask to be trusted. I provided links to several websites, including a site (American Conservative) Murphy has written articles for, and several books, and several well-known scholars. It really is feeble to say “Oh I don’t trust that book; Ken B recommended it.”
joeftansey wrote:
I think the cost of Ken being wrong is quite high for him, cus he’d be smacked down and lose a lot of credibility on your blog.
Look everyone! A self-refuting claim.
I don’t understand.
@joeftansey: I think Bob’s comment is meant to imply that I have no credibility on this blog. That may well be true: I have been compared here to Lincoln, and we know that means on FreeAdvice.
In any case we see here Bob trying a shot rather than grappling with substance, which is of course the gravemen of my quoted comment which he finds so objectionable!
That wouldn’t make it a *self* refuting claim though.
As I noted Bob, I think your glib, clever, snarky little comments *in this context* count against you. Like this one.
One final point: I imagine people might say, “Ah, but your soul is infinitely valuable. So marginal analysis breaks down.” No, I don’t think this is right. Jesus gave the command to go and spread the gospel. If His disciples ignored that, and instead spent all their days studying history books and theological tracts, they would not be striving for the best way to please God, which is what their religious beliefs say is the highest end in life. So you can look at it from a secular or a heavenly viewpoint. Either way, spending every waking moment studying books, trying to become ever surer of your personal belief in Christ is not what a good Christian necessarily should do. If you feel called by God to a monastery, okay maybe you should do that. But it’s not what all Christians need to do, by virtue of their professed metaphysical views.
Spreading the gospel works best when the spreaders are heavily book learned, for “spreading” ideas depends on other people willingly adopting ideas, and that requires the spreader to at least match other people’s book knowledge.
Just sayin’.
yes, but people can learn a lot in one area and still be wrong. Thus to “match other peoples book knowledge” would require you to outmatch “every ones book knowledge.” Which is clearly not realistic.
I could contrast this to say a salesperson, the salesperson clearly doesn’t need to know more about his product that everyone in the planet (although it would be helpful.) He just needs to memorize a very good pitch, and pitch to as many as he can.
The only thing we can hope for is that each person attempts to do what he thinks is right, bob spending half a sunday/monday to argue with non-believers each and every week, reading and responding to arguments he clearly thinks is not worth reading, is clearly a testament to his faith and his personal credibility, whether we agree with him or not.
and this coming from the one who was the boldest to argue that “there really is no historical evidence that Jesus existed.”
Strat wrote:
and this coming from the one who was the boldest to argue that “there really is no historical evidence that Jesus existed.”
Strat, just to be clear, it wasn’t Ken B. who was saying that. I can’t remember who it was. I also don’t think it was Egoist, or at least, the guy(s) I have in mind were here before Egoist showed up.
I think it was Anonymouse.
yes, but people can learn a lot in one area and still be wrong. Thus to “match other peoples book knowledge” would require you to outmatch “every ones book knowledge.” Which is clearly not realistic.
Ergo it is not realistic to think one person can spread the gospel to just anyone. He can only spread it to those who know less about it than he does.
It would be like like an elementary school teacher of math suddenly waltzing into a class of math PhD students, and trying to convince them of his mathematical ideas even though they know more about mathematics than he does. It won’t work. That’s why math PhD students tend to be taught by PhD graduates with experience.
In short, you can’t teach someone if what you’re saying is something they already know, or know to be false.
If you tried to teach me economics, but then you started to make assertions I already know, or I know to be false, then you won’t “spread” your ideas to me. I’ll reject them. The ideas will remain with only you.
My main point is that there is a difference between trying to spread the gospel, and people adopting the ideas of the gospel by choice such that the gospel has indeed been “spread.”
————–
I could contrast this to say a salesperson, the salesperson clearly doesn’t need to know more about his product that everyone in the planet (although it would be helpful.) He just needs to memorize a very good pitch, and pitch to as many as he can.
That is an apt characterization of religion.
I am sure there are market agents of The National Inquirer magazine who really believe in what they are advertising as well. Grab people’s attention with provocative statements, and you’ll probably find some takers willing to shell out their hard earned money.
Bob, I don’t quite understand why you are dismissive of studying church history, if what you say you believe depends on that history being right.
If you say “Jesus said don’t stone people” and Ken B., or anyone else, says Jesus never said that based on the historical record, then you should find out because what you believe depends on it.
It’s easier if you take the counter example. Suppose I say “Jesus said kill the weak”, and you say “What?! No he didn’t that’s not in the historical record”, and I replied by saying look, I can’t spend all my time studying church history, that is something I read that Jesus said, so let’s take it as given. Would you accept that?
“Bob, I don’t quite understand why you are dismissive of studying church history, if what you say you believe depends on that history being right.”
Maybe it’s question of not wanting to know what will be found out?
I think the fondness of left for empiricism/historicism is that it is a bottomless pit for “controversy”. It is packaged as a path to knowledge whereas in reality it is an impediment to it.
I will respond a bit more fully late but a few drive-by observations
.
1. I allude to Bob saying “Krugman won that debate” by saying “Bob thinks Krugman won the debate.” Bob draws out from this little dig that I make stuff about him and others. False, and bizarre frankly.
2. To second joeftansey, I have never asked Bob to trust me. I have several times said, don’t trust me, look it up. Bob’s answer looks a lot like I don’t have to look it up, I don’t trust you. That Bob has had to resort to attacks on the character of an anonymous commenter to defend his world view is telling.
3. I guess Bob will NEVER respond to my points about the pericope of adultery.
“I allude to Bob saying “Krugman won that debate” by saying “Bob thinks Krugman won the debate.” Bob draws out from this little dig that I make stuff about him and others. False, and bizarre frankly.”
It’s not false. He said in black and white that he isn’t saying Krugman won the debate, but that he was prepared to make that final judgment, contingent upon hearing Krugman’s response. How in the world is that Bob saying he thinks Krugman won the debate? Do you know the definition of “nuance”? It’s what you don’t have.
Bob’s right. You’re making shit up about what he says, and the telling part about all of it is that you are so blinded by your self-frustration that you don’t even know you’re doing it.
Here’s the extended quote from RPM: FWIW, I watched the first 10 minutes and thus far I can see why Krugman would think, “I’ve answered every one of these points, numerous times, on my blog. This guy doesn’t even know my position.”
I haven’t watched the rest of it yet, but I am prepared to say, “Krugman won that debate.” Don’t get me wrong, I’m not yet declaring this, because I have to see what Krugman says in response.
It is quite accurate then to say, as I did just after this comment went up, that Bob thinks PK won the debate, as a tentative statement accurately depicting what Bob *thinks* as of that moment. And I said *thinks*.
Except he DIDN’T say he thinks Krugman won the debate!
The fact that he said “I am not yet declaring this” already means he doesn’t “think” he won. He “thinks” that he is prepared to declare him winner, but will make a decision on what he thinks about who won based on his response.
If someone says “I am prepared to declare Egoist winner, but I am not first need to see his response”, they are not “thinking” I won, they are “thinking” they will decide once I give my response.
You’re being intellectually dishonest on this one. I too would consider you to have misrepresented my position if you asserted that I “think” Krugman won the debate, given that I said what Murphy said. If I said what Murphy said, then I would say anyone who asserted I think Krugman won, is not correct.
I’m honestly taken aback by the extent to which this post was little more than an ad hominem attack on Ken B. I won’t say that Ken B has won every argument he’s undertaken, but I will say that his observations tend to be more true than false in my experience, and expressed with wit and patience.
To me, the crux of the issue is Steven Landsburg’s “Honest Truth-Seeker” argument (found here: http://www.thebigquestions.com/2009/11/12/brain-teaser/ ). The moment someone introduces credible doubt to another person’s position, it becomes impossible to “agree to disagree.” It creates cognitive friction that each honest truth-seeker must resolve. I think Ken B introduces precisely that cognitive friction, and I don’t think it’s fully legitimate to just hand-wave away that kind of reasoning. It’s not bad reasoning, even if you dislike Ken B.
One day, a close friend of mine asked me to provide concrete evidence why he – my friend – should not believe in his religion of choice. Against my better judgment, I provided him with a book containing irrefutable historical evidence against his (fringe) religion. In exchange, he gave me his religious book and we both agreed to read the other’s book with an open mind.
The next day, I found the book I had given him in the garbage. What I learned was that matters of faith are *NOT* honest truth-seeker situations. People choose to believe what they will believe. Real, hard evidence is beside the point in religious debates.
That’s why most of us accept that religious discussion is an argumentative quagmire. Ken B is a good, sharp guy. He was probably wrong to participate in a religious debate with a true believer, but that doesn’t reflect poorly on his argument or his character. Murphy also seems like a great guy, and it would be unfortunate for a dumb religious debate to elicit ad hominem reasoning against a fellow traveller. Let’s all hug and make-up.
@RPLong: Thank you.
I think it is wrong to lump Dr. Murphy in the same category as your friend who literally trashed an opposing viewpoint.
Murphy is correct that he shouldn’t be asked to scrutinize every piece of evidence thrown his way. The clutch issue is how and when he chooses to take shortcuts (like we all do).
Ken right from the start is arguing in bad faith: Bob’s beliefs are so absurd that Ken thinks he doesn’t even really believe them!
And, to top it off, he cites the bloated blowhard Hitchens as if he knows something about religion.
Actually Gene I don’t cite Hitch as an authority for anything anywhere, as readers can see for themselves. I do quote and endorse one of his arguments, but if you scroll back through FA you will find I even endorse some of your arguments. Arguemtns stand on their own, and it’s the height of absurdity to reject an argument based on who advances it.
And you are making the same error joeftansey did. I am saying Bob’s ‘expressed preference’ reveals a doubt or disbelief of parts of the *doctrine* not his own beliefs. See my discussion with jft below for more on this.
Ken B:
that the claims made by the faith are so absurd that even believers often act as if they didn’t really believe them. In christianity if you believe in damnation then the cost of some errors really IS infinite. There is no corresponding infinite cost in econ.
Your logic is off.
For Christians, economic costs concerns Earthly life. You cannot argue that because the after-life cost of some life choices is “infinite” according to the Christian, that the Christian is committing some sort of performative contradiction by purposefully choosing non-bible study related activity on Earth.
You cannot pretend to know that Christians don’t really believe what they claim to believe, based on your knowledge that on Earth they act as if costs are finite. In their minds, The “infinite” costs refers exclusively to the after-life.
Christians are followers of Jesus. In the bible Jesus did not devote 100% of his time to bible study related activity. If being a Christian means doing what Jesus did, then it would be rather silly to say that the Apostles of Jesus were not followers of Jesus because they took his advice and spread the gospel and thus devoted time to non-bible study.
To be a Christian doesn’t mean retreat to a cave and then read theology texts until one dies from lack of sleep or thirst. Of course, the Christian believes doing so will get one into heaven, but they believe there is more than one path: as long as that path is with Jesus at heart, it is the right path.
RPLong wrote:
The next day, I found the book I had given him in the garbage. What I learned was that matters of faith are *NOT* honest truth-seeker situations. People choose to believe what they will believe. Real, hard evidence is beside the point in religious debates.
RPLong, in any other context, would you generalize from a sample size of one to what an entire population thinks about something?
“Once I met a libertarian who smoked pot. I learned that day that libertarianism is just about smoking pot.”
This is a great example of what I mean. You’re right, logic often goes out the window in religious arguments.
Egads the fallacy of composition was palpable.
Dr. Murphy,
I wasn’t generalizing, I was providing an example of my point from personal experience. The purpose of my example was not to point out that people of faith reject reason, but rather that even good friends have limited patience for questioning each other’s beliefs.
And frankly, I think that’s worth generalizing about, but your mileage may vary.
Bob,
Is the following a good analogy to what you’re saying?
I am an economist trained within a certain paradigm. There is always the chance that what I believe in is wrong, in the sense that there are always dissenting opinions and these dissenters are always adding to the dissenting literature. It just doesn’t pay for me to always read dissenting opinions when there are more valuable things I can be doing with my time.
If so, then I think most people will agree with the above statement. Unlike Yosef claims, it’s not rejecting the literature, it’s rejecting reading all of the literature, because at some point it just doesn’t pay as highly as alternative things.
But an argument like that, which makes some sense for economics, doesn’t fit with the claims of christianity. That is Hitch’s point (and mine): that the claims made by the faith are so absurd that even believers often act as if they didn’t really believe them. In christianity if you believe in damnation then the cost of some errors really IS infinite. There is no corresponding infinite cost in econ.
Let’s say you spend your entire life trying to figure out “the truth,” but there’s so much dissenting literature that by the end of your life the chances that you’re wrong are still the basically same. What was it worth? Bob is being practical.
Say he is. How is that a refutation of my point? In fact, since Jesus said ‘Give no thought for tomorrow’ Bob is showing he doesn’t believe THAT.
“What was it woth”? Well that would be a good question except for the claim that the worth is infinite. If you are saying the worth is not infinite to Bob you are agreeing with me.
The worth might be infinite, but if in the end the chances of being wrong are the same as they were before you read all that literature… then maybe it’s more valuable just to have faith that you’ve been guided to the correct choice.
If the value is large enough then it makes sense to spend that extra hour checking it out.
Plus we’re not talking obscure literature here. Bob cites the Bible. The contention is that early copies of the Bible do not have John 8. Easily verified. In fact as I note *most printed bibles say so now*. Bob only has to read his own literature!
To exapnd. i asked Bob is he had checked out the reliability of his *own* literature. And as I note, even Bibles come with a comment about John 8 these days. So your ‘other traditions’ hypothetical doesn’t really fit here. I didn’t ask Bob if he had read the books I cited. I asked if he had looked into the story he cites, John 8 in any way shape or form. Yosef made this point very well above.
Bob Murphy turns the other cheek.
What? You think that an unfair, snarky comment? Let’s consider what the debate is about. I contended that Bob nicely illustrates Hitch’s observation that many Christians do not act as if they really believed this stuff. There are few things more specifically and distinctively Christian than the injunction to turn the other cheek. And it is a passage central to Bob’s oft-made claim that Jesus adjusted/clarified/ameliorated/corrected/enhanced the Mosaic law. So I submit Bob’s refusal to turn his cheek, even over something as small as a blog debate, nicely nicely illustrates Hitch’s observation that many Christians do not act as if they really believed this stuff.
On to some of Bob’s contentions.
I have made no such claim. I have even argued with other commenters that the most I ever hope for is to shake believers’ certainty. In any event I cited to Bob works of history and exegesis, some by practicing believers, not Harris’s End of Faith. [Let me stipulate Bob: I do not expect reason, evidence, and argument can blow up your faith.]
But let’s consider *just* John 8. This passage is central to all your arguments about reconciling OT law and what Jesus taught. You rely heavily on John 8. But John 8 is unreliable. I say “Don’t’ trust me on this, look it up.” If you really cared about getting it right rather than keeping it in your comfort zone, you’d check it out, even if you had to take time out from insulting commenters, because you believe the stakes are so high. Instead you act as if you didn’t believe that, vindicating Hitch.
Bob has tried to anticipate that argument.
But you have repeatedly argued the apostles were there and had ample proof for their beliefs. Later Christians do not. They have a partial and conflicting written record. And, according to you, their souls depend on understanding it aright. As do the souls of those they would preach to. Worth some considerable effort I’d say.
(And as a drive-by, couldn’t you more effectively spread the gospel if you investigated my claims, came back with a stunning refutation, and exposed them for the benefit of your readers?)
Bob also writes this: “[Ken B] makes carelessly false statements of others’ positions …” Citations please. The only example you cite is where I wrote “Maybe that’s why Murphy says PK won the debate” , alluding to this statement from Bob:
That’s not a ‘carelessly false’ statement of your position, it’s a jibe at your (I presume) misstatement; it’s a jibe precisely because it’s a carefully true summary of what you actually said.
The saddest part Bob is that you told us a week ago my comment was to be the subject of your next Sunday post. With a week to prepare the best you could manage was a long ad hominem that either ignores or distorts what I said. I cannot resist quoting a recent comment of yours from TBQ:
I trust most readers here can see the irony without my help.
“So I submit Bob’s refusal to turn his cheek, even over something as small as a blog debate, nicely nicely illustrates Hitch’s observation that many Christians do not act as if they really believed this stuff.”
What do you make of Bob’s decision to volunteer in Haiti because he just felt like that’s what god wanted him to do? (I think this is what happened… can’t remember for certain)
“But you have repeatedly argued the apostles were there and had ample proof for their beliefs. Later Christians do not.”
Bob thinks he has ample proof for his beliefs… His own personal supernatural experiences.
“They have a partial and conflicting written record. And, according to you, their souls depend on understanding it aright”
Okay. Let’s pretend that god is real, and that you have a personal relationship with him. You read the bible and don’t understand everything because it’s a “partial and conflicting record”. But if you trust god to guide you to make the right decisions, then it might not matter. So it’s entirely possible for a diligent christian to have persistent holes in his understanding.
As for Haiti, I make of it that Bob sometimes acts as if he believed it. I might even make of it that Bob is a good guy. It does not detract from my point, or Hitch’s. We are arguing that these beliefs are absurd not that christians are bad.
Yes it is possible for a diligent christian to have persistent holes in his understanding. It is inconsistent with what they believe to not bend every effort trying to fill them. Not when proper belief is required for salvation because the cost of error is infinite. Or so we are told; that’s the point: no-one acts as if it were.
“I make of it that Bob sometimes acts as if he believed it.”
I thought Hitch’s claim was that christians don’t act as if they really believe? But obviously Bob is willing to bear great personal costs when he thinks god wants him to. I think Bob would read your books and do lots of research if he thought that’s what god wanted him to do.
“It is inconsistent with what they believe to not bend every effort trying to fill them. Not when proper belief is required for salvation because the cost of error is infinite”
I’m sure you can find supporting passages in the bible for your salvation-criterion, but as long as Bob believes he’ll go to heaven doing whatever he’s doing now, he is acting as if he really believes.
It’s not about what God wants him to do, it’s about the logical implications of the teachings. And Bob describes himself as “Bible believing”. The Bible is pretty clear in a few places,
“No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6
You are right with your tautology, as long as Bob acts in accord with his beliefs he acts in accord with his beliefs. But that is not what I am saying. I am saying he sometimes acts contrary to the stated doctrine.
To be clear Joe, I am not impugning RPM’s character of generosity. I am using him, for obvious rhetorical reasons on this blog, to illustrate an arguemtn. That argument is: the precepts of christianity are so absurd that you see even dedicated sincere believers acting as if they did not believe them. This is not a fault in the believers; it is a fault in the dogmas.
Right. And I’m saying you can point out flaws and contradictions in the scriptures all you want. But Bob has never maintained he has 100% mastery over the material. Bob became religious because of his supernatural experiences, not because he read the bible.
Your line of reasoning is sufficient to discredit christianity in the eyes of outsiders, but you can see why it might not be as convincing to people on Bob’s path.
I agree with that. But you have to admit Bob also tries to make arguments here that his faith is rational, reasonable, supported by evidence.
Bob may not have claimed 100% mastery but he has claimed 100% certainty, at least about those contradictions.
“God has a plan, and He doesn’t contradict Himself. If you think He has, it’s because you assumed something that is wrong.” http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/12/taking-the-bible-seriously.html
I think part of the issue here is whether the burden of proof is uniquely borne by “believers”. Or put differently, are the believers in God the only “believers” in the larger debate or are both sides of the debate “believers”? If both sides are, then believers in God don’t bear a unique burden of proof.
‘Both’ sides is one of the errors. There have been at least 100,000 different religions in human history. (I will discredit Pascal Boyer in Bob’s eyes by citing him). I have seen estimates as high as 1 million. I doubt anyone knows for sure. But there are a lot of sides!
There have been at least 100,000 different religions in human history. (I will discredit Pascal Boyer in Bob’s eyes by citing him). I have seen estimates as high as 1 million.
This is consistent with my conviction that “God” is really an abstract concept that has its reality in individual involuntary egoists, who attempt to cast out their indescribable egoism, then make it sacred, search for it, worship it, and exalt it, and in so doing, gratifying ones’ egoism because it never left.
When I consider a church full of bowed heads, I see 200 individual egoists with 200 different unique egos and therefore 200 unique Gods. There are of course similarities, which is why they’re in the same church in the first place, but none of them could think of the same God, because each ego is unique.
It’s why there’s squabbling about God within each religion, and even within the same denomination.
I think 1 million is a massive under-estimation. There are closer to 7 billion * 0.95 Gods in people’s heads. (I assume 95% of the world’s population believes in a God).
I think some of Bob’s defenders have missed the forest for the trees here.
Here’s the forest. Bob has based much of his view of Jesus, who he was and what he taught, on the injunction ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone’ from the story in John 8.
There is doubt about whether Jesus said this, and how firmly Christians should rely on it.
That story is in fact missing from all the earliest and best manuscripts.
Here is what one on-line Bible says “[The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53–8:11.]”
Here is what ChristianityToday says: “Biblical scholars do agree on two things: The Bible story should be set apart with a note, and Christians should be cautious when reading the passage for their personal devotions.”
I also provided many references, including references to believing Christians, including to a site Bob has published on and linked to from FA.
I don’t ask anyone to trust me on this; I ask them to look for themselves.
And *that*, looking for himself, testing the integrity of his own citations, examining the true nature of the sources he relies on, is just what Bob will not do.
More: he claims there is no good reason he should. Must he spend his whole life he asks rhetorically studying church history?
One passage, one you cite repeatedly, is not all of church history Bob.
That is the forest.
I do not see that addressed in any of the defences here. Bob go on at length about me, and Egoist can call me a closet whatever, and JMF Catalan can say ‘maybe it’s more valuable just to have faith’, and joeftansey can cite Bob’s charity, and Gene Callahan can sneer at Hitchens, but the fact remains that if you rely crucially on the accuracy of a quotation then you should be willing to check its reliability.
And when the quotation is a translation based on old manuscripts, and the translation itself includes a disclaimer, then a refusal to check is not just cavalier and close-minded, it suggests willful blindness and desire not to know.
OK those were interesting links, Ken, especially the Christianity Today one.
What was the original context of our argument, though? I think you were trying to say that Jesus wants us to stone homosexuals to death, and then you didn’t think I could use the adulteress story to deflect that conclusion?
Closeted theist.
He who seeks the original, original, original biblical documents, is searching for the “real” word of God.
Devoting as much time as you do to ensuring that some random economic blogger’s biblical claims are accurate to the standard of the original, original, original biblical documents, seems to me to have been touched by God, whose calling is to help the spreaders of the gospel be more efficient and accurate so as to prevent them from being attacked by atheists.
God bless you Ken B. I look forward to your next sermon on the soapbox.
I was wondering what Christians think about Chris Hedges, who belongs to something called the liberal church.
It’s a branch of Christianity I’d never heard of before.
Mr. Murphy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTXclVLrpE0