Why I Am a Christian, Part 2
This post is a follow-up to last week’s… Again, the standard disclaimer: I am not claiming that I am presenting an airtight, deductive proof for the divinity of Christ in a short series of blog posts. But I do want to shed light on why I call myself a Christian.
First of all, some people were confused as to the train of argument. They wondered why (in my first post) I was placing such emphasis on the wisdom of Jesus’ teachings. Did that alone mean He was God?
No, of course not. The crucial point is that Jesus said He was God, if we are to believe the gospel accounts. So then we have to decide (a) do we trust the gospel accounts and (b) do we trust the claims of this man Jesus?
As for (a), I do trust them. It doesn’t seem plausible to me that people would follow around a wise teacher and then, knowing full well that he didn’t come back from the dead, would make up a bunch of stuff that got some of them martyred. In conjunction with the power of the message, that just doesn’t seem like the most plausible explanation of what happened.
As for (b), I partly rely on the standard “liar, lunatic, or Lord” formulation. In other words, if we accept that there was a historical man Jesus who went around healing people and said the things he reportedly said, then he was either lying through his teeth, or he was crazy, or he was exactly who he said he was. Since his teachings are the most profound ones I have ever encountered, it doesn’t seem plausible to me that this man was a liar or nuts.
Now we have to ask, in the grand scheme, is this stuff even possible? And this is why I think it’s very important to have independent arguments for the existence of a God. If it makes sense that a God exists, then it’s much more plausible that this incredibly wise man, who apparently went around healing people and rose from the dead just as He had predicted He would, was the Son of God as He had claimed. In contrast, if logic and science tell us that there really can’t be a God as described in the Bible, then those stories about Jesus just can’t be right.
I know a lot of atheists think they have airtight deductive arguments blowing up the very possibility of the Biblical accounts, but I think they are far too overconfident. For example, many atheists might say, “You Christians revel in your nonsense. You love the ‘mystery’ of the trinity, and how three people can be the same unitary God. Give me a break.”
But yet, those same atheists probably love quantum mechanics, where a cat can be alive and dead at the same time, an electron can be a wave and a particle, and where a famous physicist says, “If you think quantum mechanics makes sense, you haven’t understood it.” It’s fine for there to be utter craziness in quantum mechanics, because we have experimental predictions coming out of it.
Or suppose there were a Bible account saying that a man of God fell out of a high tower, but he was unharmed because angels broke his fall and all were amazed and praised God. “Superstitious nonsense!” the atheist might scoff. “Modern science tells us that people can’t survive falling from a 50-foot tower. Stop believing fairy tales written more than a thousand years ago.”
But if we read a news account of a skydiver falling 12,000 feet, having both chutes malfunction, and living to tell about it, we think, “Huh that’s amazing.” Apparently “the laws of physics” and “modern science” don’t rule such things out, which is actually pretty obvious in retrospect.
So when we read that Jesus walked on water, I am open to that happening. If there were a God and He came down to earth, I would expect Him to do all sorts of “miraculous” things. And these would be consistent with the laws of nature, by definition, because the laws of nature just mean, the rules describing how matter behaves.
In the case of walking on water, it could even be something as “easy” as schools of fish supporting Jesus’ weight. The employees at Seaworld “glide on top of the water” (because they are standing on dolphins) all the time. I’m not saying that is how it happened, but the confident assertions that the Biblical accounts are violations of the laws of physics are simply wrong, even if we take our current understanding of “the laws of physics” to be roughly correct.
Finally, let me address the common distinction drawn between faith and reason. When I say I have faith in Jesus, I mean I trust the character of the man described in the gospel accounts, and (as a derivative) I trust that His followers didn’t invent all sorts of things that He didn’t say or do. I do not mean that I have to turn off my reason when it comes to religious things.
For an analogy, suppose my brother is accused of being a serial killer. The prosecutor has a bunch of DNA evidence, eyewitnesses placing him at the various scenes where the victims disappeared, etc. But I talk to my brother and he says, “I can’t explain that evidence, but you know I didn’t do those things.”
I would believe him; I would have faith in him. It’s true that if I were trying to explain to somebody else why I didn’t think my brother was a serial killer, I couldn’t give “scientific” evidence, in the same way I could try to prove the charge on an electron, or explain why minimum wage laws lead to unemployment. Yet there would be nothing irrational or unscientific about my conviction, and in fact I would be more (personally) sure of my brother’s innocence than of the charge on an electron (which I would actually be trusting scientists to tell me) or even my view of minimum wage laws (which might actually not be an important factor in real-world unemployment).
Jesus said in numerous passages that He was God, and that the way to eternal salvation was through Him. Yes, there are other great moral teachers in history, but I don’t know that they claimed the things Jesus claimed. If some of them did, then by all means point them out and I’ll look at their reported words. But I doubt very much I will find them more compelling than the gospel accounts of Jesus Christ.
1. This is an excellent point: “Now we have to ask, in the grand scheme, is this stuff even possible? And this is why I think it’s very important to have independent arguments for the existence of a God.”
2. This is not an excellent point: ” know a lot of atheists think they have airtight deductive arguments blowing up the very possibility of the Biblical accounts, but I think they are far too overconfident“. Perhaps I’m working off of an extremely bizarre sample, but almost every atheist I’m aware of has insisted they can’t disprove God, they simply don’t see any reason to believe that God exists. They can’t prove a negative but they do not consider themselves agnostics because they’re not going to put such an extraordinary claim on par with a claim that all the evidence seems to point towards.
3. re: “It’s fine for there to be utter craziness in quantum mechanics, because we have experimental predictions coming out of it.” Precisely. Let me know when you derive testable predictions from the doctrine of the Trinity. I’m not saying that’s necessary. People can believe what they want to believe. But if you want to compare it to quantum mechanics it is necessary.
On the last point – about how compelling Jesus’s words are. Do you think this might be related to the fact that you grew up in a society that values Jesus’s words? One of the interesting arguments of the “new atheists” (particularly Hitchens and Dawkins) is precisely that there is something sinister about Jesus’s teachings – about priveleging faith, about vicarious redemption, about abandoning and failing to provide for your family to follow him, etc. I think some of these points are a little hyperbolic but the point is it’s not hard to see how your satisfaction with Christ’s teachings is informed culturally. You may be confusing cause and effect, in other words.
Daniel wrote:
“is precisely that there is something sinister about Jesus’s teachings – about priveleging faith, about vicarious redemption, about abandoning and failing to provide for your family to follow him”
I was raised Christian and lost strong faith by the time I was fourteen or so. By the time I entered adulthood it had pretty much all gone, and not cause I think the events in the Bible aren’t possible or that they’re “unscientific” (I subscribe to something like Gene Calahan’s philosophy of the right sort of evidence for the right sort of questions) or whatever, but because of the sorts of reasons Daniel describes here.
Bob keeps saying Jesus is a cool dude and how much he loves him and so on. I can’t feel that way about a character like Jesus. I see that sort of devotion as really perverse. No true god would require that of you. No true god would just bar the doors to paradise to anyone who doesn’t bow before him.
In a conversation with Bob just the other day I accepted that maybe this was the only position a merciful god could take, but since that short amount of time ago I have changed my mind. Why would a merciful god, when the after life comes and he lets me alone like Bob says, bar the doors to me if I say I was wrong? Where is the mercy here? Why would so much offense be caused to this god if a man cannot decide in the short amount of time he has here? Moreover why will he only let me in if I accept him as my lord and master? Why is man to be shackled to a ruler even in heaven? Would not a more reasonable god say something like “you are free to come and to go, but when you are in here this is my home, and I make the rules” and not “Accept me as your lord and master, I promise you an eternity of ecstacy just give me your soul and all will be fulfilled, you only have up till your death to decide” How can a true god expect such trust to be placed in him when the offer is so perilous? What if this god will take my soul for eternity but torture it? Does god discourage caution and if so why is caution such a great wrong?
Sorry for beating a dead horse. No one has to read or answer this if they don’t want to, its really not important.
re: “its really not important.”
Anyone on the receiving end of threats of eternal torture is justified in saying that this is an important question to mull over, and is deserving of a little clarification on why the guy doling out the threats is considered to be such a swell guy by so many people.
Why would a merciful god, when the after life comes and he lets me alone like Bob says, bar the doors to me if I say I was wrong? Where is the mercy here? Why would so much offense be caused to this god if a man cannot decide in the short amount of time he has here? Moreover why will he only let me in if I accept him as my lord and master? Why is man to be shackled to a ruler even in heaven? Would not a more reasonable god say something like “you are free to come and to go, but when you are in here this is my home, and I make the rules” and not “Accept me as your lord and master, I promise you an eternity of ecstacy just give me your soul and all will be fulfilled, you only have up till your death to decide” How can a true god expect such trust to be placed in him when the offer is so perilous? What if this god will take my soul for eternity but torture it? Does god discourage caution and if so why is caution such a great wrong?
Your questions are very similar to, and convey the same line of thinking as, my own. Here’s my thoughts:
The reason is religious doctrine evolution.
Religious doctrines that spread and are sustained are those that are best at mentally shackling its adherents into believing in the existence of things that do not exist in the natural world, that cannot ever be observed in this world.
Since most people are more or less reasonable, their emotions have to be strongly affected in order for their reason to be overruled and thus believe in unnatural concepts. Why would this be necessary at all?
Well, a religious demagogue, i.e. King, Barbarian Ruler, etc, who wants to control people, cannot present to them a God that will give everyone eternal happiness and prosperity even if they don’t believe in that God, and hence even if they don’t follow that demagogue. If the demagogue did present such an understanding God, then the natural incentive of people would be to think “OK, your story is that no matter what I think or do, I will have eternal happiness and prosperity after I die. Fine, whatever, I’ll just go about my life. I’ll forget about everything you said, not go to church, not pay the church, not obey the priests, and not obey the King that is given a divine right of rulership. After all, I only have to wait another few decades or so for eternal happiness and prosperity, so I don’t even care if you torture me or throw me into a prison! When I compare decades of pain to infinite happiness and prosperity, the choice is easy!”
Any demagogue who espoused such a doctrine of their God would soon find themselves not ruling anybody, because there is no FEAR in people to obey their God, and hence the ruler.
This I think is why most religious doctrines that survived are those that contain stories of Gods that are absolutely frightening, and contradictory. Threatening people with eternal damnation and confusing the heck of them with logical contradictions is the most effective way to get a rational entity like humans to believe in religious doctrines and thus obey the rulers who espouse them.
Christianity was born out of ruler oppressed people’s rejection of the ruler’s old testament God. This is why, I think, countries that are predominantly Christian tend to be the freest societies. A religion of individual divination derived by an oppressed people is at least superficially consistent with individual liberty.
Religious evolution is very much like the economic doctrine evolution. Most economic doctrines are statist because in a statist world, in a world where people want to rule others and where enough people want to be ruled, the economic doctrines that evolve and become entrenched and supported by the rulers are those that validate the rule of the rulers. This is why I think Keynesianism is so popular. It is a mish mash of age old statist myths, cooked up in new terminology. Keynes, to statists facing free market economic principles day in and day out, was a “Godsend.”
Free market economics is more fringe because free market ideas do not enable people to gain control over anyone else. Our world is steeped in the alleged moral superiority of state rule. Thankfully, the internet is here and can act as a medium to spread the message of liberty. In this sense, and I will be as gracious and charity driven as possible here, the internet is kind of like the onset of Christianity. An otherwise oppressed population is creating for themselves a system of their own that can be used against the disinformation from the state rulers.
We still live in a world of statism, and free market economics will not become prevalent until the people’s political philosophy around the world becomes much more libertarian and individualistic. The moral superiority of individual liberty has to be established first before free market economics can spread. This is I think why free market economics grew out of societies that already had a prevalent individualistic political philosophy influence first. Well, enough so, so that it was safe to do so.
Back to God though. The key thing I think people should realize is that religious doctrines evolve and morph over time. I would argue it’s not a coincidence that the world’s big three religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) have very frightening Gods. Not many people will believe in invisible entities and invisible worlds if there isn’t some strong emotions attached to believing in it and not believing in it. There has to be infinite awesomeness in believing in it, and infinite horror in not believing in it. The rhetoric in religion is similar to the rhetoric in government. Absolute happiness and prosperity has to be attached to statism, and absolute sadness and poverty has to be attached to liberty. If that wasn’t the case, then statism would collapse.
Neocons believe that Islam is the greatest threat to the world. They are old testament believers. They want to invoke a terrifying Christian God to counter the terrifying Islamic God, and they will bring God and heaven to Earth to do it.
Liberals believe God exists in the democratic state, in the majority of people. The way they think of the state is almost identical to the way Christians think of Jesus.
I will grant though that the sort of concerns I have are outlier aren’t among the first and foremost of most athetists (at least the ones I seem to see commenting on blogs on the net) who pretty much only say “could god create a pancake larger than he could even eat” and “the pH levels in this soil do not indicate the existance of god”.
First of all, some people were confused as to the train of argument. They wondered why (in my first post) I was placing such emphasis on the wisdom of Jesus’ teachings. Did that alone mean He was God?
No, of course not. The crucial point is that Jesus said He was God, if we are to believe the gospel accounts. So then we have to decide (a) do we trust the gospel accounts and (b) do we trust the claims of this man Jesus?
As for (a), I do trust them. It doesn’t seem plausible to me that people would follow around a wise teacher and then, knowing full well that he didn’t come back from the dead, would make up a bunch of stuff that got some of them martyred. In conjunction with the power of the message, that just doesn’t seem like the most plausible explanation of what happened.
How can it not seem plausible when there are more recent stories of crazy people like the Jim Jones cult, and the Heaven’s Gate cult? In these cases, people did follow around an iconic figure who claimed to have supernatural powers. They did become fully willing to end their own lives for the sake of their religious beliefs.
Furthermore, it is not necessary that the followers of Jesus “knew full well” of Jesus’ mortality, nor is it necessary that they had to “make up a bunch of stuff” in writing. The former is not necessary because you are ignoring the likely possibility that they *believed* he was immortal and would come back from the dead. After all, they were crazy people much like those in the two cults mentioned above. The latter is not necessary because you are taking for granted that the Bible was written by Jesus’ followers. You are ignoring the fact that the Bible went through many revisions over the years by theologians and scribes. Communications were not exactly accurate and efficient. After all, scholars are not even 100% sure who the real Shakespeare was, and this is from around the late 16th century. If one considers the 4th century, when most of the passages of the Bible were “officially” recorded, the likelihood that the gospels as they exist today were written by non-Apostles makes it almost certain that what you today perceive as the Apostles “making up a bunch of stuff” is better explained by theologians and authors who themselves “made up a bunch of stuff” when they retold the story of Jesus. I’ll even give you the possibility that these non-Apostle authors were “honest” with themselves as they wrote the gospels, because they could have truly *believed* that it really happened.
Furthermore, and to emphasize the above, it must be mentioned that there is a huge gap in records between the supposed time of Jesus’ death and the first time mention of him exists in text. Archaeologically, the earliest known manuscript containing evidence for the New Testament’s writings, though still not the content as it exists today, is a papyrus fragment dating to about 90 – 160 AD. If Jesus’ life was as miraculous as Christians say it was, and if his birth and death sent unscientific “ripples across space and time forward and backwards in history” as the explanation as for why his story is so similar to other messiahs, then why is there not a single mention of him until at least 60 years after his death? Isn’t it much more likely the the gospels as they exist today were written not by Peter, Paul, Matthew, etc, but by religious theologians who heard from their brother’s uncle’s barber’s nephew’s former employer what happened 0 – 30 AD? That THEN is when most of the “miracles” were added, leading people in 2011 to believe that “there is no good reason why anyone would make up a bunch of stuff THIS awesome!” You believe this even in an age of Jim Jones and Heaven’s Gate!
You mentioned that you think atheists are “too overconfident” that their arguments are “air tight,” but we atheists KNOW that Christian believers are INSANELY overconfident that the Bible’s texts as they exist today are not only true, but were actually written by “the Apostles.”
What evidence do you have that the Bible was not only written by the Apostles, but is evidence of what actually happened? If you are allowed to reject as “make believe stories” written by “mortal men” the religious texts of Asatru, Atenism, Ayyavazhi, Bahá’í Faith, Bön, Buddhism, Cheondoism, Confucianism, Discordianism, Druze, Ancient Egyptian religion, Etruscan religion, Hermeticism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, LaVeyan Satanism, Lingayatism, Mandaeanism, Manichaeism, Meher Baba, Orphism, Rastafarianism, Samaritanism, Scientology, Shinto, Sikhism, Spiritism, Sumerian, Swedenborgianism, Taoism, Tenrikyo, Thelema, Wicca, Yazidi, and Zoroastrianism, then is it REALLY so “overconfident” for us atheists to conclude for Christianity EXACTLY what you do for all the above religions?
What logical foundation permits you to label the above as stories and myths that you fail to do for Christianity, which is just ONE out of a gigantic list of myths and stories made up by people to give their mortal lives an altruistic meaning and a false sense of longevity?
It is silly to believe that the gospels as they exist today were written by the actual Apostles.
As for (b), I partly rely on the standard “liar, lunatic, or Lord” formulation. In other words, if we accept that there was a historical man Jesus who went around healing people and said the things he reportedly said, then he was either lying through his teeth, or he was crazy, or he was exactly who he said he was. Since his teachings are the most profound ones I have ever encountered, it doesn’t seem plausible to me that this man was a liar or nuts.
You are setting up a false trichotomy fallacy, founded upon a false contingency, justified by a fallacy of appeal to belief. Wow.
The false contingency is your choice on the starting point of “if we accept there was a historical man Jesus who magically healed people.” That is a position that requires proof. A more reasonable starting point would be “Was there in fact a man named Jesus who went around magically healing people?”
The false trichotomy fallacy you are espousing is that one has to choose between liar, lunatic, or lord. Well, by that logic, I’ll just say that my belief in the flying pink unicorn God depends on the “liar, lunatic, lord” trichotomy. Either the writer of the text of the story of the flying pink unicorn God is a liar, or he is a lunatic, or it is true. The above two fallacious arguments are justified by a third fallacy:
The appeal to belief fallacy is the incorrect notion that you can justify any argument by stating “I enjoy thinking these things.” Just because you find it “profound,” that doesn’t logically entitle you to claim that what you are reading is true. One can feel the same sense of profundity when reading Shakespeare, but that doesn’t mean the plays are true stories. The positivity you feel about X, and the truthfulness of X, are two different things. You cannot use your feelings as justification for the claim of factual accuracy.
Now we have to ask, in the grand scheme, is this stuff even possible? And this is why I think it’s very important to have independent arguments for the existence of a God. If it makes sense that a God exists, then it’s much more plausible that this incredibly wise man, who apparently went around healing people and rose from the dead just as He had predicted He would, was the Son of God as He had claimed. In contrast, if logic and science tell us that there really can’t be a God as described in the Bible, then those stories about Jesus just can’t be right.
I know a lot of atheists think they have airtight deductive arguments blowing up the very possibility of the Biblical accounts, but I think they are far too overconfident. For example, many atheists might say, “You Christians revel in your nonsense. You love the ‘mystery’ of the trinity, and how three people can be the same unitary God. Give me a break.”
But yet, those same atheists probably love quantum mechanics, where a cat can be alive and dead at the same time, an electron can be a wave and a particle, and where a famous physicist says, “If you think quantum mechanics makes sense, you haven’t understood it.” It’s fine for there to be utter craziness in quantum mechanics, because we have experimental predictions coming out of it.
This is spoiling the well fallacy. You are claiming that because it is found by scientific experiment that the human mind’s general, every day “common sense” understanding of reality appears to be violated at the microscopic, subatomic level, that this entitles you to spoil and smear all claims to certain truth such as the claim that God does not exist or that the Bible is based on logical fallacies. “You can’t I am not entitled to believe in the Bible on the basis of the Bible being nonsensical, because quantum mechanics is also nonsensical, and you believe that!”
What rubbish. By that logic, I could claim that flying pink unicorns with rainbows shooting out of their arses exist in my house, and you can’t tell me that such a things is nonsensical, because, uh, quantum mechanics is “nonsensical” too and you believe that!
Quantum mechanics is the behavior of subatomic particles in isolation, the equations of which do not explain and do not apply to macroscopic phenomena. You’ve no doubt heard of the inability of physicists to unify (and confirm via experiment) quantum mechanics with general relativity. You can’t claim that because weird things happen when observing particles, that it means macroscopic people can perform magic. That doesn’t follow.
If you can confirm via experiment the existence of God, and be as accurate in your predictions as quantum mechanics, which by the way is so accurate that it is like measuring the width of North America to an accuracy of plus or minus the width of a single human hair, if you can have predictions and empirical outcomes like that, then the “common sense” reaction is to accept it.
Quantum mechanics is only nonsensical if you believe that macroscopic laws SHOULD apply to subatomic particles. But it doesn’t. Quantum mechanics is not nonsensical because the predictions and the empirical results of experiment have not been violated ONCE in over 80 years.
Or suppose there were a Bible account saying that a man of God fell out of a high tower, but he was unharmed because angels broke his fall and all were amazed and praised God. “Superstitious nonsense!” the atheist might scoff. “Modern science tells us that people can’t survive falling from a 50-foot tower. Stop believing fairy tales written more than a thousand years ago.”
But if we read a news account of a skydiver falling 12,000 feet, having both chutes malfunction, and living to tell about it, we think, “Huh that’s amazing.” Apparently “the laws of physics” and “modern science” don’t rule such things out, which is actually pretty obvious in retrospect.
When the believer claims that someone survived a 50 foot fall because angels broke his fall, then the superstitious nonsense is not the fact that they survived the fall, it’s the claim that magical angels broke their fall. I don’t know of any atheist whose position is that it is superstitious nonsense to believe that someone can survive, or walk away from, a 50 foot fall. After all, X-gamer Jake Brown fell 50 feet off his skateboard and walked away:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/750501/jake_brown_falls_50_feet_walks_away_x_games_13_big_air/
I am sure many atheists in the crowd did not all of a sudden start believing in angels, but then again, you’d have to ask them.
So when we read that Jesus walked on water, I am open to that happening.
Woah, epic non-sequitur. People falling 50 feet and walking away do not violate the laws of physics. People falling 12,000 feet and surviving do not violate the laws of physics. People walking on water do violate the laws of physics.
If there were a God and He came down to earth, I would expect Him to do all sorts of “miraculous” things. And these would be consistent with the laws of nature, by definition, because the laws of nature just mean, the rules describing how matter behaves.
If it were possible for a human to walk on water, then it should be observable, not just told in stories.
In the case of walking on water, it could even be something as “easy” as schools of fish supporting Jesus’ weight. The employees at Seaworld “glide on top of the water” (because they are standing on dolphins) all the time. I’m not saying that is how it happened, but the confident assertions that the Biblical accounts are violations of the laws of physics are simply wrong, even if we take our current understanding of “the laws of physics” to be roughly correct.
Hahaha, I’m picturing Jesus riding on a dolphin. That’s funny.
Anyway, riding on fishes is not walking on water. Riding on a dolphin is not walking on water. You can’t claim that Jesus walking on water is not a violation of physics because he could have been riding on fishes. The biblical claim is that he walked on water. That is what atheists have in mind when they say it’s a violation of physics. To claim that it’s not a violation of physics because he could have been walking on fishes is a switching of context that completely changes the entire story. IF the biblical claim that he walked on water is to be taken as him walking not on fishes but on water, then THAT is a violation of physics. If you say it could have happened because he could have been walking on fishes (just saying this is ri-goddamn-diculous by the way), then you are only admitting that it’s a violation of physics to walk on water, and you are accepting the atheist’s position.
If you are only willing to accept that Jesus could walk on water by being supported by fishes, or some other reason that does not violate the laws of physics, then you are implicitly admitting that the bible is nonsensical as it is written and we should not accept it. You are claiming that we should chalk up all biblical miracles as really nothing more that misunderstood interpretations of otherwise “normal” events. Jesus did walk on water as is said in the bible, he was just supported by fishes and the people didn’t see the fishes. By that logic, we can reject the entire bible as it is written as being nothing more than misinterpretations of otherwise regular mortal human events, cooked up with a flavor of supernatural beliefs to give it oomph.
Finally, let me address the common distinction drawn between faith and reason. When I say I have faith in Jesus, I mean I trust the character of the man described in the gospel accounts, and (as a derivative) I trust that His followers didn’t invent all sorts of things that He didn’t say or do. I do not mean that I have to turn off my reason when it comes to religious things.
Reason must be turned off if one is to accept the illogical conclusions as true, which means if one accepts the illogical conclusions as true, it must mean reason was turned off.
The distinction between faith and reason is separate. The distinction is the unbridgeable gap in the foundations and justifications for accepting particular propositions. To accept something on faith is to totally undercut and reject the only way humans can actually acquire and understand reality. You could be right if you believe something on faith, but that will only be because of chance, not because faith is what actually made the proposition true.
Why can’t someones “trust” in the characters of Zoroaster, or Zeus, or Mithra, or, say, my made up God that tells people Jesus did not exist, and their “trust” in these figure’s followers, be used to justify the truthfulness of these Gods?
You keep trying to use your belief and your trust and your feelings and your admiration in the bible as justification for the factual accuracy of the bible. Your feelings, and what is true, can potentially coincide, but you cannot use your feelings or admiration as FOUNDATION for what’s true. Only logic, empirical observation, and science can do that. If your “nonsensical” religious claims are going to be on par with the “nonsensical” scientific propositions found in quantum mechanics, then you are going to have to provide predictive arguments that can be independently verified by anyone, find the same empirical results, and have the predictions as accurate as they are in quantum mechanics. If you can do that, then one can accept your “nonsensical” religious claims as true. But until you do that, religious claims are quite reasonably understood as nothing but myths and stories based on ancient people’s feelings and faith alone that people of today accept for one reason or another, either because science has not yet penetrated every last corner of human curiosity, or because they want to exist past their own deaths, or whatever.
For an analogy, suppose my brother is accused of being a serial killer. The prosecutor has a bunch of DNA evidence, eyewitnesses placing him at the various scenes where the victims disappeared, etc. But I talk to my brother and he says, “I can’t explain that evidence, but you know I didn’t do those things.”
I would believe him; I would have faith in him. It’s true that if I were trying to explain to somebody else why I didn’t think my brother was a serial killer, I couldn’t give “scientific” evidence, in the same way I could try to prove the charge on an electron, or explain why minimum wage laws lead to unemployment. Yet there would be nothing irrational or unscientific about my conviction, and in fact I would be more (personally) sure of my brother’s innocence than of the charge on an electron (which I would actually be trusting scientists to tell me) or even my view of minimum wage laws (which might actually not be an important factor in real-world unemployment).
How is there nothing irrational or unscientific about your conviction, when all rational and scientific evidence points to your brother being guilty? How is your faith and belief in your brother’s innocence rational and scientific when the science shows the opposite? Sure, it is possible that the evidence was planted, it is possible that the DNA analysis contains errors, and it is possible that the witnesses are mistaken (or liars), etc, but those are rational and scientific possibilities, for they would all be in principle empirical and falsifiable, subject to their own scientific scrutiny. Your say so based on faith and brotherly support is not rational evidence. Many times family members just can’t psychologically accept that their sons and daughter and brothers and sisters commit horrible crimes.
If DNA evidence points to someone being guilty, if the DNA analysis was carried out without performance error or conspiracy, then it is unscientific to claim that they are innocent. If Ted Bundy’s mother went on the stand in court and said “I know all scientific evidence points to his being guilty, but I know he’s innocent,” then that evidence would be about as credible as “I know all scientific evidence points to the bible being a myth, but I know it’s true.”
Jesus said in numerous passages that He was God, and that the way to eternal salvation was through Him. Yes, there are other great moral teachers in history, but I don’t know that they claimed the things Jesus claimed. If some of them did, then by all means point them out and I’ll look at their reported words. But I doubt very much I will find them more compelling than the gospel accounts of Jesus Christ.
Why are the moral teachings of Jesus superior to the moral teachings of other religious figures? Could it be that the moral convictions you have accepted as valid just so happen to be consistent with some or most of the moral teachings of Jesus? After all, you have probably not accepted ALL the moral teachings of Jesus. I am sure that you have not accepted Jesus’ moral teaching that one has to hate their mother, father, brothers and sisters before they can become his follower. I am sure that you have not accepted his moral teaching that slaves should respect their masters. I am sure that you have not accepted his moral teaching that children of adulterers should be killed. I am sure that you have not accepted his implicit moral teaching that it is OK to be logically contradictory. I am sure that you have not accepted his moral teaching that we should “bring the sword.” Even if you interpret that last as a defense, you nevertheless said in your lost post that you are a full blown pacifist.
In other words, you have not accepted all the moral teachings of Jesus Christ. You have accepted the moral teachings of Jesus Christ that are consistent with the moral convictions you hold as valid and are totally separate from the bible. For example, you hold many libertarian convictions. As an outside observer of your writings, I notice that they are your primary moral convictions. The bible is only a reinforcement tool for you to give you that added supernatural component where science has not yet gone. It is probably to give you a sense of completeness. From my perspective of course it is really a desire to accept the second half of what humans are capable of thinking of because we have choice, i.e. falsehoods. People want to believe in falsehoods because they find truth too limiting. It’s why thinkers ever since Plato and Plotinus felt that reality (truthfulness) has to be transcended.
You ignore or reject the passages in the bible that are anti-libertarian. You have said that if it weren’t for the New Testament, you’d have rejected the Old Testament. That means that according to you, the word of God can be rejected, if it violates individual liberty and logic ON EARTH. That’s why you’re an amazingly good economist, an amazingly good teacher, and an amazingly good logician, when it comes to Earthly affairs. Thankfully, to me that’s all that exists. You, like Rothbard and Aquinas, are able to separate the two worlds and you do not attempt to bring heaven to Earth. Because of that, you’re a friend to humanity, whereas other Christians are extreme threats.
Yet when the context is the supernatural world, or the ancient world that has gone through so many revisions since that the texts that survive are like the game of telephone written and sanctified, then logic and reason seem to go out the window.
I dont see why we have to assume jesus even existed, he could have just been made up like hercules et al.
In your scenarios A,B,C there is no D) Jesus never existed, the disciples were all made up, some group just decided to write an epic tale like lord of the rings, and then convinced people it was real.
If your reply is well “thats crazy, how difficult would it be to convince people to believe lord of the rings is real,” well you run into a problem.
For simplicity, well say theres 5 religous books, and that they are mutually exclusive, (i.e. that the 5 gods aren’t all playing a fun little game,) that means that atleast on 4 accounts some group has gotten together and written complete crap and sold it onto a bunch of suckers.
Now it seems in your posts A and B, your faith rests on how perfectly the bible is formed, how the stories are beautiful, logical, and inspiring. (Logical as in, yeah thats a great idea of jesus!)
Now, it to me seems probable, that only the best books would have the capacity to convince people of their divinity. Thus lord of the rings probably wouldn’t convince many people, however over 2,000 years and thousands of attempts at writing books and passing them onto suckers, 5 of them caught on.
Thus this is where most atheists and religious people diverge, most atheists say well i have no reason (and never will have a reason) to think religion A is more likely then religion B, neither god has spoken to me directly, and I don’t believe anything written in a book, without subjecting it to some sort of real world test.
Where most religious persons will say:
No, definitely my religion is more correct, my bible is perfectly written, and i can just feel the superiority of my beliefs.
Or
No my religion is definitely real, I was visited twice by the virgin Mary so I know. (Big amongst my Greek orthodox family)
Or
No my religion is definitely real, i can feel the essence of god guiding me.
Or
No my book is the best book, therefor its the most likely.
Anyways, thats my rant.
I applaud your strength to be able to tolerate other peoples opinions on what is usually for most people a very touchy subject. It shows your commitment to truth and knowledge, and I think that it demonstrates your faith, that your willing to subject yourself to scrutiny, criticism and ridicule to test and strengthen your beliefs.
Keep up the great work
Hi Bob,
I re-read both of your “Why I Am a Christian” posts and was unable to find an answer to the following question:
What, specifically, is your argument for the gospels being accurate historical documents as apposed to (highly realistic and wisdom-packed) works of fiction?
I think the discussion would benefit greatly if you took a stab at answering it.
-Anon
“For an analogy, suppose my brother is accused of being a serial killer. The prosecutor has a bunch of DNA evidence, eyewitnesses placing him at the various scenes where the victims disappeared, etc. But I talk to my brother and he says, “I can’t explain that evidence, but you know I didn’t do those things.”
This is a poorly drawn analogy. Rephrasing it slightly for the affirmative case for Jesus it would read:
“Jesus claims to be the son of God. Believers have no DNA evidence and only interested eyewitnesses placing Jesus at the various scenes where miracles occurred, etc. I talk to various believers and they say, “I can’t explain the lack of evidence, but you know Jesus did those things.”
Bob’s analogy points to the overwhelming evidence for his brother being a serial killer and his brother making a negative assertion against those claims – in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Believers in Jesus point to the underwhelming evidence (it’s underwhelming considering the claims being made) and then make the positive assertion that he is God – in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
When push comes to shove – and it always does – we are left with generations removed, author embellished “eyewitness” accounts for the works and words of Jesus which in any other context would be deemed wholly unreliable. The believer is given carte blanche to make massive leaps in logic, rationality and reason on the basis that they have faith – in the face of massive evidence to the contrary – because that faith is its own justification.
Pulling the veil from our eyes is very difficult given the emotional, financial and spiritual investment we make in believing this stuff to be true. I empathize with the struggling believer in this regard as I struggled for years with these questions. Churches are full of people who are there by inertia – they don’t want to disappoint their wives, parents, children, etc. – and they live lives that are Christian on Sunday mornings and reality based the rest of the time. I don’t think that we will ever be free of religion as a species given the cultural constraints and general willingness to be sheep to some “shepherd.”
“It doesn’t seem plausible to me that people would follow around a wise teacher and then, knowing full well that he didn’t come back from the dead, would make up a bunch of stuff that got some of them martyred.”
OK, but really, no one has to think THAT happened to think the Gospels might not be literal truth. These were written down a generation or two after Christ died. So through thirty or sixty years of verbal transmission, isn’t it obvious that no one would have to be deliberately making stuff up for the stories to change a bit? Have you never seen the studies of how unreliable direct, eyewitness testimony is, let alone such testimony relayed over two generations? And what if the events witnessed were in some way startling or beyond ordinary experience? How much more shaky even eyewitnesses would be!
That doesn’t mean that the Gospels AREN”T literal accounts of what happened. Its always possibly that, say, a divine hand was involved in keeping the transmission pure. I’m just trying to note that one can believe the Gospels don’t transmit Christ’s exact words without thinking the apostles were a bunch of liars! And therefore this argument has no force for non-believers.
Great post!
In general, does anybody who has posted here, object if I reproduce some of your objections in a future post? I.e. does anybody NOT want me to quote him on the main blog page in a future post?
An opt-out, huh? Very Cass Sunstein. I would have expected more from you than libertarian paternalism!
Murphy’s request is very thoughtful and shows tremendous class. Your unfunny post was not warranted.
Oh it’s a joke – calm down. I’m not trying to show any disrespect to Bob – I’m trying to make him smile.
I’d prefer to be referred to as “someone” (i.e. …then someone asked …).
Are you making a joke? You don’t want me to reveal your name, “Anon,” to the world? 🙂
Hey, don’t make fun of my name. It’s Indian… I mean Greek. Well, I’m Kinsellian on blog post replies, so do what you will.
Sorry I can’t tell if you are kidding once again. I had assumed your name was short for “Anonymous.” If your name is really “Anon,” then whoops my bad. It’s not the first time I have made a jack*ss of myself.
Yeah, I was just joking around (I think you might have actually offended some Indian or Greek people, though). Do what you will with my un-homesteadable screen name.
Bob,
There is such great textual evidence and support of the early Christian belief found in 1 Cor. 15 3-7. It is pretty amazing how early this is attested. Here is a pretty interesting link dealing with 1 Cor. 15: http://carm.org/apologetics/evidence-and-answers/1-cor-153-4-demonstrates-creed-too-early-legend-corrupt
Hi RobertH,
The reply option disappeared on the “Know the Word” thread, so I was unable to respond to your last post to me. You wrote:
“If you are underwhelmed it is only because you are not paying close enough attention and you caricatured/strawmanned the argument. … They are not saying because the texts say the resurrection happened that it therefore happened. Instead, they are saying that the followers had a sincere belief in Jesus’ post-mortem appearance…”
But again, the sources for your claims about the very EXISTENCE of followers (and what their sincere beliefs were) are Christian texts. By assuming that certain scriptural passages are true – and basing your conclusions on those assumptions – you have unfortunately fallen into the error of what is referred to as “begging the question”.
I enjoyed reading the two parts, Bob.
Sometimes I ask myself if I believe in Jesus simply as a way to give meaning to life and to help ease the pain when a loved one passes away. Sometimes I think that maybe my faith is just wishful thinking. And then I consider the alternative; I ask myself if humans are just meat and flesh wrapped around bone. All things considered, that seems more ridiculous than anything in the Gospels.
On the question of whether or not a belief in God is consistent with logic and reason, I think there is some re-framing that needs to be done. What, after all, is the foundation of logic and reason if God does not exist? If everything around us is merely a product of physical chemistry, what reason do we have to believe in reason? The Christian has a simple answer: God is the foundation of reason, logic is a part of his nature and character. The soul, as well as the physical body, both play a role in reasoning and in living.
The materialist or atheist, it seems, has a problem. All knowledge, especially to the materialist, is a product of reason, both inductive and deductive. We have never seen our own brains, but we know from induction that we have brains because we have seen pictures in anatomy textbooks. So, the question to the atheist would be why, if everything is a product of physical motion and can be explained without reference to the supernatural, do you believe the thoughts in your head actually lead you to truth?
And then I consider the alternative; I ask myself if humans are just meat and flesh wrapped around bone. All things considered, that seems more ridiculous than anything in the Gospels.
Can you please help me in understanding why Christians, indeed all religious believers, find it so ridiculous the notion that humans are only meant and flesh wrapped around bone, as opposed to meat and flesh wrapped around bones carrying an invisible soul that will exist forever?
What, after all, is the foundation of logic and reason if God does not exist? If everything around us is merely a product of physical chemistry, what reason do we have to believe in reason?
Physical chemistry obeys logical scientific laws. It should not be surprising that conscious entities made up of chemical elements would eventually through evolution be able to use logic.
God is not necessary, and would not settle the issue even if one invoked God, for then the question would be what reason is there for God to be, and to create a reality that is, logical and reasonable.
So, the question to the atheist would be why, if everything is a product of physical motion and can be explained without reference to the supernatural, do you believe the thoughts in your head actually lead you to truth?
Because we’re made up of the same things that are logical and truthful. Why wouldn’t something made up of logical and truthful components be able to comprehend logic and truth? It only seems natural.
“Can you please help me in understanding why Christians, indeed all religious believers, find it so ridiculous the notion that humans are only meant and flesh wrapped around bone…”
I’ve got meat and flesh wrapped around bone in my freezer right now. It never says anything intelligent to me. Hmm… on the other hand, neither does… Ah, never mind.
How not surprising. Another glib sarcastic comment.
Way to keep the site classy.
Not that my post is very useful with captain freedoms above me.
reproduce as much as you want bob.
Brandon Harnish, your post is strange, your saying that you believe in god because if you didn’t nothing would make sense. (God is the foundation of logic and reason)
Athiests can solve this problem very simply, you test the world around you, If austrian theory said that theres no such thing as gravity we would reject austrian theory.
Its only because Austrian axioms are constructed in such a way that at each stage the truth is undeniable by looking around you. We see the impacts of price controls, rent controls etc.
We understand that people do things with some sort of purpose in mind, if someone tried to convince us people were buying bus tickets and then eating them, and walking onto a bus and risking getting a fine, we know something isn’t right here, either their all crazy (extremely unlikely) or were missing some information (very likely). We don’t need god to write about it in a book.
Humans are capable (on the average) of understanding the world around them. Humans aren’t capable of understanding alternate universes, No human with a straight face can say they know anything about life after death, unless they believe a book told them.
True, a super being might have created the world, we have no way of knowing, that person might have created the laws around us we have no way of knowing. Therefor saying that we need the existence of a super being to understand the thoughts in our head is quite silly, unless you’ve been drinking descartes cool-aid? (evil-demon hypothesis)
I probably should have stopped with the first paragraph. I don’t enjoy arguing about religion.
Captain freedom, are you Australian or similar timezone? How come always beating me to the punch by 15-20 seconds??
Said another way,
Brandon: The walls here appear straight and square. This is consistent with my belief that the building has a solid foundation.
Capt_Freedom: Why is a foundation necessary? Obviously the structure is built from walls, and those walls are straight.
Capt_Freedom: Why is a foundation necessary? Obviously the structure is built from walls, and those walls are straight.
Not sure I understand.
I don’t think that is the proper question to ask. It’s not that I think a foundation is necessary. My position is that foundations exist, and so it would be wrong to ignore the foundation(s) that support the particular proposition being made.
Maybe you can direct me to something I said so that I can know for sure what you mean?
You say that the things we’re made of are logical and truthful, as though it’s just obvious that logicalness is an attribute of those components. This dismisses the point Brandon seemed to have made: For rational thought to be possible, human minds must operate in accordance with the laws of logic. Materialism entails only that our physical brains operate according to the laws of physics, but this is hardly evidence that our thought process are logical. It’s a fallacy of composition to think that our thoughts are consistent with logical laws just because our atoms are subject to the those laws.
I don’t have as much time as I’d like to spend arguing on the net, but fyi this is basically Plantinga’s argument against naturalism. here.
You say that the things we’re made of are logical and truthful, as though it’s just obvious that logicalness is an attribute of those components.
I do accept that fact, but it’s not exactly obvious. I ask what would an illogical reality look like? Then I think it would be absurd to ask that question because our conception of logic follows from observing reality. We identify that a proposition is logical when it does not contradict reality. To contemplate an illogical reality would be like contemplating a square circle.
This dismisses the point Brandon seemed to have made: For rational thought to be possible, human minds must operate in accordance with the laws of logic. Materialism entails only that our physical brains operate according to the laws of physics, but this is hardly evidence that our thought process are logical. It’s a fallacy of composition to think that our thoughts are consistent with logical laws just because our atoms are subject to the those laws.
I know what you are saying, and in general I will say that you are right. In general it is wrong to argue that an aggregate entity must have a specific attribute on the premise that its components have that attribute. In general such a form of argument is the fallacy of composition. But this isn’t always the case, depending on how one makes the argument and what specific attributes in the micro and macro scales you are talking about.
For example, suppose I see a pile of red apples. I can make the argument that the aggregate pile of apples, should I eat the pile, must taste like “apple”, by reasoning that each component in the pile, namely each apple, tastes like “apple.” Stacking individual apples one at a time will not eventually create a pile of apples that tastes like bananas or whatever. Adding an additional apple only adds more “appleness.”
Similarly, if the context is atoms and molecules in relation to humans, then I can’t see how building (assuming we can do it) a human one molecule at a time, where each molecule is “logical”, will ever eventually produce an aggregate pile of molecules that is “illogical.” How can illogicalness ever arise out of logicalness? I just can’t see how that is possible.
I don’t see how illogicalness can ever arise out of aggregations and interactions between logical molecules, seeing as how all molecules are logical and all interactions between molecules are logical.
Now, let me just make an important note here. If we use this line of argument when we consider consciousness and free will, then it would seem that I have no answer as to how consciousness and free will (which I hold we have) can ever arise out of individual molecules and atoms that by most accounts do not have consciousness and are deterministic. By my argument about apples and logic above, it would seem that humans should not have a consciousness, should be fully deterministic, and should not have free will. How can I reconcile this?
Well, this is why I said earlier that it depends on which specific attributes one is discussing. I argue that consciousness and free will are emergent phenomena, like gradual scales. They are not binary. Attributes like the taste of individual apples and the taste of a pile of apples is not emergent and gradual. It is binary. Each apple tastes like apple and each pile of apples will taste like apple. There is nothing in the attribute called “taste” that is gradually emerging when you build a pile of apples. It’s the same taste no matter how many apples you put in the pile.
But there are attributes in individual apples and piles of apples that is emergent. Attributes like size and mass and gravitational field. These are emergent phenomena. When you build a pile of apples, new attributes of that pile that did not exist before in each individual apple will start to emerge. Build a large enough pile of apples, I mean we’re talking an extremely large pile, and you will eventually create a black hole, which is definitely something that did not exist for each apple.
I think the same thing is the case for consciousness and free will. Consciousness and free will are emergent phenomena. They gradually arise as completely new attributes of molecules that do not and cannot exist in isolated molecules, begin to arise with aggregations of molecules and the novel, complex interactions that take place alongside it.
I don’t have as much time as I’d like to spend arguing on the net, but fyi this is basically Plantinga’s argument against naturalism. here.
Avram, at this point, if anyone denies evolution, considering all the extremely strong evidence and logic behind it, then they are quite simply wrong. Yes, that seems like an ex cathedra pronouncement, but that is only because I, like you, don’t want to spend the time to show you the entire argument for evolution.
Oops, I said Avram. You’re James! My bad.
And I’m not denying evolution! I’m denying materialism, but just read Plantinga to get the gist of the argument.
I’m also not claiming that *reality* could have been illogical. I’m saying that if *human brains* could be incapable of rationality. Atheists seem to neglect this possibility even as their arguments require that it not obtain.
I understand the concept of emergent properties, but your claim that mental properties emerge from the deterministic behavior of our atoms is without support. Seriously, how do you know that mental properties are emergent What would count as evidence to the contrary?
I know we can say that e.g. market prices are emergent because they come into being without outside intervention, but that’s only after we establish that there hasn’t been any intervention.
Captain Freedom wrote:
I don’t see how illogicalness can ever arise out of aggregations and interactions between logical molecules, seeing as how all molecules are logical and all interactions between molecules are logical.
OK, next time you accuse me of saying illogical stuff on Sundays, I’m going to remind you that I am composed of molecules. Winning!
“OK, next time you accuse me of saying illogical stuff on Sundays, I’m going to remind you that I am composed of molecules. Winning!”
lol
Of course, we CAN use logic to determine the ORIGIN of your illogical beliefs (e.g. you always drink on Sunday before posting, you were cheated on by an atheist, there’s not enough calcium in your diet, etc.).
LOL, I almost knew that was coming.
Making a mistake in one’s logic is not the same thing as being an inherently illogical entity. You are a logical entity. Everything about you is perfectly logical. It’s just that you, me, and everyone else, have the capacity to make references and propositions of things outside ourselves that are not logical.
A molecule in one location of the world can interact with molecules nearby, and be logical, but it cannot manifest or predict or “know” any interactions between molecules elsewhere in the world. Humans can make propositions about things they aren’t interacting with. That’s why humans can make illogical statements. But they themselves as entities are always logical.
That’s why I think individual subjective preferences for oneself can never be illogical (libertarianism), however individual propositions about entities outside oneself, like other people, or other molecules, or entities in another dimension, can be wrong. Human minds and knowledge is limited to what it can learn over time by interacting with itself and other entities.
A priori ratiocination is the art of learning and interacting with the phenomenon of interacting itself.
A logical entity can make illogical propositions because claims can be made that are thought to be missing nothing important, when in reality there are missing or ignored propositions that have not been properly integrated with the claim and premises propounded. That’s when illogical propositions are made. But the method by which the conclusion is made is based on perfectly logical processes.
When I said that I can’t see how illogicalness can arise out of logicalness, I meant illogicalness as an attribute, as a property of the physical entities in question, not the propositions that can be made by entities, propositions which are attempts to make factual claims about other entities outside itself.
This is why I emphasize the importance of the scientific method over faith, especially when it comes to things not only outside humans, but outside the observable universe. The scientific method is the entity interacting directly with things outside itself in a systematic way, which then enables the entity to acquire knowledge and learn about those outside things. We can then form predictions about other things and see if the same result occurs.
While I hold the scientific method to be paramount in the natural sciences, that is, for everything outside humanity, it cannot fully work for the entity using the scientific method itself. An entity that learns knowledge over time and bases its actions on that knowledge, cannot use that method on itself. A learning entity has to understand the concepts learning and action themselves, and what that means for all things human, if it going to acquire knowledge about the inherent nature of itself. This is why Austrian economics is superior to positivist economics.
I will never accuse you of being an illogical entity. But I can label your propositions as illogical. To have choice is to have the ability in espousing illogical propositions.
“It’s a fallacy of composition to think that our thoughts are consistent with logical laws just because our atoms are subject to the those laws.”
Good argument. Captain Trips is about to deny this point to you. Then, when Bob Murphy notes the consequence of that denial, he will respond with the very point you just made!
Not if you realize what exactly is being referred to in the debate here. The entities themselves are logical, from all scales.
Propositions can be illogical because humans can make claims about things outside themselves, and we’re not omniscient.
CF, do you really not see why you keep flipping sides here? The original claim (that you tried to refute) was that if the materialist is right, then we have no reason to trust his “logical” deductions about things.
You are now admitting that when a human being makes propositions about things outside himself, he could be wrong.
So how are you denying the point against materialism?
Liar, lunatic, or Lord … or just mistaken. The last seems to be the most sensible explanation. Why can’t Jesus just have been sane and wrong?
Often the claim in this formula is that sane people don’t make claims to divinity.
But along the same lines (and someone else raised this above), why can’t we just accept the fact that most of the gospels were not written by first-hand witnesses and were written from each others accounts, and the people who formed that canon excluded other gospel candidates. We’re looking at a very skewed sample here.
One could also apply this standard elsewhere. What interest did Mohammed have in lying? He was either a liar, a lunatic, or a prophet right? Sane people don’t claim the things that Mohammed did. What about the Buddha? Those claims are less violent than some of Mohammed’s and perhaps more acceptable as transcendant wisdom (along the lines of Jesus). What interest did he have in lying?
Well, most sane people do not make claims that a cat can be both alive and dead. It is certainly improbable that a sane person makes claims to divinity, but some surely do. Moreover, a bit of cultural relativism is appropriate here: a lot of powerful and influential people made claims to divinity thousands of years ago. In the context of the everyday knowledge of the day, I suspect claims to divinity were not nearly so crazy.
Perhaps Jesus had good reason to believe he was divine. He is reputed to have performed incredible acts, and others around him apparently reinforced his divine status. I just don’t think he has to be insane. I am inclined to believe he was just a sincere but mistaken individual.
Yes, Lee, I keep advising intelligent Christians I know *not* to use Lewis’s argument. That it fails has been recognized by such people as the Catholic philosopher GEM Anscombe. There are simply many more possibilities than Lewis included. As I’ve noted elsewhere, Indian beliefs had reached Israel and were present in the teaching of the Essenes. Christ could have meant something like a Hindu mystic meant in saying, e.g., “The Father and I are one.”
I ain’t sayin’ he DID mean something like that, by the way, just that Lewis’s “three possibilities” are more like “three out of a few dozen possibilities.”
I never have found that particular argument of Lewis’s very convincing. I much prefer chapter 3 of ‘Miracles,’ which, coincidentally, was also tweaked by Anscombe (she improved it). It has basically become Plantinga’s argument against naturalism. I’m not well read or sophisticated enough to say much more, though.
Gene,
Sure, people read The Bible like it was written by autistics. People rarely mean what they “say.” I have trouble with this all of the time. Being British, I have a penchant for understatement, and it leads to all kinds of miscommunication in the U.S., while a Brit would understand what I really “said.” In the modern day Middle-east, the cultural norm appears to be overstatement.
Reading the Bible without reference to cultural differences is one of the major reasons why we have a creation vs. evolution problem. Many Christians believe that Genesis was meant to be something like a post-Enlightenment scientific account of the material origins of the universe. In fact, the point of Genesis was to describe the theological and teleological creation, that is, how God prepared the world for himself and for man.