Dialogue between believers and doubters: pointless?

Dissident Heart · Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:20 pm Post subject:

Me: Which are hardly monolithic systems where everyone believes the same thing...
Frank: Ok, so Christians as a whole do not use the bible as their source for doctrine? They as a group do not believe that Jesus is their savior? Muslims don’t use the Koran for their doctrine? They don’t for the most part accept Mohammad as their profit and worship Allah?

Here is the "as a whole" again...Different Christian traditions, and individuals, utilize Scriptures in different ways: giving it different emphasis of authority, latitude for interpretation, and stress upon particular verses...the same is true of the role and importance of Jesus and how to interpret that role and importance. I do agree that it would be very difficult to find any Christian tradition that didn't place Scripture and Jesus in primary status and as normative value...but what that looks like in worship, congregational structure, political activism, practical ethics is widely diverse.

The role of the Quran in Islam is somewhat akin to the role of Jesus in Christianity...Where Jesus is the force of salvation in Christiantiy, the Quran carries similar salvific importance for Islam...therefore, the text of the Koran is treated as Christians might revere the actual body of Christ...but, remember, the diversity of interpretation regarding what is meant by the Quranic verses is, again, not a monolithic enterprise: especially since this process of reciting and discussing Quran has transpired over millenia, circling the globe and including billions of adherents.

And, where external threats produce heightened anxieties and increased fears...the varieties of interpretation and diversity of conclusions are severely truncated: the need for safety and security force simplisitc rationales and uniform meaning...enemies identified, battle lines drawn, wars waged and all the force of scripture is employed to rally the troops and demonize the enemy.

Frank: Not everyone is as biased as you seem to think, just because they do not agree with you does not mean that they are unreasonably biased

I encourage you to say this same thing to yourself, often, especially if such a person you disagree with happens to be religious....in any case, I disagree. I think the bias is built in and largely inescapable, no matter our perspective.

Frank: the fact that no evidence has been found to support the majority of biblical events is not biased, it is simply a lack of support; support that should be attainable if those stories are even partly true.

I think this statement is a prime example of bias. On the one hand, it misunderstands the many ways that Scripture is utilized: where true stories are not always historical events...as well as the inevitable role of storytelling in the seeking out of historical events.

Me: irrational and deceptive behaviors are driven by many influences...religious dogma is the surface justification for influences that supersede beliefs
Frank: But you often say that religion is necessary to motivate people… are you now saying that religion is now worthless as a motivator?

This is a good point Frank. Although there is nothing in my statement that says religion is worthless at motivating behavior. Religious environmentalism as a way to transform the behavior of millions of Americans towards a more ecologically sustainable lifestyle, I think, is qualitatively different than picking verses out of Scriptue to justify the burning of witches. The first is about truly changing lifestyles, the latter is about justifying heinous social injustices that involve scapegoating, misogynist patriarchy, and distractions from deeper economic insecurities and personal distress.

Frank: Furthermore I have offered many examples of religious intolerance derived from dogma; no one has offered any counter evidence to show me that this is not the case.

No, you've asserted that religious dogma was the source of various social injustices. I've argued, plausibly I think, that religious dogma was part of a larger social dynamic.

Frank: ...the Christian religion (to its believers) has an authority that supersedes the material world, which can be very dangerous when used to motivate. It is also at this point an unnecessary bureaucracy… one which you actively support.

Again, not all Christians approach the material world in the same way, nor do they evaluate it the same. And, yes, there are ways in which authoritarian attitudes and structures can employ some religious doctrine and practice to dominate and abuse. And, I think all authoritarian systems are uneccessary bureaucracy...nor do I support any. I don't think Christians need support any authoritarian system of unnecessary bureacracy: actually, I think the Gospel provides a very radical approach to governance and communal living.

DH: "There is no evidence for much of the Bible" is a shibboleth...a highly charged, emotionally potent, instigatory provocation to choose sides and line up accordingly: a battle cry. A rebel yell.
Interbane: Not to mention there is no evidence for much of the bible.

Again, I don't think either of you are in the "what is the real evidence for Biblical accuracy" game for the sake of pure scholarship, history or even the truth of the matter...no, this is an important game to you because it gives you a team to belong to, a group to support, and a cause to lend your hand to...it provides meaning and purpose and its enjoyable to enter the fray on occasion and best an opponent or two....but Biblical evidence is hardly the prime issue.

Interbane · Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:14 pm Post subject:

DH: "Again, I don't think either of you are in the "what is the real evidence for Biblical accuracy" game for the sake of pure scholarship, history or even the truth of the matter(<---what Interbane cares about)...no, this is an important game to you because it gives you a team to belong to, a group to support, and a cause to lend your hand to...it provides meaning and purpose and its enjoyable to enter the fray on occasion and best an opponent or two....but Biblical evidence is hardly the prime issue."

Dodge the issue, dodge the issue.

Frank 013 · Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject:

Dissident Heart · Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:55 am Post subject:

Frank: The differences in worship and activism are irrelevant

No, your opinion about their relevance is irrelevant, especially if you're interested in understanding what it is that they believe.

Frank: It is a belief in the unknowable and unlikely, based off of unconfirmed and outrageous stories. If the foundation of the belief is uncertain how can the certainty of the belief be justified?

Lots of important things are unknowable and unlikely...like how to create an ecologically sustainable economic system...or a healthy democracy of genuine citizen participation...but we pursue them nonetheless: sometimes knowing full well just how outrageous and impossible the task truly is...but life gains a special something along the way...it becomes something more than what it has always been...a different kind of future is imagined...brighter hopes and new courage arises...a longing for something not quite real but really alluring, truly inescapable, actually inspiring...it is uncertain, unclear and uncontainable...and it is what gives life meaning and purpose and makes it worthy of care and love.

Robert Tulip · Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:20 am Post subject: Believers can doubt

I just noticed, the title of this thread has an invalid premise - that believers are not doubters.

I for one consider myself both a believer and a doubter, because I am only willing to believe things that are compatible with modern scientific knowledge. Hence I support systematic doubt about the historical veracity of biblical claims, especially considering the record of fraud and lies of the early church. Belief in things that have been proven false is a great evil in our world. However, the reaction against this evil also has its own faults - the failure to see that beliefs can be valuable and complex.

For example, the resurrection is a highly dubious event. And yet, the myth of a saviour returning from the dead has a compelling meaning, giving hope to people in despair. Saying that it is scientifically impossible does not really address this meaning that people impute into the story, especially considering that it is also conceivable that Jesus actually did have a unique energy which enabled him to do things ordinarily viewed as impossible. We don't know. If we just say that tales of a miraculous energy are meaningless, we cut ourselves off from the deeper levels of meaning that those stories may contain.

The contrasting premise, that doubters think they are not believers, is equally subject to doubt. People who say they do not believe anything are delusional, as practical belief is necessary for life. I agree it is possible only to believe things that have evidence, but the nature of evidence in myth and psychology is a lot more complex than some believe.

Another point, Jesus was the biggest critic of the church of his day, hurling all sorts of insults at those who put social convention before a well developed ethic. These teachings (woe to you scribes and pharisees for you strain a gnat and swallow a camel, etc etc) are conveniently ignored by the institutional church, but they illustrate how Christianity has resources to be self-critical. Honest study of the bible is the best way to overcome the problem of blind faith in the church.

RT

Frank 013 · Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:41 pm Post subject:

Robert Tulip · Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:19 pm Post subject:

Frank 013 · Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject:

geo · Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: Re: Believers can doubt


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT