Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Pushtrak

Ancient history was never portrayed as being divinely inspired. Human error is not something that should come in to the equation. It is alleged to be inerrant, but that is not what I see.

Do I trust ancient history? No, not really. History is written by the victors. I'm sure there are many who will disagree vigorously with what is said of history that does not have to be quite so ancient.

What would really be interesting is to see verified non-biblical contemporary accounts of things in the bible. That would be something. That would have my attention.

Edit: John Rylands is one thing. What other early textural evidence is there? Actually, forget it. The final link in my previous post points out the limitations there. With the exception of this new document that with the passing of time will be surely a topic of discussion here.

philologos

My point is very simply, that there are very good reasons as to why we can believe that the New Testament was not clearly written in a fictional style. There are actually good reasons against that position on a textual level. There are also good reasons on a historical and an archaeological level. If you want a quick example, in the British Museum in London they have artefacts which back up the attempted Assyrian invasion of Jerusalem under King Hezekiah of Judah in the historical books of the Old Testament. Israel and Jordan are literally littered with archaeology and history that backs up many of the accounts in the Bible.

The next question we get to is, even if the New Testament was not written as fiction (there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it was written as fiction, and plenty of reasons against that position), why should we believe it is true. It could be the case that it was not written as fiction, but that the disciples were deluded.

I think that is what I can do next. Begin to restructure some of the reasons I've already given for why I believe in Jesus, and bring some more to the table.

What other textual evidence is there for trusting in the New Testament? 20,000 Greek manuscripts of which only 40 verses are in doubt as to their meaning. This implies there are common sources between them.

Try introduce a new manuscript with serious changes in meaning to the fore, and you'll be caught red handed. The case against the corruption of the New Testament is fantastic for these reasons. Compare it with Homer's Illiad, or Aristotle's works. In fact, try reading Aristotle's Metaphysics and you'll see how well the Bible is preserved as an ancient text in comparison.

Fanny Cradock

Pushtrak wrote: »

I'm sure there are others that I haven't gotten to watching.

Then you should look out for debates between Ehrman and the likes of Dan Wallace and Craig Evans. Ben Witherington offers an interesting critique of one of Ehrman's of his popular level books here. Additionally, Witherington recently published a written Q&A he had with Ehrman on his latest book Did Jesus Exist?. It has ruffled quite a few feathers in the Christ myth world.

Pushtrak

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Then you should look out for debates between Ehrman and the likes of Dan Wallace and Craig Evans.

Yes, it was Dan Wallace that I saw the debate with already. Will get to watching the Craig Evans one in the next day or two.

Ben Witherington offers an interesting critique of one of Ehrman's of his popular level books here. Additionally, Witherington recently published a written Q&A he had with Ehrman on his latest book Did Jesus Exist?. It has ruffled quite a few feathers in the Christ myth world.

Thanks, I'll read them.

Edit: It hasn't been out long, but had already read the one on Patheos.

Delirium

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps. But both Christianity and Judaism speak of a God who is passionate about justice, and both speak of a judgement day. And justice is good, right?

Generally, yes, justice is good. But then the problems occur when you try to work out what are crimes and what are appropriate punishments. Even if we take murder as a crime across the board, we have some that demand the death penalty and others that don't.

If we take Gods brand of justice, you either are rewarded or punished for all eternity. There's no distinction between a thief and a murderer for example. I don't anyone would be on for a society that implemented the death penalty (using this as an extreme example) for every crime.

According to Christianity all have sinned and therefore all have fallen short of the mark. We are guilty. However, in Jesus we have a member of the Godhead who wept and bled for us and who still suffers with us in our pain. Despite missing the mark, and despite being as guilty as sin, we have been offered the undesired gift of salvation. I think that Philip Yancey wrote a good popular level book on the subject of grace.

I presume you meant undeserved rather than undesired, as it doesn't make sense why Christians wouldn't desire salvation?

Assuming that is what you were saying, part of the problem for me is that sinner is almost a meaningless label as there isn't a chance of anyone not being a sinner during their life on Earth. It's as if we're to be punished for the misfortune of being born into the wrong species, unless you accept salvation through Christ.

I'm generally not one for poetry (I think Shakespeare's endless stream of sonnets in school killed it for me) but I quite like this one. The last verse says it all.

    Jesus of the Scars

    If we have never sought, we seek Thee now;
    Thine eyes burn through the dark, our only stars;
    We must have sight of thorn-pricks on Thy brow;
    We must have Thee, O Jesus of the Scars.

    The heavens frighten us; they are too calm;
    In all the universe we have no place.
    Our wounds are hurting us; where is the balm?
    Lord Jesus, by Thy Scars we claim Thy grace.

    If when the doors are shut, Thou drawest near,
    Only reveal those hands, that side of Thine;
    We know today what wounds are; have no fear;
    Show us Thy Scars; we know the countersign.

    The other gods were strong, but Thou wast weak;
    They rode, but Thou didst stumble to a throne;
    But to our wounds only God’s wounds can speak,
    And not a god has wounds, but Thou alone.

Well, part of the problem is that you would first have to define what is moral, and then get others to agree. How do you do that if you live in an amoral universe? What standard do you measure goodness against? Men like Sam Harris think that they have an answer. Underneath the impressive oration and the gross generalisations, I see nothing of substance and nothing that looks much like an answer. But don't take my word for it

Definitely agree with regards to the problem with agreeing to what is moral. It's part of the reason I jumped into this thread, as I've recently tried to do a little reading on it.

And generally has my head is a spin as I've excluded God from the equation due to not being Christian. Part of the problem is that a few of the Christians that discussing objective morality put God and morality as the same thing. That's fine, it's part of their faith, but it gets difficult to take their opinion on board as they're basically saying objective morality is only true if my religion is the right one.

Not saying there isn't an objective morality btw, just voicing a problem I had with some of the material I've reviewed so far.

(BTW, the talk I mentioned in my previous post to you provides an excellent critique)

It was interesting at times. The part where they posed the question, "if the nazis won, would they still be wrong." nearly made my head explode as I tried to figure that one out:P

I trying to understand as to why it would matter if they were still wrong. I.E. objective morality exists but humanity isn't acting in accordance to it, what difference does it make until a person dies and ends up at the pearly gates?

And if you go with the scenario where there is no God, then it gets even murkier because we have a planet of people going against objective morality. In this case, I was trying to get to grips with what is the long term problem with this?

This is where different theologies come in to play. My own thought is that we are very much in love with sin. And rather than being born sinful, I think it is a thing we do. It's a concious or subconscious decision to rebel against God.

thanks for the answer.

Are we by default immoral? I don't know. What I do know is that we we can do good, we also cause so much evil in the world.

I'm probably a bit naive but I'd be of the opinion that we're good generally.

philologos

koth: The only problem with Sam Harris' position on objective morality is that it requires an alternative explanation for Creation other than the fact that it was brought into being than a creator.

I've not heard of alternatives that are anywhere near as likely or as logically sound from the atheist camp. Until they can explain that, they can't explain that morality is essentially a material thing. Why? - If one can't explain how the material got here without looking to what is immaterial, then one can't say that all things are separated from its cause. Namely as far as Christianity is concerned, divine creation.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

koth: The only problem with Sam Harris' position on objective morality is that it requires an alternative explanation for Creation other than the fact that it was brought into being than a creator.

Maybe I'm a bit slow this evening, but why does Harris need to explain the origin of the universe to support objective morality without God?

I've not heard of alternatives that are anywhere near as likely or as logically sound from the atheist camp. Until they can explain that, they can't explain that morality is essentially a material thing. Why? - If one can't explain how the material got here without looking to what is immaterial, then one can't say that all things are separated from its cause. Namely as far as Christianity is concerned, divine creation.

sorry, philo, but I'm really struggling to understand why the origin of reality must be explained without invoking God as the explanation to support objective morality.

philologos

koth wrote: »

Maybe I'm a bit slow this evening, but why does Harris need to explain the origin of the universe to support objective morality without God?

Because if the universe is created by God, the fact that science is able to explain the mechanics of morality doesn't mean that it can or should be considered while ignoring God's presence.

koth wrote: »

sorry, philo, but I'm really struggling to understand why the origin of reality must be explained without invoking God as the explanation to support objective morality.

It doesn't make very much sense otherwise. That's my point.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Because if the universe is created by God, the fact that science is able to explain the mechanics of morality doesn't mean that it can or should be considered while ignoring God's presence.

why not? to do otherwise would be to frame the question of objective morality within Christian teachings. That's fine for any Christians, but the rest of the world has to try and work with their beliefs/worldview.

I appreciate you're flying the flag for your faith, but stating that someone must accept God (or an alternative agent) created reality otherwise you dismiss the idea of objective morality just seems daft.

It doesn't make very much sense otherwise. That's my point.

thanks for the clarification.

philologos

Why not? - because if there is a sovereign God, and if He created all things (which we derive our scientific laws from), then our scientific laws do not tell us much more other than how God constructed all things. Meaning, that God is nonetheless the source of objective moral truth.

The point is, that in the absence of God (if that is even possible), there is no objective standard for determining ethical truth. There is only what we decide is good, and only what we decide is evil.

If God exists, then science isn't a means to brush God under the carpet. Rather it is a means of discovering more about Him.

Also, if God exists, it doesn't matter how people may like to understand Him. Ultimately if something is true, something is true. People might like to understand ethics as something separate to God, but if He is real, then we have no other choice but to accept His authority.

Flags or no flags. That's where we stand.

Morbert

philologos wrote: »

koth: The only problem with Sam Harris' position on objective morality is that it requires an alternative explanation for Creation other than the fact that it was brought into being than a creator.

Harris's position is not new, though his book does provide a nice introduction to the philosophy of ethics. We can construct a set of axioms which allow us to build "theorems" of morality which follow from those axioms. Science can help us explore the consequences of an action, but what Harris isn't saying is that there is some inherent moral structure to the universe.

I've not heard of alternatives that are anywhere near as likely or as logically sound from the atheist camp. Until they can explain that, they can't explain that morality is essentially a material thing. Why? - If one can't explain how the material got here without looking to what is immaterial, then one can't say that all things are separated from its cause. Namely as far as Christianity is concerned, divine creation.

You're using very vague language here. Theists say God is an atemporal causal agent of the universe. Atheists say the universe is an atemporal causal agent of our spacetime. How can you say God is "more likely"?

Tim Robbins

In another thread I asked Christians if they could get proof they were wrong would they want to hear it. For example, say someone invented a time machine and you could travel back in time and see that things like the resurrection and the miracles in the New Testament never happened.

A few people said yes. Then someone took it off on a tangent as if this was Pascal's wager it clearly wasn't.

And then it was closed and suggested it belongs to this thread. So here it is...

Would you prefer to no?

As an atheist, I would definetly prefer to know if any religion (Islam, Christianity, whatever...) was true if it was true. I would accept as evidence something that could stand up the rigors of the scientific method. Or something like the second coming, if Jesus came back and starting performing a few more miracles - this time having to go thru the rigours of proper skeptical analysis so that he is not using slight of hand.

I would still be a little skeptical about following Jesus - would need to find out more about his views on morality.

Slav

Tim Robbins wrote: »

As an atheist, I would definetly prefer to know if any religion (Islam, Christianity, whatever...) was true if it was true. I would accept as evidence something that could stand up the rigors of the scientific method.

Scientific method? Do you think it's an adequate tool for investigating religion?

seeing_ie

Slav wrote: »

Scientific method? Do you think it's an adequate tool for investigating religion?

Yes.

PDN

Slav wrote: »

Scientific method? Do you think it's an adequate tool for investigating religion?

Yes, but only in the areas where science has developed to the point where it has the capabaility to investigate it properly.

For example, for centuries the scientific method was theoretically adequate for investigating black holes. I use the word theoretically because science had not progressed to a point where it even knew about black holes, let alone to the point of investigating them.

So, if science ever progresses to the point where it has the capability to measure spiritual matters, then it can investigate religion fully. Until then it can certainly investigate religion partially.

For example, if a religious group claims that a statue is miraculously producing tears, then the scientific methos may well be an adequate tool to investigate.

In 2008 church custodian Vincenzo Di Costanzo went on trial in northern Italy for faking blood on a statue of the Virgin Mary when his own DNA was matched to the blood. That would seem to be a very appropriate case of the scientific method investigating a religious claim.

Tim Robbins

Slav wrote: »

Scientific method? Do you think it's an adequate tool for investigating religion?

Well something of that standard. For example, if God was to turn up on the Late Late and we could verify him somehow scientifically well then that is good enough for me.

Or if we could locate Heaven, wherever it is scientifically.

Or show the world is only 6,000 years old scientifically. Whatever, if any religious claim can be verified then I would give it the same respect I give anything verified by science.

And no doubt, if there was evidence of any religious claim having good scientific evidence WE WOULD NEVER HEAR THE END OF IT.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Yes, but only in the areas where science has developed to the point where it has the capabaility to investigate it properly.

For example, for centuries the scientific method was theoretically adequate for investigating black holes. I use the word theoretically because science had not progressed to a point where it even knew about black holes, let alone to the point of investigating them.

So, if science ever progresses to the point where it has the capability to measure spiritual matters, then it can investigate religion fully. Until then it can certainly investigate religion partially.

For example, if a religious group claims that a statue is miraculously producing tears, then the scientific methos may well be an adequate tool to investigate.

In 2008 church custodian Vincenzo Di Costanzo went on trial in northern Italy for faking blood on a statue of the Virgin Mary when his own DNA was matched to the blood. That would seem to be a very appropriate case of the scientific method investigating a religious claim.

There have been clinical trials on the power of prayer for people having heart surgery and religious praying came our worse. If it came out better we'd never hear the end of it.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There have been clinical trials on the power of prayer for people having heart surgery and religious praying came our worse. If it came out better we'd never hear the end of it.

Ah, that is the kind of pseuso-science that I thought might lie behind your post. Thankfully you werte unwise enough yestyerday to telegraph your motives in posting here:

Tim Robbins wrote:

when there is a scope for a cheap shot it will make it. But, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Such a study would only be of relevance if it assessed the effectiveness of the many and varied different types of prayer.

For example, if such a study (I doubt very much if it was a clinical trial) simply lumped together all kinds of religious prayers, irrespective of how they were conducted, then that would be meaningless, wouldn't it.

It would be akin to conducting a study where various kinds of medication were given willy nilly to one group of patients (eg giving insulin to stroke patients etc) and then a control group of patients would receive no medication whatsoever.

In such a study it would hardly be surprising if the patients on zero medication did better, on average, than the ones receiving medication. And then any pseudo-scientist could go on the internet and claim that it has been scientifically demonstrated that medicine doesn't work. Dong!

Tim Robbins

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There have been clinical trials on the power of prayer for people having heart surgery and religious praying came our worse. If it came out better we'd never hear the end of it.

Here is a reference:
http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html

I thought you knew about it.

Slav

PDN wrote: »

Yes, but only in the areas where science has developed to the point where it has the capabaility to investigate it properly.

For example, for centuries the scientific method was theoretically adequate for investigating black holes. I use the word theoretically because science had not progressed to a point where it even knew about black holes, let alone to the point of investigating them.

Is not scientific method limited to deal with natural phenomena? And religion in general deals with supernatural?

Black holes are perfectly valid objects of scientific investigation. They were predicted by a scientific theory and are being successfully investigated by employing scientific method in its modern form.

So, if science ever progresses to the point where it has the capability to measure spiritual matters, then it can investigate religion fully. Until then it can certainly investigate religion partially.

I don't think the distinction between science and religion is the boundary between material and spiritual. It's natural and supernatural.

For example, if a religious group claims that a statue is miraculously producing tears, then the scientific methos may well be an adequate tool to investigate.

In 2008 church custodian Vincenzo Di Costanzo went on trial in northern Italy for faking blood on a statue of the Virgin Mary when his own DNA was matched to the blood. That would seem to be a very appropriate case of the scientific method investigating a religious claim.

I agree scientific method can be used to investigate some religious claims but it cannot be used to investigate a religion in general. These two are essentially different things.

In case of fake Mary's blood a scientific experiment can prove it's a fake but no scientific experiment can produce evidence for Catholic Mariology or prove it wrong. In other words scientific experiments are useless because Mariology is not falsifiable and it does not make any predictions, like the blood of Mary should appear on her statue in a certain church in Northern Italy in 2008.

Slav

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well something of that standard. For example, if God was to turn up on the Late Late and we could verify him somehow scientifically well then that is good enough for me.

The weak point of the statement is "somehow". Without explaining how exactly scientific method is going to work with something supernatural, i.e. something that does not belong to the universe and the natural world I fail to see how scientific method can be relevant here. How exactly using the scientific method you can produce evidence for something that does not make verifiable predictions and even does not belong to the domain of natural phenomena?

Or if we could locate Heaven, wherever it is scientifically.

You've just made it belong to this world. Christianity does not know such heaven.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Such a study would only be of relevance if it assessed the effectiveness of the many and varied different types of prayer.

For example, if such a study (I doubt very much if it was a clinical trial) simply lumped together all kinds of religious prayers, irrespective of how they were conducted, then that would be meaningless, wouldn't it.

It would be akin to conducting a study where various kinds of medication were given willy nilly to one group of patients (eg giving insulin to stroke patients etc) and then a control group of patients would receive no medication whatsoever.

In such a study it would hardly be surprising if the patients on zero medication did better, on average, than the ones receiving medication. And then any pseudo-scientist could go on the internet and claim that it has been scientifically demonstrated that medicine doesn't work. Dong!

Well no because say there were 10 types of praying be used and only one worked you'd still expect that side that are praying to be better.

Or if 2, 3 or 4 worked higher again.

But then 1 might actually work but the other 9 make God angry which could make God make the lot of them worse.

I remember when I was young innocent Catholic / Christian I used to pray for X,Y and Z and sometimes it happened sometimes it didn't. Then I noticed the exact same pattern when I didn't pray.

The only exception is St. Anthony.

Tim Robbins

Slav wrote: »

The weak point of the statement is "somehow". Without explaining how exactly scientific method is going to work with something supernatural, i.e. something that does not belong to the universe and the natural world I fail to see how scientific method can be relevant here. How exactly using the scientific method you can produce evidence for something that does not make verifiable predictions and even does not belong to the domain of natural phenomena?

How about a time machine was invented and we could see how accurate the Gospels were?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well no because say there were 10 types of praying be used and only one worked you'd still expect that side that are praying to be better.

Or if 2, 3 or 4 worked higher again.

But then 1 might actually work but the other 9 make God angry which could make God make the lot of them worse.

Hardly a case of making God angry. If 9 forms of prayer were invoking demonic spirits then it's quite possible people could get worse.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Hardly a case of making God angry. If 9 forms of prayer were invoking demonic spirits then it's quite possible people could get worse.

Exactly. But God could wipe those demonic spirits out if he wants.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Exactly. But God could wipe those demonic spirits out if he wants.

You're not really interested in any kind of discussion about the study, are you? I think what you're looking for is better catered for in After Hours.

Sin City

PDN wrote: »

Hardly a case of making God angry. If 9 forms of prayer were invoking demonic spirits then it's quite possible people could get worse.

Then you would re test them to see if the results are the same

If they are you could change the prayers said by the individuals and see if any change occurs

PDN

Sin City wrote: »

Then you would re test them to see if the results are the same

If they are you could change the prayers said by the individuals and see if any change occurs

Indeed, and such a test could be carried out.

But what is dishonest is to cite a flawed study as demonstrating that 'prayer doesn't work' when it demonstrates no such thing.

In fact, reading Tim's link, what was studied bears little or no relationship at all to what I would consider to be real prayer.

Sin City

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, and such a test could be carried out.

But what is dishonest is to cite a flawed study as demonstrating that 'prayer doesn't work' when it demonstrates no such thing.

In fact, reading Tim's link, what was studied bears little or no relationship at all to what I would consider to be real prayer.

I havet read that study to know what was actually carried out and what the author said were the study limitations etc but it would be possible to at least see if the power of prayer works from a scientific viewpoint

PDN

Sin City wrote: »

I havet read that study to know what was actually carried out and what the author said were the study limitations etc but it would be possible to at least see if the power of prayer works from a scientific viewpoint

I know - I'm agreeing with you!