Invitation To Believers: Will You Describe How You Arrived At Your Belief?

[M4rio]

I can see how person A can be excluded from the set of "True Christians" as defined by person B who considers themself a member of the set.

 

However, I also think there's a danger that person B runs up against when they meet someone, person C, who calls themself a Christian and that person proclaims to hold 90% of the same day to day beliefs, but differs in some other areas. For example, suppose person C believes that one particular passage in the gospel of Matthew is "allegorical, not a literal historical event", while person B believes that it was something that literally did take place in history.

 

In this hypothetical case that has numerous famous examples, what are the variety of ways that person B, someone who believes they are a member of the True Christian set, can react to the fact that person C takes a different view on a single verse in the Bible?

 

What I'm trying to get at here, is an understanding of how it's possible for Christians of different denominations or traditions to reason about each others right to claim themselves as True Christians or not, and how to reason about what interpretation of Bible verses can and should be held as Correct.

 

I'm well aware that this subject has been debated for centuries. But, I'm also well aware that not many average citizens who are not themselves biblical scholars trained in exegesis actually engage with the text at that detailed level -- so I want to understand what the most typical / popular ways are of deciding whether a particular verse is to be read as an historical event versus an allegorical story to illustrate a theological or philosophical point.

 

 

That's an interesting point about the historical evidence. I think people like Mike Licona and Gary Habermas would disagree, but I also would bet they grew up in Christianity. It's a really interesting question though, because certainly there are people who leave atheism for Christianity or other religions for Christianity. I don't know if they do so because they believe it on historical grounds, or because they think it offers a better community. It would be intriguing to hear from someone who has.

As much as we deride the not-a-true-Christian claim that believers use to put us down, I think there is a sliver of truth in it sometimes. I was raised in a liberal mainline denomination and hated it. I never read the bible, except Ecclesiastes, and never seriously studied any of the theological stuff until after I became an evangelical Christian in college. I was lonely and they happened to be the ones that befriended me. So, I was not-a-true-Christian prior to that conversion. I would assume the same happens to nominal Muslims, Jews, even atheists who were raised that way and never thought twice about it.

[M4rio]

 

What I'm trying to get at here, is an understanding of how it's possible for Christians of different denominations or traditions to reason about each others right to claim themselves as True Christians or not, and how to reason about what interpretation of Bible verses can and should be held as Correct.

 

I'm well aware that this subject has been debated for centuries. But, I'm also well aware that not many average citizens who are not themselves biblical scholars trained in exegesis actually engage with the text at that detailed level -- so I want to understand what the most typical / popular ways are of deciding whether a particular verse is to be read as an historical event versus an allegorical story to illustrate a theological or philosophical point.

 

 

Following up on my own note above, this interests me again because of a number of reasons. It's hard to pin down exactly why in summation. I could go into more in a different thread, although I've tried that before to little avail.

 

But I do want to provide an example about believer C above. The treatment that Mike Licona received when he expressed that Matthew 27:52 - 53 might not be a literal event of history (many dead saints walking around Jerusalem) seems to me very problematic for the Christian community.

 

If you don't know the story, you can read Mike's own response here:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/09/press-release-michael-licona-response-to-norm-geisler/

 

If someone as committed to arguing that Jesus *literally rose from the dead* like Mike can be criticized so sharply for interpreting a passage like Matthew 27:52-53 as figurative / allegorical, then I'm at a loss for understanding.

 

Here's an excerpt from an article about the controversy

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/november/interpretation-sparks-theology-debate.html ->

 

----------

"What should be kept in mind," Warren said, "is that a person who has been well-received, written prolifically in multiple contexts, and taken firm stands in the apologetic arena in defense of orthodoxy surely should not be tossed aside based on his interpretation of one passage in a massive volume."

 

Daniel B. Wallace, New Testament professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, said he disagrees with Licona's interpretation but considers the issue hermeneutical, not a challenge to biblical inerrancy.

 

"If we view our own interpretation to be just as inerrant as the Scriptures," he said, "this could ironically elevate tradition and erode biblical authority."

 

Already, at least two Southern Baptist entities—the New Orleans seminary and the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention—have rescinded invitations for Licona to speak at apologetics conferences, Licona said.

 

The NAMB, meanwhile, eliminated Licona's position. Licona said the decision came after he offered to resign rather than cast a shadow over the board and its president, Kevin Ezell.

----------

 

He wrote a 700 page book *defending the proposition that Jesus bodily rose from the dead*, but by interpreting one passage as allegorical, he loses his job and gets snubbed at conferences? I'm at a loss for comment on that.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

I wish Gus was still around.  Not only would he put forth an honest effort to answer this question; but his answer would be thoughtful, thorough, and meaningful.  He was about the only believer who was worth keeping around.

You know how many times I have made an honest effort just to get told my thoughts and reasons are worthless.... After awhile, you see the wisdom of dust your feet and move on....

 

But Mario, if you would like to know my thoughts, please message me.

 

Bless your heart.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

I don't claim to know it all. There are parts of the Bible I cannot explain. I can't prove God exists.

 

 

Here are a few reasons I am a Christian.

 

 I believe there is a God. I believe because of what I see of the world and living things.  It all appears to me to be evidence of design by a creator.

 

 A belief in God, I think, is part of human nature. We are naturally predisposed to a belief God and life after death.

 

The simplicity of the Christian faith is why I ultimately decided it was the truth. All the thief said on the cross said was “remember me” and Jesus accepted him.

 

No guru, no priests, no speaking in babble, no jumping over pews, no popes, no chants, no bells, no beads, no anointed leaders, no prayer wheels………..Just the faith expressed by the thief. He was saved because Jesus knew his heart. This kind of love and grace from God is why I believe.

@ironhorse, these are reasons your faith persists, but maybe you initially became a Christian for other reasons? I believe you said your father was in the ministry, so you must have been indoctrinated. (That is what happened to me too - although my parents were not in the ministry.)

 

 

I have said this many times here.....so now again:  My father was a Baptists minister. My parents did indeed express their faith to me, but I was not indoctrinated.

 

I was encouraged by my parents to question everything (including the Christian faith) and to read. They never restricted me on what books I could read. My father had many books. 

 

I'm a reader. 

 

 

Yes, you have said this many times before, but I still doubt that your parents had no influence on you becoming a Christian. I also doubt that you ever actually looked at Christianity critically and I am sure that I'm not the only one.

 

I'm thinking that the "many books" your father had were mostly pro-Christian drivel written by Christian authors who are only writing for the purpose of convincing people who are already Christian that they're not delusional and converting the gullible.

[mymistake]

 

 

I have said this many times here.....so now again:  My father was a Baptists minister. My parents did indeed express their faith to me, but I was not indoctrinated.

 

I was encouraged by my parents to question everything (including the Christian faith) and to read. They never restricted me on what books I could read. My father had many books. 

 

I'm a reader. 

 

 

 

Ironhorse when you say things like this it raises expectations.  When somebody talks like that it means that they can demonstrate the reasons why they became a Christian and how they can justify faith using critical thinking.  You know, to actually share and demonstrate the thinking behind the decision and also to provide examples of how the religion withstands rigorous criticism.

 

However we know from experience that all you can do is quote Bob Dylan lyrics.  Why is it that you raise our expectations so high when those expectations will never be met?

[Justus]

Hello,

I'd like to hear from a believer who wants to explain what lead them to their current beliefs.

[midniterider]

So you're a reader?

 

So how about writing something?

 

So how about writing that skeptical appraisal of your faith for us.

 

Right here.

 

Does a skeptical appraisal of faith necessarily result in losing one's faith? Or is it possible for a believer to admit that there are logical problems with his faith yet still maintain his belief ? Why or why not?

 

Maybe an atheist here could write a skeptical appraisal of science or materialism?

 

Why would anyone want to write a skeptical appraisal of their world view? What's my motivation?

[M4rio]

I will write a skeptical appraisal of science and materialism later today or tomorrow. As for motivation, the motivation is to remain aware of flaws in one's own conclusions and maintain an openness to revision. What would be wrong with this?

 

And yes, I believe it's entirely possible to maintain one's basic faith even while admitting imperfections in the faith tradition as a whole.

 

 

 

So you're a reader?

 

So how about writing something?

 

So how about writing that skeptical appraisal of your faith for us.

 

Right here.

Does a skeptical appraisal of faith necessarily result in losing one's faith? Or is it possible for a believer to admit that there are logical problems with his faith yet still maintain his belief ? Why or why not?

 

Maybe an atheist here could write a skeptical appraisal of science or materialism?

 

Why would anyone want to write a skeptical appraisal of their world view? What's my motivation?

[midniterider]

crazyguy: "Yes, you have said this many times before, but I still doubt that your parents had no influence on you becoming a Christian. I also doubt that you ever actually looked at Christianity critically and I am sure that I'm not the only one."

 

We are the product of our parents to a large extent then we find our own way as adults. We tend not to question our parents' wisdom because it is the only wisdom we know. Until we turn 13, anyway. I find it doubtful that IH would have been 'allowed' to be a Satanist or Wiccan or Mormon while growing up in a Baptist minister's house (had he been aware of any of those things). But how much IH was 'pushed' to be a Christian I'll never know. Then again, how much do you have to be pushed to be a Baptist if that is the foundation of your upbringing. How much can you (or do you) really diverge from 'what you are?'

 

My parents had a big influence on my religious life. They said, "It's ok if you want to go to church", but they never went and rarely talked about religion other than to infer that religion was for fools. Dad would now and then cite inconsistencies in the bible and imply that believers were 'weak.' They made faith sound unappealing. They stressed self-reliance. And now that's who I am.

[M4rio]

I'd like to say more about this at some point, but I'll just ramble off the top of my head for now:

 

One way to be skeptical of science and materialism is possible by starting with abandoning one of the beliefs that, so far as I can tell, all humans must "take on faith", which is that others have minds like ours and we are not in a solipsistic universe. I suppose someone can argue much better than we can indeed "know" that other people do indeed have minds, but for me it comes down the fact that the only thing I can be certain of is my own perception and experience. I could be part of an elaborate simulation or the dream or whim of a god or godlike force that generates an infinity of infinite possibilities, one of which is this very experience I'm having right now. It could all be an illusion that what I call the universe only Seems to have order and patterns that can be described by what I call math and that the exponential scientific progress of the last several hundred years itself is only an illusion.

 

To me, it seeks like a lot to make all those assumptions. It seems more likely that there Are indeed other minds, and that there Is a universe that exists independent of my own experience of the universe. But, I don't think I can genuinely prove this to be the case.

 

There is a great talk from the Philoctetes Center that goes into some great length on some of these ideas. I think it's this one:

 

 

https://youtu.be/v29FVZ0rry8

 

Or it might be this one:

 

https://youtu.be/qhqbFwjLqzE

 

I will write a skeptical appraisal of science and materialism later today or tomorrow. As for motivation, the motivation is to remain aware of flaws in one's own conclusions and maintain an openness to revision. What would be wrong with this?

 

And yes, I believe it's entirely possible to maintain one's basic faith even while admitting imperfections in the faith tradition as a whole.

 

 

 

 

So you're a reader?

 

So how about writing something?

 

So how about writing that skeptical appraisal of your faith for us.

 

Right here.

Does a skeptical appraisal of faith necessarily result in losing one's faith? Or is it possible for a believer to admit that there are logical problems with his faith yet still maintain his belief ? Why or why not?

 

Maybe an atheist here could write a skeptical appraisal of science or materialism?

 

Why would anyone want to write a skeptical appraisal of their world view? What's my motivation?

[readyforchange]

 

What I'm trying to get at here, is an understanding of how it's possible for Christians of different denominations or traditions to reason about each others right to claim themselves as True Christians or not, and how to reason about what interpretation of Bible verses can and should be held as Correct.

 

I'm well aware that this subject has been debated for centuries. But, I'm also well aware that not many average citizens who are not themselves biblical scholars trained in exegesis actually engage with the text at that detailed level -- so I want to understand what the most typical / popular ways are of deciding whether a particular verse is to be read as an historical event versus an allegorical story to illustrate a theological or philosophical point.

 

Following up on my own note above, this interests me again because of a number of reasons. It's hard to pin down exactly why in summation. I could go into more in a different thread, although I've tried that before to little avail.

 

But I do want to provide an example about believer C above. The treatment that Mike Licona received when he expressed that Matthew 27:52 - 53 might not be a literal event of history (many dead saints walking around Jerusalem) seems to me very problematic for the Christian community.

 

If you don't know the story, you can read Mike's own response here:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/09/press-release-michael-licona-response-to-norm-geisler/

 

If someone as committed to arguing that Jesus *literally rose from the dead* like Mike can be criticized so sharply for interpreting a passage like Matthew 27:52-53 as figurative / allegorical, then I'm at a loss for understanding.

 

Here's an excerpt from an article about the controversy

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/november/interpretation-sparks-theology-debate.html ->

 

----------

"What should be kept in mind," Warren said, "is that a person who has been well-received, written prolifically in multiple contexts, and taken firm stands in the apologetic arena in defense of orthodoxy surely should not be tossed aside based on his interpretation of one passage in a massive volume."

 

Daniel B. Wallace, New Testament professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, said he disagrees with Licona's interpretation but considers the issue hermeneutical, not a challenge to biblical inerrancy.

 

"If we view our own interpretation to be just as inerrant as the Scriptures," he said, "this could ironically elevate tradition and erode biblical authority."

 

Already, at least two Southern Baptist entities—the New Orleans seminary and the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention—have rescinded invitations for Licona to speak at apologetics conferences, Licona said.

 

The NAMB, meanwhile, eliminated Licona's position. Licona said the decision came after he offered to resign rather than cast a shadow over the board and its president, Kevin Ezell.

----------

 

He wrote a 700 page book *defending the proposition that Jesus bodily rose from the dead*, but by interpreting one passage as allegorical, he loses his job and gets snubbed at conferences? I'm at a loss for comment on that.

 

 

Interesting.  In reading Mike Licona's response at http://www.reclaimin...o-norm-geisler/, it appears that he also backtracked on his original position:   " Further research over the last year in the Greco-Roman literature has led me to reexamine the position I took in my book. Although additional research certainly remains, at present I am just as inclined to understand the narrative of the raised saints in Matthew 27 as a report of a factual (i.e., literal) event as I am to view it as an apocalyptic symbol. It may also be a report of a real event described partially in apocalyptic terms. I will be pleased to revise the relevant section in a future edition of my book".

 

I think that Christians who take a literal view of the bible, an allegorical interpretation of the raised saints in Matthew 27 represents a threat and a slippery slope.  Because if the resurrection of the saints is allegorical, then it seems to open the door for claiming that Jesus' resurrection could also be interpreted allegorical. 

 

I've wondered if the author of Matthew, using Mark's gospel as a source, included the raised saints in his gospel as something of a counter to how Mark's gospel ends in the earliest manuscripts.  The earliest manuscripts of Mark end at 16:8, with the women being told that Jesus was raised from the dead and to tell the disciples, but the women are afraid and flee, telling no one.  Maybe Matthew 27:52-53 served as a way for the author to counter Mark to prove that not only was the body of the resurrected Jesus seen, but many dead saints were also resurrected and there were witnesses to these resurrected bodies.  Matthew may have also taken inspiration from Hebrew bible passages, like the valley of the dry bones account in Ezekiel 37:1 -14. 

 

I think an argument could be made that the resurrection of the bodies of the dead saints is in some ways more impressive than Jesus' resurrection, since these saints had to have been dead much longer than Jesus was.  It also raises the question of what happened afterwards to these resurrected saints?  For example, did they re-integrate into Jewish society among the living, reuniting with their families?  Did they die a second bodily death?  Did they also ascend to heaven?  Hard to see how no ancient writer other than Matthew would have written about this. 

[midniterider]

I'd like to say more about this at some point, but I'll just ramble off the top of my head for now:

 

One way to be skeptical of science and materialism is possible by starting with abandoning one of the beliefs that, so far as I can tell, all humans must "take on faith", which is that others have minds like ours and we are not in a solipsistic universe. I suppose someone can argue much better than we can indeed "know" that other people do indeed have minds, but for me it comes down the fact that the only thing I can be certain of is my own perception and experience. I could be part of an elaborate simulation or the dream or whim of a god or godlike force that generates an infinity of infinite possibilities, one of which is this very experience I'm having right now. It could all be an illusion that what I call the universe only Seems to have order and patterns that can be described by what I call math and that the exponential scientific progress of the last several hundred years itself is only an illusion.

 

To me, it seeks like a lot to make all those assumptions. It seems more likely that there Are indeed other minds, and that there Is a universe that exists independent of my own experience of the universe. But, I don't think I can genuinely prove this to be the case.

 

There is a great talk from the Philoctetes Center that goes into some great length on some of these ideas. I think it's this one:

 

 

 

Or it might be this one:

 

 

I will write a skeptical appraisal of science and materialism later today or tomorrow. As for motivation, the motivation is to remain aware of flaws in one's own conclusions and maintain an openness to revision. What would be wrong with this?

 

And yes, I believe it's entirely possible to maintain one's basic faith even while admitting imperfections in the faith tradition as a whole.

 

 

 

So you're a reader?

 

So how about writing something?

 

So how about writing that skeptical appraisal of your faith for us.

 

Right here.

Does a skeptical appraisal of faith necessarily result in losing one's faith? Or is it possible for a believer to admit that there are logical problems with his faith yet still maintain his belief ? Why or why not?

 

Maybe an atheist here could write a skeptical appraisal of science or materialism?

 

Why would anyone want to write a skeptical appraisal of their world view? What's my motivation?

 

 

Hey, thanks. I appreciate that. The other question I forgot to ask was if an atheist would like to skeptically appraise atheism.

 

I'll take a stab at skeptically appraising agnosticism and nonduality. Regarding agnosticism , this philosophy is a failure to make a decision and thus one cannot really progress on a path if one refuses to start walking it. Agnosticism is a wishy washy way to look at spirituality or a worldview. That's all that comes to mind since agnosticism is basically apathy.

 

Non-dual awareness, Zen, Advaita, Vedanta, those kinds of Eastern Mysticism that, while not claiming to have a god as a separate entity tend to claim that you and everything else is One...or rather not two. There is supposedly something called enlightenment that you may or may not achieve, and there is no practice which will bring it on...but meditation may put you in the right frame of mind to realize that there was nothing to realize. That there was only a false identity with a body-mind and that you are the All THAT IS. Logically speaking, if I was the ALL THAT IS, why bother with meditation? Though there are a few individuals on Earth who claim non-dual awareness (enlightened state) where they have the feeling that there is no separation as "Me vs everything else" , I believe there is also a symptom of schizophrenia that presents in a similar fashion. One self-proclaimed non-dual aware person also said he got real lazy after having this enlightenment sooo...hey, I'm already pretty damn lazy. Maybe non-duality is not for me.

 

There's my two skeptical/critical stabs at my own personal favorites, agnosticism and non-duality.

[mymistake]

 

 The other question I forgot to ask was if an atheist would like to skeptically appraise atheism. 

 

 

How?  It's not like we read the atheist Bible and listen to the atheist pope that tells us all about what to believe regarding the Nogod.  We go with evidence and reason.  Atheism is a lack of a belief in gods due to a lack of evidence of gods.

[directionless]

Interesting.  In reading Mike Licona's response at http://www.reclaimin...o-norm-geisler/, it appears that he also backtracked on his original position:   " Further research over the last year in the Greco-Roman literature has led me to reexamine the position I took in my book. Although additional research certainly remains, at present I am just as inclined to understand the narrative of the raised saints in Matthew 27 as a report of a factual (i.e., literal) event as I am to view it as an apocalyptic symbol. It may also be a report of a real event described partially in apocalyptic terms. I will be pleased to revise the relevant section in a future edition of my book".

 

I think that Christians who take a literal view of the bible, an allegorical interpretation of the raised saints in Matthew 27 represents a threat and a slippery slope.  Because if the resurrection of the saints is allegorical, then it seems to open the door for claiming that Jesus' resurrection could also be interpreted allegorical. 

 

I've wondered if the author of Matthew, using Mark's gospel as a source, included the raised saints in his gospel as something of a counter to how Mark's gospel ends in the earliest manuscripts.  The earliest manuscripts of Mark end at 16:8, with the women being told that Jesus was raised from the dead and to tell the disciples, but the women are afraid and flee, telling no one.  Maybe Matthew 27:52-53 served as a way for the author to counter Mark to prove that not only was the body of the resurrected Jesus seen, but many dead saints were also resurrected and there were witnesses to these resurrected bodies.  Matthew may have also taken inspiration from Hebrew bible passages, like the valley of the dry bones account in Ezekiel 37:1 -14. 

 

I think an argument could be made that the resurrection of the bodies of the dead saints is in some ways more impressive than Jesus' resurrection, since these saints had to have been dead much longer than Jesus was.  It also raises the question of what happened afterwards to these resurrected saints?  For example, did they re-integrate into Jewish society among the living, reuniting with their families?  Did they die a second bodily death?  Did they also ascend to heaven?  Hard to see how no ancient writer other than Matthew would have written about this.

Thanks, those are some really good points IMO.

[BarbarousBill]

In defense of the Christian folks I know, there's a lot of parents of folks I've grown up with who encouraged their kids to think for themselves and expected them to be independent adults, and they stuck with the faith of their parents, or encountered Christianity and went to it. There's also folks I know who became mormon to get a job, to make the future wife happy, or Christians who became Hindu, or whatever. It's hard to say why someone converts to or from something. I would say the most common form of conversion was for marriage or materialistic reasons. I'd probably have converted to Islam in the middle age Ottoman Empire to avoid the tax on unbelievers. But there's also people who have an experience and feel like it's the truth to them. I have my reasons for not believing though, some of them materialistic, some of them personal, but mostly it's the question posed by Ignostics and Materialists like Lucretius that convinced me. I'm sure for some people reading the words of Paul did that for them. Hard to say. For my dad (he's a Gnostic Lutheran) it was reading the Gospel of Thomas and going to a Lutheran mass when he went from apatheist to Lutheran. For my mom it was the way she was raised and wanted to stay (Lutheran).

[midniterider]

 

 

 The other question I forgot to ask was if an atheist would like to skeptically appraise atheism. 

 

 

How?  It's not like we read the atheist Bible and listen to the atheist pope that tells us all about what to believe regarding the Nogod.  We go with evidence and reason.  Atheism is a lack of a belief in gods due to a lack of evidence of gods.

 

 

I think my question boils down to "Can you find anything wrong with Atheism?" Logic, evidence and reason are optional in your appraisal. I'm sure a Christian could make lots of arguments about why atheism is incorrect. I'm not asking you to be logical, just take a doubtful look at atheism the way BAA wants IH to take a doubtful look at Christianity. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

No, I really can't find anything wrong with atheism, when atheism is defined as lack of belief in god/s. The main thing I can think of is that sometimes I miss cultural parts of religion, such as a sense of community, actual communities, ritual. I tried going to an atheist meet-up twice but turned out not to feel a need in my life for that particular group at that time.

 

I used to think that the consequences of the "atheistic world view" were bad enough that they provided reason to doubt the truth of that world view. I didn't even realize that the consequences were straw men, provided by evangelical apologists who told me that atheism entails making yourself the arbiter of morality, entails despair, can't account for why anything exists.

 

There are many reasons why the first two of these are not consequences of atheism as any informed atheist lives it. Countries with low public adherence to religion, like Scandinavian countries or Japan, rate higher on measures of quality of life than do countries dominated by religion, incl. Christianity. Where would you have a better life, Denmark or Mississippi? As to origins, we all have to presume certain things as "given." Religion just bumps the Given back a level and describes it with fancier words.

[M4rio]

Interesting. In reading Mike Licona's response at http://www.reclaimin...o-norm-geisler/, it appears that he also backtracked on his original position: " Further research over the last year in the Greco-Roman literature has led me to reexamine the position I took in my book. Although additional research certainly remains, at present I am just as inclined to understand the narrative of the raised saints in Matthew 27 as a report of a factual (i.e., literal) event as I am to view it as an apocalyptic symbol. It may also be a report of a real event described partially in apocalyptic terms. I will be pleased to revise the relevant section in a future edition of my book".

 

I think that Christians who take a literal view of the bible, an allegorical interpretation of the raised saints in Matthew 27 represents a threat and a slippery slope. Because if the resurrection of the saints is allegorical, then it seems to open the door for claiming that Jesus' resurrection could also be interpreted allegorical.

 

I've wondered if the author of Matthew, using Mark's gospel as a source, included the raised saints in his gospel as something of a counter to how Mark's gospel ends in the earliest manuscripts. The earliest manuscripts of Mark end at 16:8, with the women being told that Jesus was raised from the dead and to tell the disciples, but the women are afraid and flee, telling no one. Maybe Matthew 27:52-53 served as a way for the author to counter Mark to prove that not only was the body of the resurrected Jesus seen, but many dead saints were also resurrected and there were witnesses to these resurrected bodies. Matthew may have also taken inspiration from Hebrew bible passages, like the valley of the dry bones account in Ezekiel 37:1 -14.

 

I think an argument could be made that the resurrection of the bodies of the dead saints is in some ways more impressive than Jesus' resurrection, since these saints had to have been dead much longer than Jesus was. It also raises the question of what happened afterwards to these resurrected saints? For example, did they re-integrate into Jewish society among the living, reuniting with their families? Did they die a second bodily death? Did they also ascend to heaven? Hard to see how no ancient writer other than Matthew would have written about this.

This is a great point about the many saints being More incredible! It certainly would be. This particular passage was what made me abandon literalism because no matter where I looked, there was no independent attestation to this Incredible Miracle. If indeed this were something that happened in actual history, one cannot reasonably expect the Roman occupiers to have Utterly Failed to Notice and Document this. We might actually classify the failure of independent attestation of such an incredible miracle to be itself a Greater Miracle.

[M4rio]

No, I really can't find anything wrong with atheism, when atheism is defined as lack of belief in god/s. The main thing I can think of is that sometimes I miss cultural parts of religion, such as a sense of community, actual communities, ritual. I tried going to an atheist meet-up twice but turned out not to feel a need in my life for that particular group at that time.

 

I used to think that the consequences of the "atheistic world view" were bad enough that they provided reason to doubt the truth of that world view. I didn't even realize that the consequences were straw men, provided by evangelical apologists who told me that atheism entails making yourself the arbiter of morality, entails despair, can't account for why anything exists.

 

There are many reasons why the first two of these are not consequences of atheism as any informed atheist lives it. Countries with low public adherence to religion, like Scandinavian countries or Japan, rate higher on measures of quality of life than do countries dominated by religion, incl. Christianity. Where would you have a better life, Denmark or Mississippi? As to origins, we all have to presume certain things as "given." Religion just bumps the Given back a level and describes it with fancier words.

There were some fascinating points about ritual and emotion and rationality in the later 30 minutes of the Spinoza video link I posted above. It's hard to summarize, but to paraphrase it has to do with how Spinoza's observation that emotions are rational physical responses to physical events in the real world, not simply irrational outworkings of a disembodied soul or mind that is disconnected from the body. I don't think he was saying that thoughts and experiences do not influence emotional reactions or that they cannot be changed over time with new experiences, but was trying to explain how the body makes rational reactions to stimuli that express in what we call emotion.

 

Looks like this site goes into great detail, though I have not read it:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emotions-17th18th/LD5Spinoza.html

 

I have read this book long ago and got some interesting ideas out of it:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Looking-Spinoza-Sorrow-Feeling-Brain/dp/0156028719/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1452087191&sr=1-5

 

If I were to hastily summarize that one it would be again about how the modern understanding of rationality is intimately tied to emotions and that if our brain is damaged to the point that our emotional reactions are not functioning properly, then we cannot make Rational choices -- we make nonsensical choices or cannot make choices at all.

 

I have lately felt that the atheist / skeptic tendency toward demonizing emotion and religion is a very misguided enterprise. Worse, fundamentalist doctrines use Logic and Rationality appeals to justify the choices and commands of the Old Testament God in his war efforts against innocent people. We are told that the author of life can do as he pleases and that he has greater Reasons than we can understand. By insisting upon a divorce of Reason from Emotion, some of the most vocal atheists and skeptics actually feed their narrative. When, in the reality I observe, there is no Rational Justification for ordering the murder of innocents.

 

And yes, I'm aware that some apologists question the translations of the murder commands in the book of Joshua and elsewhere. They say that maybe it doesn't really include women and children, but let's be honest: it does still talk about keeping women for their own use no matter what else it might or might not say.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

 The other question I forgot to ask was if an atheist would like to skeptically appraise atheism. 

 

 

How?  It's not like we read the atheist Bible and listen to the atheist pope that tells us all about what to believe regarding the Nogod.  We go with evidence and reason.  Atheism is a lack of a belief in gods due to a lack of evidence of gods.

 

 

I think my question boils down to "Can you find anything wrong with Atheism?" Logic, evidence and reason are optional in your appraisal. I'm sure a Christian could make lots of arguments about why atheism is incorrect. I'm not asking you to be logical, just take a doubtful look at atheism the way BAA wants IH to take a doubtful look at Christianity. 

 

 

 

I've pondered that question ever since I lost my belief in God.  I haven't found anything wrong with not believing in God.  I'm not relying on my own perspective.  I've used the internet to gain perspective from thousands of other people from around the world as well.  None of them were able to offer any legitimate (fallacy free) criticism of not believing in God.  If there is something wrong then it sure is hard to find.  Occam's razor slices through whatever contrived conditions would make God make sense.

[disillusioned]

 

 

 

 The other question I forgot to ask was if an atheist would like to skeptically appraise atheism. 

 

 

How?  It's not like we read the atheist Bible and listen to the atheist pope that tells us all about what to believe regarding the Nogod.  We go with evidence and reason.  Atheism is a lack of a belief in gods due to a lack of evidence of gods.

 

 

I think my question boils down to "Can you find anything wrong with Atheism?" Logic, evidence and reason are optional in your appraisal. I'm sure a Christian could make lots of arguments about why atheism is incorrect. I'm not asking you to be logical, just take a doubtful look at atheism the way BAA wants IH to take a doubtful look at Christianity. 

 

 

If atheism is simply lack of belief in Gods, then how can we doubt it without being unnecessarily credulous? Under this definition, it isn't really an assertion which can be doubted. If a person comes to me and says "God exists", my first reaction is "what does that mean?" Most of the time, that's as far as it gets, because they can't or won't answer. I require a clear definition of "God" before I can consider the assertion that one exists.

 

For me, atheism isn't really a thing. It's just what happens when you apply skepticism to religion. Help me out here. How would one go about applying skepticism to atheism?

[readyforchange]

This is a great point about the many saints being More incredible! It certainly would be. This particular passage was what made me abandon literalism because no matter where I looked, there was no independent attestation to this Incredible Miracle. If indeed this were something that happened in actual history, one cannot reasonably expect the Roman occupiers to have Utterly Failed to Notice and Document this. We might actually classify the failure of independent attestation of such an incredible miracle to be itself a Greater Miracle.

 

 

Good observation!  I think Matthew's account of the resurrected saints also undermines the story of doubting Thomas in the Gospel of John.  John 20:24-29 indicates that Thomas doubted the resurrection of Jesus until about a week later (verse 26), when Jesus physically appears to Thomas and the rest of the disciples.  If all of these saints were resurrected from the dead and were seen by many people in Jerusalem, then why would Thomas think that Jesus could not have also risen from the dead?  Shouldn't Thomas have either personally seen these resurrected saints, or at least heard accounts of them from the other witnesses?  Did none of the other disciples see the resurrected saints and tell Thomas?  Or better yet, if other disciples witnessed the resurrected saints and knew Thomas was doubting that Jesus rose from the dead, why not bring some of the saints to Thomas so that he could see them?

 

I think an apologist might explain or rationalize that Thomas was in hiding for the whole week (still in fear from being arrested by the Romans) and did not hear or witness the resurrected saints; or that the disciples had already left for Galilee for a few days; or that Matthew 27:53 does not specifically indicate how long after Jesus' resurrection it took for the saints to come out of their tombs and enter Jerusalem.  But seems a bit of a stretch to see how Thomas would be unaware of all of these resurrected saints. 

[midniterider]

 

 

 

 

 The other question I forgot to ask was if an atheist would like to skeptically appraise atheism. 

 

 

How?  It's not like we read the atheist Bible and listen to the atheist pope that tells us all about what to believe regarding the Nogod.  We go with evidence and reason.  Atheism is a lack of a belief in gods due to a lack of evidence of gods.

 

 

I think my question boils down to "Can you find anything wrong with Atheism?" Logic, evidence and reason are optional in your appraisal. I'm sure a Christian could make lots of arguments about why atheism is incorrect. I'm not asking you to be logical, just take a doubtful look at atheism the way BAA wants IH to take a doubtful look at Christianity. 

 

 

If atheism is simply lack of belief in Gods, then how can we doubt it without being unnecessarily credulous? Under this definition, it isn't really an assertion which can be doubted. If a person comes to me and says "God exists", my first reaction is "what does that mean?" Most of the time, that's as far as it gets, because they can't or won't answer. I require a clear definition of "God" before I can consider the assertion that one exists.

 

For me, atheism isn't really a thing. It's just what happens when you apply skepticism to religion. Help me out here. How would one go about applying skepticism to atheism?

 

 

I replied to that effect in post #41. Apply some non-logic to it, or a religious logic to it. It's just a hypothetical. Not asking for you to turn away from your official worldview. 

 

IH says he sees God all around him. Religious evidence.

Atheists don't see God at all. Scientific evidence. 

 

BAA wants IH to skeptically appraise Christianity and I really doubt that's going to happen, at least not in an acceptable fashion to non-believers here. So I ask atheists to skeptically appraise atheism just to see if anyone is willing. So far, no takers. Mario did make a hypothetical skeptical appraisal of science and materialism in post 35. I appreciate that.

 

Does IH feel that his belief in Jesus is rational, or logical or well reasoned? I bet he does. As a Christian did you feel that your belief was reasoned, logical, rational? I applied what seemed like logical reasons for why God allowed bad stuff to happen and other religious questions I had. But I changed my mind later when God was no longer on my radar.

 

Do people ever return to Christianity after being atheists (or agnostics or general non-believers)? Did they skeptically (as in doubted, maybe rationally or irrationally) appraise something about their worldview and decide they didn't like it so they switched back? Or was it the church potlucks that brought em back?

 

..........

 

I'm not suggesting Christianity, nor atheism, nor agnosticism is correct or incorrect. I agree that atheism is not really a thing, more a lack of a thing. But it does seem to be an assertion that has a name, at least.

 

I won't demand you actually answer my questions. But if you like, please do.

[M4rio]

I think that some of my point must have been misread...For, if it's a far greater miracle that the many Roman occupiers failed to document the Many Saints, then it seems to me a less spectacular miracle that just one man, Thomas, failed to notice Many Saints.

 

That's some twisted logic, but it's true!

 

 

This is a great point about the many saints being More incredible! It certainly would be. This particular passage was what made me abandon literalism because no matter where I looked, there was no independent attestation to this Incredible Miracle. If indeed this were something that happened in actual history, one cannot reasonably expect the Roman occupiers to have Utterly Failed to Notice and Document this. We might actually classify the failure of independent attestation of such an incredible miracle to be itself a Greater Miracle.

 

Good observation! I think Matthew's account of the resurrected saints also undermines the story of doubting Thomas in the Gospel of John. John 20:24-29 indicates that Thomas doubted the resurrection of Jesus until about a week later (verse 26), when Jesus physically appears to Thomas and the rest of the disciples. If all of these saints were resurrected from the dead and were seen by many people in Jerusalem, then why would Thomas think that Jesus could not have also risen from the dead? Shouldn't Thomas have either personally seen these resurrected saints, or at least heard accounts of them from the other witnesses? Did none of the other disciples see the resurrected saints and tell Thomas? Or better yet, if other disciples witnessed the resurrected saints and knew Thomas was doubting that Jesus rose from the dead, why not bring some of the saints to Thomas so that he could see them?

 

I think an apologist might explain or rationalize that Thomas was in hiding for the whole week (still in fear from being arrested by the Romans) and did not hear or witness the resurrected saints; or that the disciples had already left for Galilee for a few days; or that Matthew 27:53 does not specifically indicate how long after Jesus' resurrection it took for the saints to come out of their tombs and enter Jerusalem. But seems a bit of a stretch to see how Thomas would be unaware of all of these resurrected saints.

[♦ ficino ♦]

So I ask atheists to skeptically appraise atheism just to see if anyone is willing. So far, no takers.

 

 

Do people ever return to Christianity after being atheists (or agnostics or general non-believers)? Did they skeptically (as in doubted, maybe rationally or irrationally) appraise something about their worldview and decide they didn't like it so they switched back? Or was it the church potlucks that brought em back?

 

..........

 

I'm not suggesting Christianity, nor atheism, nor agnosticism is correct or incorrect. I agree that atheism is not really a thing, more a lack of a thing. But it does seem to be an assertion that has a name, at least.

I snipped some things to shorten your post, midniterider.

 

I suppose that there are people who decide, "religion is bunk," and then later return to religion. Whether their rejection of religion was based on a serious analysis of it, I don't know.

 

I think the usual arguments against philosophical skepticism amount to ways of trying to show that the skeptic is inconsistent - that the skeptic lives as though truth can be known.

 

I have no idea how to argue against a skeptical attitude toward religious dogma, though. I can think of only two ways:

1. point to alleged miracles and try to show that they could not have occurred by natural processes so must be results of direct, divine action in contravention of natural processes;

2. point to alleged negative consequences of unbelief and argue that, since those consequences are unacceptable, the premises of unbelief are false - or at least, doubtful.

 

I don't see either 1 or 2 as successful strategies of logical argument. I do see powerful rhetorical appeals basing themselves on 1 or 2.

 

I suppose skeptics can reach points where they feel a need for religion in their lives. They then can say to themselves, "I could be wrong, I don't know everything," and go on from there to turn or return to belief. I don't know anyone personally who's done that.