Page 8 of 13

Re: What did you think of the quote by Mark Twain in CH 3?

Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:29 am
by Robert Tulip
ginof wrote:
faith is believing what you know ain't so
the way i took this statement was as a contradiction. what you know isn't actually true. do you not know anything? perhaps he's saying that's what faith is: a contradiction. What does everyone else think?
The contradiction is between popular and sophisticated faith. Harrison and Dawkins use Twain's bon mot to turn a valid critique of popular faith into an ad hominem basis to reject the possibility of sophisticated faith.

Popular faith is grounded in belief in miraculous signs and wonders as the mark of the supernatural. The virgin birth, heaven and creationism are directly contradicted by scientific evidence, so believing them requires a deliberate mental dislocation between faith and reason, with the faith claims kept in a separate a-logical mental compartment.

Sophisticated faith starts from scientific knowledge, and studies the claims of religion within the framework of compatibility with science. The Gospels present Jesus as an emblem of integrity in a fallen world, and of unarmed confidence. From within the Christian meta-narrative, Jesus is seen as bringing the beyond into the midst of the world in a way that respects the mystery of the beyond while engaging resolutely with the world. These attributes, in my opinion, make it reasonable to see Jesus as having a unique role and message without needing any magical input.

Saint Anselm had a famous saying, faith seeks understanding, to express the theological effort to reconcile philosophy and religion. I believe that such a rational faith is expressed by theologians such as Tillich (ground of being) and Bonhoeffer (beyond in the midst of the world). There is no need to believe things that are false for such a faith, and indeed such popular error is specifically ruled out by the biblical equation between God and truth.

This lens of rational faith enables reinterpretation of many biblical conventions. For example "I am the way the truth and the life" (John 14:6) suggests not the exclusive imperial claim of the prosletysers, but a statement that where ever we find the way the truth and the life we find Christ - in the very realities that are rejected and despised by the church - such as atheism.

Re: What did you think of the quote by Mark Twain in CH 3?

Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:03 am
by ginof
Hi Robert,

Thanks! I liked the way you put that.

Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 2:17 pm
by Penelope
Evolution ....is a slow process....

We cannot even begin to suggest...different ways of thinking about 'meaning'....until the 'delusional' people....begin to trust us.

They will only trust us....if we cease from ridiculing them.... :oops:

Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:54 pm
by Robert Tulip
Penelope wrote:Evolution ....is a slow process....We cannot even begin to suggest...different ways of thinking about 'meaning'....until the 'delusional' people....begin to trust us. They will only trust us....if we cease from ridiculing them.... :oops:
Penelope, with respect I completely disagree with you on this issue of the need for trust. I view cultural change as occurring through tipping points. Articulating the nature of a new culture is the only way to bring such a change. Your suggestion of showing respect for old ideas which are both wrong and dangerous is an unhelpful strategy. Compromise with error produces confusion and delay. It allows people to think that creationism and old fashioned supernaturalism are somehow legitimate. As you know, I am a theist, but the debate I am interested in is a debate with atheism, not a debate with supernaturalism. The ground for discussion should be a consensus on scientific truth, but supernaturalists place themselves outside this consensus so have nothing helpful to add.

Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:11 am
by Penelope
Robert said:
Your suggestion of showing respect for old ideas which are both wrong and dangerous is an unhelpful strategy.
I am not suggesting that we show respect for the 'ideas' I am suggesting that we show respect for the 'people'.

If we cannot persuade/arrange a dialogue, they will never hear us. And if we don't manage dialogue - the result is truly dangerous.
Compromise with error produces confusion and delay.
How very true......but when I think of the alternative......I favour confusion and delay. I am taking a lesson in caution from recent and ancient history.

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:31 am
by Robert Tulip
Harrison's breezy style, in which he casually discusses beliefs which are at the basis of human identity, leads to a superficial account of the meaning of theology. I think a main part of the confusion is that the concept of God has evolved and mutated, cutting loose from its empirical moorings, especially in the Judeo-Christian concept. By going back to first principles, we can produce a robust critique of both Judeo-Christian theology and of the shallow atheism with which Harrison critiques it.

To illustrate what I am saying here, consider the Hindu concept of divinity, with thousands of divine beings but three main ones - Brahma the creator, Vishnu its preserver, and Shiva the God of Destruction. For Hindus, while these Gods have been the subject of elaborate fable, at base they refer to actual cosmic principles - whenever we see creation happening, that is an instance of the work of Brahma, wherever we see things sustained we see Vishnu, and wherever we see destruction Shiva and his consort Kali are active. The trouble Harrison has is that he cannot comprehend the metaphorical thinking whereby these cosmic principles are anthropomorphised to explain them to an ignorant population. He takes the popular form as though that was the source of the idea, when in fact, in the Hindu example, there is a profound intuition that human life engages with creation, sustaining and destruction, and that these principles must be acknowledged as forming the weave of life. When Hindus say Brahma is the creator, they are not necessarily implying an entity that magically pulls the creation puppet strings along the lines of so-called intelligent design, but that wherever we see creation occuring, that is Brahma.

Taking this metaphorical approach into Christianity, we need to assess the Gospels against modern scientific rationality, not in order to come up with a superficial skeptical statement that things are impossible, but to search for deeper meanings. For example, when Jesus said 'I am the true vine' he was not claiming to be a 'weregrape' but to incarnate a connection between humanity and the cosmos. When he said 'I am the way', he did not imply the Church teaching to smite the heathen, but rather that wherever we find the way to divinity there too is Christ.

Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:21 am
by Frank 013
Hi all... Yes it's me... (Try not to get too excited 8) ) I have read this rather long post and have something to add regarding the lack of accuracy in the crucifixion story of Jesus.

There are so many little (and major) discrepancies in that part of the bible that the whole story must be met with the highest scrutiny.

Aside from the detail of the spikes in the hands the overall scenario is lacking in legitimacy. The Romans did not generally torture a person before crucifixion unless they were being interrogated, which was not the case with Jesus. The Romans did not carry spears, they used a javelin type weapon called a pilum, and the difference is very notable. Finally a Roman soldier would never kill a crucified prisoner and shorten the suffering that they had been condemned to.

Further analysis shows that the entire trial was illegal under Jewish law at that time and the Jewish court system could execute prisoners without going to the Roman occupiers for consent. The story of the crucifixion violates all of these known facts.

From a historic stand point the whole story seems devoid of any credibility and since we do not even know who the author was we cannot give the story any intellectual validity. In fact the whole tale seems to have been written by someone who did not know about such details, clearly eliminating them from the possibility of having been an eyewitness to the event, or even a local to that region in that time frame.

Penelope,

I am sorry I cannot help much with the whole reincarnation thing in the biblical scripture, I do recall the passage you mentioned earlier but frankly it was not something that I was paying attention to. I no doubt passed over many such inconsistencies during my readings.

Later

50 reasons people give for believing in a god - by Guy P. Ha

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 6:17 am
by jaywalker
As the Leader {The Rev. Pommegranat} of the 'Exploding Pommegranat' religion,I believe my religion should be given equal time in schools as 'Evolution' and other religions. By the way 'Rev' stands for reverse ! Thank-you. PPS. Atheists can't Prove I'm wrong-so there.

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:12 pm
by Frank 013
Well Jaywalker your religion of the exploding pomegranate will have to compete with tried and true religions like the Flying Spaghetti Monster... and in that religion you dress up as pirates. I do not know how you can compete with that...

:laugh: Later

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:54 pm
by Robert Tulip
Frank 013 wrote:Well Jaywalker your religion of the exploding pomegranate will have to compete with tried and true religions like the Flying Spaghetti Monster... and in that religion you dress up as pirates. I do not know how you can compete with that...

:laugh: Later
Hi Frank, welcome back.

Competition among religions is a matter of adaptive mythic resonance. Those that have it succeed and those that don't fail. Many people view the Flying Spaghetti Monster as just as feasible as Jehovah, but really, you would have to admit Jehovah has a stronger mythic resonance in human culture.

I think you are right that stories about Jesus got jumbled up in the New Testament. It is a supreme irony that 'doubting Thomas' uses a most unlikely event (stigmata) as a proof that Jesus is Lord. It shows how the Jesus meme adapted and mutated in between his alleged lifetime and when it was recorded in the Gospels. This mutation occurred under extreme selective pressure, what with Titus wielding the crucifix with such gay abandon as to cause the diaspora.