There is probably no God ...
So stop worrying and enjoy your life. That's the message at the heart of a new ad campaign by the British Humanist Association. We'll be talking about it tomorrow, too. It's the brainchild of Ariane Sherine, who will be joining us on the programme.
Howard Jacobson isn't impressed by the campaign. In today's Indy, he writes:
"And it's not even much of a clarion call, is it? God PROBABLY doesn't exist. You should answer fire and brimstone with fire and brimstone. They aren't saying God PROBABLY does exist in Waynesville, North Carolina. They aren't wondering in Colorado Springs whether, maybe, considering the question fairly, and without presumption, God might just be allowed to be a viable, though grantedly complex and vexatious, entity. God IS, is what they say. God LIVES. God SAVES. God HATES. You need balls if you're going to swap belief systems with fundamentalists. God DOESN'T exist, God NEVER DID exist, God IS CODSWALLOP - something along those lines. And to hell with what the Advertising Standards Authority thinks. Say God PROBABLY doesn't exist and you've conceded half the argument to believers."
And that isn't even the half of it. Jacobson releases his ire, full throttle, in his response to the campaign. He plainly regards Britain's humanists as an insipid lot who should work out what they actually believe before they invade the sides of bendy buses.
We'll have Simon Barrow from the think-tank Ekklesia on tomorrow's programme alongside Ariane Sherine, creator of the 'Athiest bus Campaign'. Ariane says the purpose of the campaign is to "brighten people's days on the way to work, help raise awareness of atheism in the UK, and hopefully encourage more people to come out as atheists. We can also counter the religious adverts which are currently running on London buses, and help people think for themselves." Richard Dawkins, who's helping to finance the ads, says: "This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion."
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~15~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
What I find very interesting about this kind of campaign and the agenda of someone like Prof. Dawkins, is why exactly they want to convert people to atheism.
Atheism asserts that there is no ultimate meaning to life; that we are the result of random movements of atoms, and that we live a few years on this rock and then we perish for ever. A short flash of consciousness is wedged between two "eternities" of oblivion. And since there is no ultimate moral arbiter or law-giver in atheism, then logically there is no law which states: "Thou must believe that this interpretation of life is true". If there is no ultimate purpose to life, then why bother with "truth"? If it makes people happy to believe in "God" or "gods", then why not? Why are atheists so hung about it? If the idea of "God" or "gods" makes life bearable for some people, then why deny this "drug" to them?
Now of course the atheist may argue that "religion" messes up how we live this life (and it's true that some "believers" do this - but don't tar everyone with the same brush!) - all this "pie in the sky when we die" bunkum etc etc. And so therefore we need "the liberating power of atheism". Trouble with that argument is that history does not bear it out. The mess atheists made of the former Communist bloc bears witness to this fact. And since there can be no moral code at the root of atheistic thinking (how can there be?), then it's no good atheists claiming to be the guardians of righteousness, love and peace. Why on earth should anyone bother with righteousness, love and peace in an amoral philosophy? Dawkins claims to be a "thinker", but his illogicality on this issue is breathtaking!
I would like to suggest a theory as to why atheists are so obsessed with trying to disabuse religious people of their so-called "fantasies".
It is because they know deep down that atheism is in fact not true, and they are obsessed with the need to deny the reality of something they haven't got the guts to face up to.
Wanna call me a bigot? If you're an atheist, why bother? I'm living my short little life, and saying this makes me happy. In your world there is no god to tell me that I am not allowed to say this. So what's your problem?
Not very logical are you?
Complain about this comment
Logica- Some of us think that truth is important, and that believing true things benefits society more than believing falsehoods. I'm not saying I agree with them that there's no God (I'm a theist, actually). But they're absolutely right to pursue the goal of truth regardless.
Complain about this comment
So there probably isn't a God?
This probably isn't a very good attempt at doubt either.
Funny, isn't it, that the BHA have (probably) raised the profile of God better than many Christian campaigns have done.
Complain about this comment
Logica:
Your argument is flawed and illogical. Why should life matter just because there is a God? Why would it matter whether we did his bidding? What right would he have to demand obedience or love from us? Would he not have to prove that he deserved it? What I do is my choice and my responsibility, not that of a Sky Lord.
Life does not matter to the universe. But it matters to us because we are social animals who care for one another. The same is true of many other animals.
Why does truth matter? As Ariane Sherine said on Sunday Sequence this morning, there is a liberating joy in the discovery of truth. As Christians say, the truth shall set you free. It is what drives us to seek knowledge. Take a so-called Victims or Truth Commission about the Troubles. Many relatives don't want retribution, but they do want to know the truth about what happened to their loved one. I would suggest to you that there is a healing and a peace in being liberated from lies and falsehoods, especially when they seek to control your mind and instill unnecessary fears.
As for religious myths, if people want to believe in fairy tales, then they are free to do so. It is when they impose these beliefs on others that I object.
The fact is that most religious people aren't content with their own delusions; they seek to ensure that we all suffer. Hence religion in politics, in laws (no abortion, discrimination against women, gays etc) in education (segregated schools, compulsory worship, no Humanism on the syllabus) etc), in the media (atheists being treated as 'problematic', 'strident' – simply because they are being honest). The trouble is, logica, you think God is the cure when in truth he is part of the disease.
As for atheistic communism, the mess to which you refer was the product of their conception of communism, and had nothing to do with atheism. You have ignored the 'mess' of fascism. Hitler was a believer who thought he had been chosen by God to save the nation. So was Mussolini (Italy), Codreanu (Rumania), Pavelic (Croatia), Franco (Spain), Degrelle (Belgium) and Salazar (Portugal), fascists all.
If someone gave us £5000, I am sure the Humanist Association of Northern Ireland would do the same here. Actually, we need it even more than London!
Complain about this comment
John, of-course, some of us also have very nuanced views of what constitutes truth. I believe that a vivid hallucination may be more true than a dull deduction from rationally moderated observation. I believe society would be a richer and better place if it were a little less obsessed with science and rationality and a little more Byzantine.
There was an excellent piece on the glories of Byzantium on the programme this morning - this world could do with seeing much more in the soft golden glow of spiritual awareness rather than exclusively in the cold hard light of reason.
Logica may have a point in terms of motivation though: I often suspect those atheists who actively engage with Christians are, at some level, looking to be convinced by those with whom they debate. I suspect some deeply buried part of them is searching, inevitably in vain, for the killer argument which will allow them to believe. I say inevitably in vain because they are looking in the wrong place and in the wrong way.
Complain about this comment
Brian your attitude is typical of the Northern Ireland addiction with grants and funding. You say, "If someone would give us £5000 ...". The BHA raised the 60k for their campaign with an online donation. Dawkins gave only 5K. Why do NI humanists have to wait for a handout from someone? Get yourselves into the internet age and raise some money. If there are as many atheists out there as you say, you'll be able to pay for it.
Complain about this comment
#4 - "Your argument is flawed and illogical".
Thank you, brian, for your response to my starter comment (which I admit was a bit provocative).
You say I'm illogical. But what is the standard by which you are making this judgement? What is "logic"? What is "truth"? You may assume that "logic" itself - along with "truth" and "knowledge" - is somehow consistent with a naturalistic worldview, and that "truth" can only be perceived by empirical means. If that is not the case, then you would have to acknowledge realities beyond the natural, which is not consistent with atheism.
Your problem is that you are taking "truth" and "a logical justification for a quest for truth" for granted. Or rather you are pinching these assumptions from a different worldview. Because where in a material universe can you find an injunction which states that "truth can only be discovered by empirical means" - or, to use the well-worn cliche: "seeing is believing"?
The natural world simply provides us with nothing more than a series of sense perceptions. But the moment we try to interpret these sense perceptions, to organise them, to hypothesise about them, we are drawing on a reality which is "other than" sense perception. It is the realm of "reason", which does not have its origin in matter. This observation of mine may be seen as flawed by naturalistic thinkers, but that is because they take such a process for granted. It's a bit like the atheist who once said to me that "there is no meaning in life". If that is true then the statement that "there is no meaning in life" itself also lacks meaning! So knowledge itself becomes impossible in such a worldview.
Another thing... it is not logical to bundle up all worldviews contrary to atheism and assume they all bear each other's guilt. This is nonsensical. To suggest that I, as a Christian, should be associated with a man who admitted that he was applying to society the Darwinian doctrine of "survival of the fittest" (I am referring of course to Adolf Hitler) - because he might occasionally have used the word "God" - is ridiculous.
Now you may argue that I am committing the same error by associating all atheists with Stalin et al. The point I was making was that if atheists tar all "religious people" with the same brush, then the same judgement could be applied to atheism. So the argument that all "religion" is the bane of civilisation, because of the irresponsibility of some who believe in a "god", is a flawed argument. By the same argument, atheism is also the bane of civilisation!
One thing I will say in agreement and sympathy with atheists, is that I regard atheism as nowhere near as obscene a view of life as certain fundamentalist views of Christianity (e.g. the heresy of predestination, which has got to be the most obscene idea ever to enter the mind of man, if you properly understand what it is saying. Likewise the doctrine of "original guilt", which truly is illogical!!). Like I said (and sorry to repeat a tired cliche): don't tar us all with the same brush!
Finally, you give the example of abortion as an issue that "religious" people are imposing on society. Well, all I can say is that unborn babies are human beings, and why is it so disgusting to want to protect the lives of the most innocent and vulnerable people in society - a society in which the life of a mass murderer is more precious than the life of a helpless innocent baby? Now, in the light of this, who are the true humanists? Who are the true believers in humanity?
Complain about this comment
Portwyne- Again I find it difficult to understand your answer, specifically with regard to the mechanics of how your "soft glow" works and how it "inevitably" will yield truth better than the "cold hard light of reason."
Warning: this is going to be a stretch for me.
Complain about this comment
Brian
If I had a spare 5000 pounds, which I don't, I'd almost be tempted to give the money to Humani just to see what your advertising run would look like. I mean, by raising the profile of God, yet again, I think you're going to shoot yourself in the foot no matter what you do. Frankly there's nothing like a, "There is NO God" slogan, to get a bit of evangelism going! Maybe you guys could learn from us and have a mission, something like "Alpha for Atheists".
Anyway here's some more possible slogans, but they're probably no good.
God probably doesn't exist. Then again it probably won't rain tomorrow, but bring a brolly just in case. (Not the best ad for God though, I admit)
God doesn't exist. This ad was probably placed by an atheist. (But also possibly by a Christian who wanted to provoke a debate.)
God doesn't exist, but if he did he'd probably be nasty. Then again he might be nice.
What kind of God don't you believe in? (That's an interesting question!)
So you don't think God exists? Ever consider the idea that the bus is an illusion too?
The BHA isn't an advertising agency, but if it was, it would probably be the worst advertising agency in the world.
God probably doesn't exist, but if he did...
Ever think of doing one in the King James Version?
Probably, Probably I say onto thee, God might not exist.
So if you do yet round to it, you might be best to get some Chritians to go halvers with you, cos I imagine that any campaign slogan would probably be of as much benefit to one as the other.
And here's a question for 'The Blame Game'. "Who do you blame for atheists?" - And the answer, "Well, probably not God."
Complain about this comment
John
I believe that in Western Europe from the early Middle Ages onwards a way of looking at the world which probably had its roots in certain philosophical traditions of ancient Greece moved gradually from being a way of understanding life, the universe and everything to become the way. Proponents of this belief system essentially say that the process of observation, deduction and theorizing which the human brain performs in that state which is usually labelled rational is the only mediator of truth to humanity.
Atheists, correctly, I believe say that this way of looking at things excludes any possibility of certainty about the existence of God or, put another way, the existence of God cannot be demonstrated in any remotely satisfactory way by either argument or experiment.
Theists buy into the rationalist world view but assert, in my opinion on shaky ground and with but flimsy evidence, that it is possible to infer the existence of a deity from observation of the universe and/or logical process.
I would assert that Theist and Atheist alike, if convinced rationalists, are functionally but part-human: they have denied and suppressed that element in the human psyche which is alive to means of encountering reality which lie way outside the bounds of reason.
For most of our history we humans have relied as much on instinct as reason. For millennia the two coexisted peacefully and profitably, advancing man's material welfare while nurturing community and that inner well-being which comes from the experience of connecting and connectedness. Reason taught us to consider how an arrow might travel further than a spear, instinct taught us respect for our environment when we considered that spirits inhabited rocks or great trees.
In all societies where reason has not rubbished the notion, men accept absolutely that there are genii in places or objects. We experience such entities through a sense of the sacred (or the infernal) which is palpable and real, which can raise the hairs on the backs of our necks or induce feelings of peace or delight. I accept the existence of a spirit world parallel to the material world and at certain places, with certain objects, or in certain people the worlds collide.
I do not think science is inferior to instinct just as I do not think instinct is inferior to science - they are different but complementary. A part though is inferior to a whole so science without instinct is less than science with instinct. What is important is understanding the limitations of each - Dawkins speaking about the sacred makes as much sense and is about as relevant as a tribal shaman's opinion on quantum mechanics.
We experience the golden light (a reference to the reflection off the gilded surfaces of icons of hundreds of candle flames) through opening our perceptions to the world beyond by fasting, meditation, drugs, trance, music and love. I believe such an undertaking is fraught with danger but it is part of that which makes us whole and it is love which guides and protects us in the endeavour.
Complain about this comment
Yet again Portwyne an interesting and illuminating post relating to your thoughts/experiences.
Just one question at this point. I accept that rationality as you have defined it is not the only way in which we might know. However you appear to exclude any knowledge of God on the basis of rational process. Is this a reasonable understanding of what you are saying?
Might I add just one thing at this point; I do not drive this apparent wedge between the rational and the 'experiential' or, if I might put it this way, between the physical and the spiritual. For me, a cup of water given to the thirsty may be every bit as spiritual as, and perhaps more 'spiritual' than, for example, prayer.
Complain about this comment
I am not sure that we should be too quick to knock this ad - maybe I am reading too much into it but maybe it is extremely subtle.
The ad has the advantages of overt simplicity, just a short clear message expressed in bold colourful type. Behind the spare surface, however, lies a wealth of subtle persuasion.
The ad buys into success. There's the opening word 'Probably' and an immediate association with cool brand Carlsberg. This company's advertising campaigns have redefined 'probably' into a knowingly ironic understatement of an absolute. From the first word then we are being told Atheism is a young, cool-speaking, successful brand.
There is the interesting choice of colours used in the type, surely not random. To me the pink, orange and yellow combination immediately prompted a recollection of the Keillor Honda diesel advert - a phenomenal success. The memory evoked is of something hateful, a baleful pollutant, changed into something good and beautiful, there is a sense of a paradise regained, the banishment of the spoiler, abundant happiness in a pastoral idyll free worry and care. A major dividend just from the juxtaposition of three colours.
Then there is 'Stop worrying... enjoy your life' - a paraphrase calling to mind Bobby McFerrin's catchy "Don't Worry - Be Happy!" and already not one but two very positive tunes are floating through our heads associated with product No-God.
Now this is the sort of post-modern over-analysis which probably gives John headaches (or worse!) but I still think this is an ad worth watching.
Complain about this comment
For first word, read second! Sorry!!
Complain about this comment
Peter
I do not think that we find God or get to know him by means of rational process. If, however, we come to know Him I entirely accept that then we can say rational things about our experience of Him and how it impacts on our lives, our moral outlook, our choices and our view of the world.
I distinguish but do not separate the two ways of knowing I have described - for me the two absolutely cohere in a whole man. Equally, I see no distinction between prayer and service to one's fellow man, where one is spiritual and the other physical: both take us beyond ourselves and our selfishness, both allow us to connect.
Complain about this comment
Portwyne- Don't worry, I understand advertising well, it doesn't give me a headache at all. But that could be a useful place to begin my reply to you.
See, I don't think that's an example of postmodern thinking. It's an example of using rational thought about what we know of psychology and communicating with others. It's very logical. At the same time, good advertising calls upon how we feel, and evokes emotional responses. But I don't think that necessitates that we believe anything is going on 'under the hood' that we don't know about or understand: it's the same exchange of chemicals and electrical impulses that permits rational thought and there isn't an 'other' side to that coin.
I understand what you mean when you refer to the 'spiritual' part of a human being. But honesty and science require us to admit that it's all perfectly explainable by the processes we're learning more about all the time, and that there's absolutely no proof of (or need to invoke) any unseen, deeper, higher energy, force, spiritual world whatsoever. (That's not to say I think we've discovered absolutely all of what the human mind is capable of, or that we won't discover ways to use that mind that could sound or seem like some of what you're describing, but it won't occur in any way that couldn't possibly be explained by science.)
Which brings me to the part of your post where you describe "instinct" and "rationality". First, isn't instinct simple evolution? Surely instinct is the baser of our capacities, cerebrally, in fact more so as we continue down the food chain? It certainly isn't the 'higher' capacity, insofar as we're capable of discerning truth. Instinct tells us we need to survive; it's a biological demand upon us rather than a call of truth. The only truth associated with instinct is: "I will die if I don't do what my instinct tells me!" Thus we don't have the 'instinct' to commit suicide, for example, we only commit suicide when presented with the harsh truths we learn through rational thinking!
And secondly, can't one address the other? Can't rationality address instinct, and tell us the above about it? Rationality can provide us truth about instinct. And what you're describing toward the end of your post can also be addressed rationally, can it not? Taking one of the examples you mention, love; isn't it true that we can think about why we love rationally and ask ourselves why we feel love for certain people at certain times? While that may not produce the feelings, it can assess the feelings and come to rational conclusions about them based on what we know from science.
I guess I'm just confused about why you think certain truths can't be discerned through reasoning, and why we need to posit anything else to explain what science already has explained.
Complain about this comment
Peter:
Your concern for atheists is always touching. I suppose it is an example of your Christianity in action.
There is another question, which you should be more concerned about: are some Christians a good advertisement for Christianity?
The BHA campaign was to raise £5,500 for their campaign and this was to be matched by a donation from Dawkins. Within a week, they have already raised over £100,000, 20 times this amount – not bad for shooting themselves in the foot. But of course Dawkins also shot himself in the foot with his book, selling 2 million copies, and Humani also shot itself in the foot presenting his book to MLAs last year and acquiring 50 new members since.
Here’s a few other suggestions to go on a local bus:
There is probably no god and try finding a plumber on Sunday (Woody Allen).
There is probably no god and I'm a born-again atheist.
There is probably no god, and it is better for his reputation that he doesn't exist.
There is probably no god, and if there was, it would be necessary to abolish him.
There is probably no god, and if there was, he would play dice.
There is probably no god, but matter is God and God is matter; and it is no matter whether there is any God or no.
There is probably no god and therefore, unlike bendy buses, he doesn't move in a mysterious way.
There is probably no god, and the flying spaghetti monster is not his prophet.
There is probably no god, so remember your humanity and forget the rest.
And finally a long one:
There is probably no god, and our logic will lead us not into delusion, but deliver us from ignorance, for thine is the sanctity of thought, and the wonder and all progress, for ever and ever, amen.
Complain about this comment
Can someone help me out with this ad - I just don't get it.
What I mean is I do believe in God , I don't worry, and I do enjoy life.
Complain about this comment
Peter:
As an after-thought, can I add that the charge of foot-shooting which you persist in making against Humanists/athists etc., is a bit like the motes and beams, surely?
After all, the arch foot-shooters in NI are Christians who expend so much time and energy at an individual level trying to bring people closer together and encouraging them to love one another, while acquiescing in policies designed to keep them apart and hate one another: segregated schools; segregated worship; the labelling of other churches as unChristian; sexism and homophobia.
Indeed, we could further. Christians in NI have a tendency not so much to shoot themselves in the foot as to blow their own heads off.
Complain about this comment
Rev Ian Hall:
Good for you. What about your congregation? I take it that you don't preach hell and damnation any more? No more wailing and gnashing of death, then?
As for your beliefs, they aren't really relevant to the truth. If there is no god, then it is true, whether you believe it or not.
I'm sorry, Reverend, but the ad was not not really designed for your benefit. I would imagine that it is addressed to all those people who largely agree with its sentiments, but will feel more confident and proud in their non-belief if it is proclaimed in public.
Ariane Sherine, who thought of the campaign, says that originally she was just keen to counter the religious ads running on public transport, which featured a URL to a website telling non-Christians they would spend 'all eternity in torment in hell', burning in 'a lake of fire'.
"Religious advertising works particularly well on those who are vulnerable, frightening them into believing. Religious organisations' jobs are made easier because there's no publicly visible counter-view to refute their threats of eternal damnation".
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
There is probably no God, which might mean there is one.
There is probably no God, but you can always rely on an atheist to come up with a cliche about him. (and before you say it Christians are good a cliches too!)
Portwyne thinks the ad is subtle, but personally it comes across to me like all religious ads (ironically that is what it is) and most religious ads don't change anyone's mind, usually they just reinforce the ideas we already have. I see you suggest that in post 19 - so it was a sort of in-house ad, was it? You guys should have a testimony night, I think we invented that one too.
Actually some of your ideas for a bus ad are better than the London one, and I agree with you the flying spaghetti monster, may he boil forever, is not God's prophet.
Of course your point about 'real' christians is the best point of all. Christ's comment, about the fruit of our lives, is enough to rule most of us out, don't think I haven't already thought it, I do not presume upon my faith!
Interestingly your points about humanist evangelism and fundraising are impressive, but I thought you weren't into that sort of stuff.
And yes, I agree, we christians are probably better at shooting ourselves in the foot, but why don't you just accept that this ad is a bad one. I mean, "I'm and atheist, and I think God probably doesn't exist?" doesn't really cut it. Portwyne's a Christian and he knows God doesn't exist! And I'm a Christian and sometimes I think I don't exist. Really in the end, doubt's overrated!
Maybe if you got a few thousand pounds together, say 100 pounds from each of your new members, you could run with the, "There is probably no god, and it is better for his reputation that he doesn't exist." one, but personally I'd look forward to the opportunity to debate it more widely.
Or on further reflection of your comments in post 19 to Mr. Hall, why not try this one, "I'm an atheist, I probably believe in me."
Complain about this comment
"Atheism asserts that there is no ultimate meaning to life; that we are the result of random movements of atoms, and that we live a few years on this rock and then we perish for ever. A short flash of consciousness is wedged between two "eternities" of oblivion. And since there is no ultimate moral arbiter or law-giver in atheism, then logically there is no law which states: "Thou must believe that this interpretation of life is true". If there is no ultimate purpose to life, then why bother with "truth"? If it makes people happy to believe in "God" or "gods", then why not? Why are atheists so hung about it? If the idea of "God" or "gods" makes life bearable for some people, then why deny this "drug" to them?"
Since there is no evidence to suggest that god exists, then there is no rational reason not to believe that the foregoing is not true. There is an irrational reason though. That reason is that many people don't want it to be true. Their emotions will not let them accept it. Therefore they need the comfort of beleiving in god and all that goes along with it...including religious wars and the marching season.
"Your argument is flawed and illogical. Why should life matter just because there is a God? Why would it matter whether we did his bidding? What right would he have to demand obedience or love from us? Would he not have to prove that he deserved it? What I do is my choice and my responsibility, not that of a Sky Lord."
If there is a god, this would depend on the nature of that god.
"There is probably no god"
If you believe in a rational universe, the notion of probability is absurd as I have explained in previous postings on other threads. Probability is strictly a human invention for conveniently creating mathematical models for events and objects which are to us indistinguishable. Either god exists or it doesn't. Putting odds on it is as silly as believing in it without any supporting evidence.
Complain about this comment
It seems like most of you lot are missing what, to me, seems the whole point of the advert.
Jacobson (in the Independent article) seems to have got it most wrong of all. You emphasise the difference between most religions and atheism by not using their rhetoric.
As post #19 points out, Ariane wanted to counter the religious ads that we see every day. First of all you do this by having an atheism ad in the first place.
But then, a little more subtly you change the tone - you replace the arrogance and lecturing nature of your standard religious message with something more balanced, less sure, less threatening.
It says to me that because we humans don't know everything there is to know, we can't ever be sure, but on balance, thinking logically, God probably doesen't exist. It finishes up with the reassuring message that you don't even need to worry about this, it's just not important.
Seems to work fine to me, and I imagine it will work well with most people who are a little less firmly entrenched in their views (the floaters) as the good people of this blog.
Complain about this comment
Brian ,thank you for your no doubt sincere interest in my congregation. I am happy to report that I am currently ministering to a congregation who in the main do believe in God, are not suffering from great anxiety and do enjoy life.
Brian, believing in God and enjoying life are not mutually exclusive.
As far as what I have been preaching lately - last Sunday night I preached on Jesus, The Friend of Sinners. My text was Mark.2:13-17
www.theevangelists.blogspot.com
Complain about this comment
I have thought a little more about the bus advert and am convinced that my analysis of it was substantially correct but insufficiently thought through. My considered opinion is that the ad is much more sinister than I had originally thought - I can safely use the word demonic knowing that nobody could seriously label me a fundamentalist and everybody probably already labels me some variety of loony tune!
No marketing professional could use the word 'Probably' without knowing that in the context of advertisement it would reference the mega successful Carlsberg campaigns. What was the the subtext of those ads for what was "probably" the best beer in the world? What was the embedded command? None other than Go on - indulge yourself! If that embedded command sounds familiar it's because it should. It's the age-old archetypal lure of the serpent. In the myth of Eden the serpent tells Eve "Go on - indulge yourself!". When Christ walks the spirit path after 40 days of fasting he encounters Evil and what does Evil say to him? In essence: "Go on - indulge yourself!". This advertisement is not saying connect with the world, engage with society, find meaning and purpose; it is saying there is no way there's a god, there is no moral frame of reference to inhibit (worry) you, Go on - indulge yourself.
If you doubt the link to the Honda ad, just look at the web-poster for the campaign - I, at any rate, would know those flowers anywhere. What's the signature line of the catchy little song that accompanies the ad, the only line most will remember, the memory subliminally activated? What I remembered was the rather rhetorical question "Can hate be good?". Enough said!
I have to disagree with PeterM - advertising is extraordinarily powerful, its influence is grossly underestimated generally. Corporate financial directors do not sanction the colossal sums expended on it without solid proof that it works, and work it surely does. It is most effective when a clear message, an instruction, is subliminally and preferably multiply reinforced. This ad meets those criteria.
I think it might be instructive to take a look at Ariane Sherine's blog. For me the entry for 30 December 2007 says it all:
My advice is: don't watch the news. (Don't even read it if you can help it, though I might be alone on this one.) Focus instead on other things: on all the millions of people who are alive and healthy and enjoying their lives, on happiness and truth and kindness and all the concepts which don't make good copy in the slightest. Live in a dreamworld, and pretend it's not happening.
As Theo's brother says in 'Children Of Men', when Theo asks why he doesn't feel depressed about the apocalyptic horror taking place around him: "I just don't think about it."
Do the dull worthies of the BHA endorse this view? Do they really know what they have taken on-board?
Complain about this comment
John my response to your post # 15 will have to wait until after work...
Complain about this comment
Brian,
I would regard the slightly sneering and condescending tone of the theists on this blog as a good sign. For advertising to work it just has to make an impact and my goodness, it has'nt even appeared yet and people are talking about it. One nil to the atheists/humanists!
Complain about this comment
Portwyne: "This advertisement is not saying connect with the world, engage with society, find meaning and purpose; it is saying there is no way there's a god, there is no moral frame of reference to inhibit (worry) you, Go on - indulge yourself."
No it's not. It's saying stop worrying about pointless stuff like religion and get on with life (whether that be having fun or worrying about things that are worthwhile).
YOU have made this connection, via the rather convoluted route of a beer advert.
Most conspiracy theory nut jobs hold the government or business responsible, it is refreshing at least to see one that has the devil behind it all - kind of like a Scooby Doo epsiode. "I would have got away with it if it wasn't for you pesky bloggers"
Complain about this comment
Portwyne:
I thought you didn't believe in a god yourself? Why are you worrying about the 'sinister' implication of an ad that shares your sentiments??
Sometimes atheists can't win. If they make a 'clear' and 'firm' statement, then it is 'aggressive' and 'strident'; and if they make a reasoned and qualified statement, they are 'cowardly' and 'milk and water' (Jacobson).
Eamonn McCann addressed our Summer School a few years ago and told us we were too 'nice' and 'polite' to be effective; the next year Malachi O'Doherty advised us to be less evangelical and intolerant of Christians.
And both claimed to be atheists themselves!
Complain about this comment
Personally, i'd go for something shorter.
"Smile, there is no hell"
we could even use the yellow smiley face popularised by rave culture and claim it as our own.
Any way, if your starting a collection Brian i'm in.
Complain about this comment
If I were Irish, I'd hope there is no god. Given the hatreds each side has displayed during their lives for the other during the times of the troubles, if either of their religions are true, they're probably all going to hell.
Complain about this comment
Brian (#28)
It seems to some of us that that the 'New Atheism' does display both aggressiveness and almost 'evangelical' zeal! How come so much effort is being expended to fight against a God you believe doesn't exist?
Personally, I hope that this latest campaign will encourage people to think seriously about the Creator they have hitherto ignored.
"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' (Psalm 14:1) Perhaps atheism should be commemorated annually...on April 1st!!
Complain about this comment
pastorphilip #31
I don't buy this aggressive atheism stuff. Atheists have a long way to go before they match the prosletysing of northern ireland's Christians . Can you imagine atheists standing on bow street in Lisburn with banners and plastic bibs with quotes from the god delusion - I don't think so.
Complain about this comment
Atheists have a more subtle way of proselytising; they use the means of the media to do their brain washing of the unsuspecting viewers and listeners, through the different programmes that are available to the atheistic script writers and programme makers.
Atheistic politicians also use legislation to liberalise the laws of the land to pursue their humanistic agenda.
Atheists are a more Machiavellian bunch than the direct and honest street evangelist, what you see is what you get.
Complain about this comment
John
In its own terms science can or will pretty much explain everything about both the observable world and man as a part of that world. Where I disagree with you is when you assert that what it means to be human is "perfectly explainable" in terms of science. The explanations of science for human behaviour give us some very useful insights but they are not perfect - they are very far from perfect, they are deeply, deeply flawed.
It is a feature of the rational/scientific mindset that it claims the monopoly on truth. It sees no limit to its remit and applies its methodology in situations where it is wholly inappropriate and produces grotesque results which its unthinking adherents accept as gospel. Science is necessary if you want to make a vibrator but an actual impediment to understanding love.
The effects of love on the human brain can be studied and understood, the typical behaviour associated with love can be documented and analysed, but anyone who says that science can tell us what love is is a dullard, an automaton, a thing not worthy the designation human. The explanations of science for love are horrors from which every grounded person will recoil with loathing.
The abject failure of science to explain in any satisfying way something so basic should also call into question its ability to speak usefully about anything outside the description of mechanical process.
I believe utterly in complexity. Instead of Occam's mean and niggardly law, I propose portwyne's fertiliser - the lex munificentiae, a law of abundance where entities are multiplied with gay abandon ( Complectenda est pluralitas) and the simple explanation is never the right one. Just because science can explain something most emphatically does not mean that its explanation is the whole story or, indeed, even the right story.
As to instinct and rationality you arrange them into a hierarchy which I would deny. Neither one is lower than the other. The moderation of experience by non-rational processes is every bit as valid as the moderation of reason - in a balanced individual it is only context which will determine which should predominate. I consider instinct to operate far beyond the level of basic survival. Like reason it can be nurtured and developed, and, just as reason can hone instinct, so instinct can temper reason. Perhaps this and my post to Peter will answer to some extent your question about one addressing the other.
I cannot end this posting without, however, also commenting on your thoughts on suicide with which I profoundly disagree. You say "we only commit suicide when presented with the harsh truths we learn through rational thinking". This gives a totally distorted picture of the reality of suicidal ideation. Suicide is rational as a means of escaping otherwise unavoidable pain, as in the case of a terminally ill person, such suicides are in a very small minority. In the vast majority of suicides there is either (more common) some underlying mental illness or (perhaps more prevalent in younger people) a tendency towards impulsive and uninhibited behaviour which it is currently thought may well be the result of physical brain abnormality, however derived. Suicide is therefore, rarely either rational or instinctive.
Complain about this comment
The Puritan #33
I hardly think that there is a big atheist conspiracy going on.
Atheists are generally very up front about what they believe and why. Nobody is being brain washed
I can't see whats wrong with atheists wanting a bit of public space to express an alternate view.
The occasional Richard Dawkins documentary on channel 4, plus the occasional forward thinking drama still doesn't add up to all the songs of praise and thoughts for the day that we've had over the years.
But its true - what you see is what you get with those street preachers in Lisburn. 4 middle age men droning on for hours in the same monotone voice week after week, year after year with not a single person paying them any attention.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear OliverBenen!
Shudder in fear at this:
http://evilatheistconspiracy.org/
You'll never walk the street in the same way ever again in your life, now will you? Knowing how we atheists are everywhere, controlling everything, manipulating all from behind the scenes.
Fear us. Fear us! FEAR US!!
Muhaghahahahahaa!! *evil laughter*
Complain about this comment
Brian
This ad does not in any way share my sentiments. I would rather have thought from the history of your postings that, subjected to due analysis, it does not echo yours either.
I do not actually find that much wrong with the humanist position - it seems to foster engagement with the needs of our fellow man and promotes the notion of forming a moral framework for living - things I value. I might think it a little spiritually impoverished, a little, shall we say, anal; humanists may not exactly bop to the rhythm of life in the way I would advocate but I do not consider them evil in any way.
I do consider the subtext, the all-important command-line of this ad, evil, however. The ad tells us not to worry just to enjoy life. It tells us, in effect, to be selfish and, for me, selfishness is the very essence of evil. The words used do not make the kind extension pc3 allows them - the instruction is 'Don't worry' FULL STOP. It effectively repeats Ms Sherine's advice from her blog - 'Live in a dreamworld', ignore pain and suffering, get on with and enjoy your own life. This may well be an atheist ad, but please tell me Brian it is not a humanist ad.
Note to PC3 - I have just read Ariane's original Guardian article - in it she specifically if somewhat disingenuously relates the form and genesis of this ad to the Carlsberg ad.
I abhor just about all 'Christian' media advertising - for the followers of Christ all such campaigns are essentially being done on the cheap. The advertising Christ requires is effective, when practised, but, as it is extremely costly, I am afraid we see very little of it around.
Complain about this comment
Portwyne:
First of all, regarding your earlier posting, you say that the simple explanation is never the right one.
I find this curious since you have already dismissed disciplines such as philosophy and economics, which try to understand the complexities of life. In their place, you offer your own idiosyncratic worldview which I suspect most of us, with the possible exception of Peter M, find largely incomprehensible.
As for spirituality, it is the life of the human spirit. Religion is merely one form of it, and an erroneous one at that – a statement with which you would half agree.
Whether or not we believe in a god, we are all faced with the infinite and with ourselves. To be an atheist is not to deny the existence of the absolute but to reject its transcendence. It is merely to deny that the absolute is god.
As for the bus campaign, you really are reading too much into one sentence. Evil? I think that's definitely OTT.
Pastorphilip:
Personal insults are cheap and, I venture to suggest, not very 'Christian'. I prefer Shakespeare to the Bible: "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool".
Actually, in my philosophy, but obviously not in yours, no one is a fool on the basis of one opinion, however mistaken. So, no, I don't automatically think you are a fool. Misguided, yes; but a fool, perhaps not.
Complain about this comment
Oh Brian! Don't be so touchy! You can't have been unaware of the Biblical statement I quoted, which was intended to provoke (it obviously did!) but not to insult.
Just 'one opinion'? Rather an important one, I think you'll agree. And Psalm 14v1 goes on to describe the type of behaviour produced by such an 'opinion'. One of the problems of atheism is that it provides no sound basis for morality, and no final accountablity.
We must surely face the fact that "every one of us shall give an account of himself to God." (Romans 14:12)
Best get things sorted out with Him now!
Complain about this comment
Atheism doesn't claim to provide a basis for morality - it is not a world view in the sense that humanism might be described as a world view. All atheism is, is a position taken in repsonse to the claims made by the religious for the existence of a god.
Our sense of ethics and morality come from many places and have evolved in a similar way to our physical selves. From the very first time one of our ancestors punched someone else, and that other person punched him back people have realised that there are consequences to our actions. People learn from experience, education and peer pressure about what are acceptable ways to behave in this society, and most of us live by the rules.
To think that an ancient text which is the revealed wisdom of a vindictive hateful god, is the basis of our moral identity is nonsense. Christians, like the rest of us, are shaped and moulded by society’s mores, and will only cite scripture when it supports these already well established shared standards. You don't hear many Christians still calling for the stoning of adulterers.
Complain about this comment
Hi Pastorphilip:
Follow your own advice and examine your own conscience.
So if I call you a fool for believing in such rubbish, I am not being insulting but merely 'provoking'. That is interesting, since humanists and atheists are forever being accused of rudeness. I am a 'rude atheist', you are are merely a Christian 'provoking' thought.
If I ever went to face your god, it would be I who would demand answers of him.
Complain about this comment
Peter Klaver, I have never seen "Muhaghahahahahaa!!" written down before! Your phonics are quite impressive!
Portwyne, Having read your last couple of comments I don't think we disagree all that much. I began a reply last night and would like to post it later. I think we will find, again, that there is much common ground.
Brian, I find the idea that I might to one degree or another grasp something of Portwyne's "idiosyncratic worldview" to be something of a compliment!!
Complain about this comment
Portwyne - I'm still not convinced, that the 'probably' part of the ad is a big success, but your comments in post 24 are much more interesting and just when I thought we were going to disagree, you posted some more in no. 37. To me, these comments shift in emphasis from the style of the ad, words, colour, presentation, association and so on to the substance of the ad, and it is at this point that I find I agree with your thoughts.
First off though, I am a bit surprised that you used the word demonic. I understand, especially with the association with Eden, what you are getting at, but just didn't expect you to use it. Please don't misunderstand me, I think advertising is powerful, indeed people like Derren Brown have provided us with many examples of the power of suggestion, association and the use of psychology in the media and we should not treat this lightly, I just don't happen to think that this is a very good example of the genre.
On the use of the word probably for example, I think it's had it's day, and an advertising exec using it ought to think again. I now hear the word ironically, and most certainly not in absolute terms. And to compare it with the Honda ad, which is much better (in terms of being effective I mean) what we have with it is a multi media presentation which associates a variety of familiar and aspirational everyday messages with the product. Rainbows, and bunnies, and the environment, and innocence, all blend to form a kaleidoscopic message which, with every tap of the mind, produces a new and highly colourful perspective, something the bus ad just can't do. It is also accompanied by a happy little tune, something to whistle on our way to work, in a car(!).
And that links with my point about religious ads in general, and it's related to your comments. I just don't think that ads like this work, certainly the Christian ones aren't much of a success, even if Christians do get all excited by them. Communicating Christianty, works best when people interact with one another, in fact I'd probably go so far as to say that Christianity is only properly communicated in community when words and actions are exchanged. Communicating the 'gospel' is not meant to be done from the side of a bus. As someone once said, 'Once we had The Logos (Greek pronunciation please), now all we have are logos (think Nike tick)'. On this point I fully concur, and might even offer the thought that a 'Christianity' which fails to change our hearts is something other than the gospel.
Therefore if what you are saying about selfishness is true, then there is even more reason to engage with others (atheists or not) about their understanding of the ad.
Furthermore I'm not so sure that the greatest 'offence' of the gospel is the eternal damnation which this ad is supposed to respond to; rather, I suggest, it is the challenge to one's own sovereignty, to the narcissism at the centre of one's own being. I for one find that it is this, the call away from self-love, the declaration of war which is to be made on one's own heart, if we were to dare look there, which is the greatest cause for rebellion against God and is paralleled in the "you will be like God/gods" deception you refer to in the Eden narrative.
Portwyne, you appear in your comments to accept the fullness of selflessness in the Christ metaphor. One might call it cruciform love, as we were encouraged to think on Sunday, and you seem to take seriously the call for us to realise this in our everyday experiences, yet you also seem to stop short of understanding the Christ One (Jesus) as real. Yet for me, the reality of any change in me is grounded in the reality of Him. One might say that He is the Way, the Reality and the Life. In otherwords, the REAL 'real thing'!
Holy Cola Batman.
Complain about this comment
Brian
You say (post 38):
"Whether or not we believe in a god, we are all faced with the infinite and with ourselves. To be an atheist is not to deny the existence of the absolute but to reject its transcendence. It is merely to deny that the absolute is god."
You've got me listening.
Sentence one, I agree.
Sentence two, can you offer me any development of this thought?
Sentence three, what do you consider the absolute to be?
Complain about this comment
pastorphillip
" One of the problems of atheism is that it provides no sound basis for morality, and no final accountablity."
Why is that a problem?
"We must surely face the fact that "every one of us shall give an account of himself to God." (Romans 14:12)"
That was the view of the primitives who wrote it. Yours too evidently.
"How come so much effort is being expended to fight against a God you believe doesn't exist?"
The fight isn't against god, it's against people jamming their religions down our throats. How will you like it if one day the EU Decides all Irish children would be required to listen to readings from the Koran?
""The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' (Psalm 14:1)"
Maybe so but I don't throw my money in the collection plate every Sunday like many believers do with nothing to show for it in return except the delusion that I just made another downpayment on a condo in heaven. Then when it comes time to wet your whistle at the local establishment they need a favor from somone who held on to his money. Who is the real fool pastorphillip? I understand you need to protect your sources of income but c'mon, you don't really expect to fool all of the people all of the time do you?
Complain about this comment
Oh, no, it's happened. I agree with Marcus' post (which backs up the first paragraph of Oliver's post #40 - Atheism is not a world view).
I had assumed that Pastorphillip was been ironic in his use of bible quotes in a debate with atheists, but perhaps not. Thanks to Marcus for pointing out the futility of this.
Portwyne, having now read the Guardian article, it's clear that you were wrong. The word 'probably' was used for the same reason Carlsberg used it (to get round regulations) and also because it's impossible to prove that something (even as unlikely as God) doesn’t exist. I think this strengthens my views on the advert, I truly admire its lack of arrogance and I think this makes it stand out all the more.
Complain about this comment
Just think pastorphillip, had people not wasted countless billions of hours attending church but used that time productively instead how much more could actually have been accomplished in this world. For example we'd have far more effective guns and bombs....and far less incentive to use them.
Complain about this comment
Peter (#44):
First of us, let me make it crystal clear, lest there be any shadow of a doubt about it, the absolute in my view has nothing to do with (a) a master spirit or force outside nature; (b) a spiritual realm existing parallel to nature; (c) a spiritual source of absolute truth or morality: (d) souls that enter and depart the human body; or (e) the Bible or any other Holy Book as the creation of some mysterious spiritual entity.
Instead, the absolute is quite simply the universe or nature (or even, if you like, truth). In other words, it is what exists independently of us. But it is this 'absolute' or 'nature' that exists before the spirit. It creates the spirit.
And what is that? it is our human consciousness. It includes our capacity through the evolutionary process to reason, to imagine, to remember, to create, to wonder, to love, to be joyful, to help others. It includes our desire to write poetry, paint the Sistine Chapel, compose a pastoral symphony, built the Pyramids or the Taj Mahal, and discover the process of evolution or the language of genes. It includes our artistic endeavour, our scientific insights, our noblest ideals, our search for truth.
The former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev said: "I believe in the cosmos. All of us are linked to the cosmos. So nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred. Trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals - being at one with nature". That's fair enough for me.
Unfortunately, religion has usurped spirituality for its own purpose. But uplifting and ennobling emotions that are satisfied in work or play or friendship, or in the appreciation of art, music, literature, sport and the world of nature do not need a god or religion to justify and explain - they are part and parcel of the joy or sorrow of living as an evolved species.
Complain about this comment
Marcus:
In my view, guns and bombs are a misuse of the 'human spirit'. I agree with some of your comments on this thread, because sometimes you write as if you disbelieve in a god only because he is not an American.
Please can you not leave your infantile and self-contradictory fantasies about the Great American People out of it?
An example of confusion: We will bomb the hell out of anyone who opposes us, and do, but at the same our possession of this obscene arsenal means we don't have to use it.
Of course, if you didn't use it, all those big military companies like Lockheed, Boeing and Raytheon would go bankrupt, like some of the rest of the current economy.
Complain about this comment
Marcus:
Third line, 'because' should be 'but'.
Complain about this comment
brianmcclinton
"Marcus:
In my view, guns and bombs are a misuse of the 'human spirit'."
Gee, from which pulpits in which chruches do you suppose Protestants and Catholics got the idea that it was okay to bomb and shoot each other? Oh, you mean their ministers and priests told them not to and they did it anyway? A likely story. And where were you on January 30, 1972. Oh you say you weren't born yet? What a lame excuse. Got any witnesses?
"I agree with some of your comments on this thread, [but] you write as if you disbelieve in a god only because he is not an American."
I think he was sworn in and got his citizenship papers a few years ago after he met the residency requirements. I don't know if he had a green card first. But he converted I'm sure because he was bought off, bribed. After all, what other country lavishes so much money on him, he'd be a fool not to be one.
"An example of confusion: We will bomb the hell out of anyone who opposes us, and do, but at the same our possession of this obscene arsenal means we don't have to use it."
Were it not for America's arsenal of democracy, you'd either be a slave of the German Nazi empire or the Soviet communist empire. Many Europeans are angry that the US prevented that so they are building their own version, the EUSSR. But will it fly?
"Of course, if you didn't use it, all those big military companies like Lockheed, Boeing and Raytheon would go bankrupt, like some of the rest of the current economy."
Think of those big defense contractors as being like little cottage industries that built all of the weapons used in "the troubles" only on steroids....lots and lots of steroids.
Complain about this comment
Hi Marcus
Thankyou for that penetrating insight to Brian with regard to Irish politics.
What do you call it, 'The Blunderbuss School of Political Thought'?
I'm sure you know all about his views on our grubby little war.
Complain about this comment
Brian;
"the absolute is quite simply the universe or nature (or even, if you like, truth)."
Brian, is this "absolute" infinite?
In post 38 you said;
"Whether or not we believe in a god, we are all faced with the infinite and with ourselves"
Is the absolute infinte? Because you then go on to limit it, when you say;
"First of us, let me make it crystal clear, lest there be any shadow of a doubt about it, the absolute in my view has nothing to do with....list of things"
"In other words, it is what exists independently of us."
Does it not also include "us"?
"But it is this 'absolute' or 'nature' that exists before the spirit. It creates the spirit."
It creates something that it is not? But I thought it was infinite?
Now these are not supposed to be insurmountable problems. I believe there is an answer, a way in which the infinite can transcend the finite, and yet in which the finite can have its very being in the infinite, so that the infinite is not "one thing among many", but the transcendent source, within which the finite ("things of a kind") inheres
I suspect you don't accept this, so what is your view? The problem, as I see it, as that your "absolute", as you define it, does not seem to be "absolute" at all. There is no infinity or universality, and you don't even think there should be any transcendence. The "absolute", as you define it, turns out just to be a collection of different stuff, just a sum of a bunch of parts.
Not very Absolute, is it?
. To be an atheist is not to deny the existence of the absolute but to reject its transcendence. It is merely to deny that the absolute is god.
Complain about this comment
The idea of the non-existence of God has been linked most directly on this 'probably' ad to personal enjoyment, and so, it could be, as Portwyne pointed out earlier, that this requires some reflection?
But what should one say? Could it be that to realise lack of worry, and to pursue personal enjoyment is the highest that human beings can attain, or is there another way? A way which might be more costly, more demanding, and yet at the same time, more fulfilling, as I suggested earlier, the 'fullness of selflessness'. I think there probably (!) is.
"If we think of it graphically, we could say that self-centeredness is to be stationary, static. In self-centeredness we demand that others orbit around us. We will do things and give affection to others, as long as it helps us meet our personal goals and fulfills us.
The inner life of the Triune God, however, is utterly different. The life of the Trinity is characterised not by self-centeredness but by mutually self-giving love. When we delight and serve someone else, we enter into a dynamic orbit around him or her, we center on the interests and desires of the other. That creates a dance, particularly if there are three persons, each of whom moves around the other two. So it is, the bible tells us. Each of the divine persons centers upon the others. None demands that the others revolve around him. Each voluntarily circles the other two, pouring love, delight and adoration into them. Each person of the Trinity loves, adores, defers to and rejoices in the others. That creates a dynamic, pulsating dance of joy and love. The early leaders of the Greek church had a words for this - perichoresis. Notice the root of our word 'choreography' within it. It literally means to dance or flow around."
Timothy Keller - The Reason for God.
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
Again, you get tied up in the word 'absolute', as I expected you would be. Naturally, since I don't believe in a god, I would limit the absolute in the way I have. How could I otherwise? As an atheist, I am not likely to say, as Peter does, that the absolute is a triune god (whatever that is!)
The absolute is only a word to describe nature or truth, or whatever. I used it as a tease because I know you Christians think you can hijack every word in the language for your own use.
The absolute or nature is infinite if the universe is infinite, and not if the universe is not. I do not know which is correct.
I includes us, yes, in the sense that we are a part of nature. All I was doing was stressing that there is a universe independent of each individual and that it VAST. we are a tiny speck in this expanse. That is a source of wonder in itself.
Peter:
The self-giving love and the dance to which you refer is all in that wonderful film 'I'm not Scared" to which I referred on the Malachi thread. The chief protagonist, Michele, is not so named for nothing, and Filippo asks him at one point: "Are you my guardian angel? (Italian 'angelo'"). At the end of the film, Vivaldi fuses with Michele and Michelangelo as the camera pans around the boy. You have to see it to understand what I mean. It ends with a secular version of Michelangelo's Sistine chapel painting of the Creation of Man. But in this case Michele gives life and courage to Filippo, and he doesn't need a god to do it.
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
Well there's obviously no point in replying to your thoughts on 'absolute', (you naughty boy!) I guess too that you are teasing with the comment, "As an atheist, I am not likely to say, as Peter does, that the absolute is a triune god (whatever that is!)". You know nothing of the concept of trinity?
However I do appreciate your reply, (post 48). Paragraph 1 is, I think, a pretty good definition of atheism, and I understand that this is one basis of your understanding of the world. (Which I suppose, contrary to what Paul and Oliver think, would make it a world view!)
As to paragraph 3, on the human spirit, I think that there are many aspects of it which with I might find agreement. All the of the characteristics of humanity you describe are indeed noble and are very much a part of who we are. I believe that we ought to rejoice in them and celebrate them. There are many many references in literature, art and film to this characteristic of selflessness. Indeed I might go a little further and comment on your use of the word 'spirit'. I most certainly think of human beings as people who will live eternally, yet, and I want to stress this, I absolutely do not think of this in terms of a 'spiritual', meaning non-physical, existence. I do not, for example, look forward in hope to living as a ghost! My faith rather looks forward to a new earth, and a new body with which to explore it! And I think I can go further. I am no longer sure that I hold to the common/popular Christian view of humanity as something tripartite i.e. body - mind - and spirit/soul, which often appears divisive. Rather I have come to prefer to think of humanity more holistically. In other words, whatever I am, I am human. And as a human being I most certainly have a physical dimension, a reasoning and creative dimension and so on, but however these aspects of me are described, they are all still me. And so it is with the spirit, which I consider to be me turned Godward, it is still me. If I might put it in these terms, my understanding of spiritually is the glad recognition that all that I am, all of those aspects of humanity you have described, are given me by the Maker of Heaven and Earth, and to live one's life in light of this is to live a life of worship. And, if I might use a tired old cliche, to be 'born again' is to be made alive to this reality.
You see, in many ways I suspect, that inspite of our many disagreements, there is much common ground, the critical difference of course is that I have come to see the great cathedral of nature as that which declares the glory of God, and myself as one who bows within it.
Complain about this comment
I agree with the gist of your last paragraph. You have to accept of course that for a non-believer there is much in religion which he cannot understand. He may have words, like absolute, trinity and triune, glory of god and even attempts to explain them, but that does not mean that he understands them.
I hope that you return to the new 'earth' of Italy as Michele Amitrano and discover the true meaning of life.
Complain about this comment
Third line: "may heard heard or read" words like...
Complain about this comment
pastorphillip seems to have beaten a retreat back to his pulpit (if he really is a pastor) where he is far less likely to have his words challenged. Disappointing but hardly surprising, at least not to me.
Complain about this comment
Marcus:
Some Ulster Christians cannot resist their little 'jabs'. It seems to be in their 'blood'.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
I'm touched that you missed me! And I hope that is wasn't my absence that kept you up so late!
Yes, I really am a pastor, and I have no problem with my words being challenged. On this blog, I expect it!
Brian seems annoyed at our 'little jabs'....maybe there are not a few who need innoculation!!!
However, I do want to encourage those who do not believe in God to give fair consideration to the evidence, including the fact that people who have come to know God by faith in Christ have a fufillment in their lives they never had before.
It was Augustine who said, "Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find their rest in Thee."
Jesus declared that He came to give people an 'abundant life' (John 10:10)
Christians have discovered He wasn't kidding!!
Complain about this comment
Brian;
Re post 55, you're missing my point.
I asked about your version of the "Absolute", because earler in this thread you said; (post 38)
"Whether or not we believe in a God, we are all faced with the infinite and with ourselves"
You then went on to talk about the "absolute", and so I assumed that that was part of what you meant; however, now you want to limit to "absolute" in many different ways.
In what way are we all faced with the infinte?
Complain about this comment
Brian
I'll look at your defintions on MOn. I'm not ignoring you.
Glanced at your Shakespeare book at the library. My goodness, I'm impressed. How much research went into that?
GV
Complain about this comment
pastorphillip, I'm glad you're back.
That some people find comfort believing in god is not proof or even evidence that god exists. My sister was crushed when she learned at age 5 that there was no Santa Claus. My parents had to tell her the truth because she worried that if Santa can come down the chimney, why can't a burglar?
Some people believe that taking herbs or certain illegal drugs is good for them or at least OK. They say it makes them feel good. Sometimes they are wrong, dead wrong.
Unlike Dawkins, I do not begrudge people who cherish their belief in their delusions so long as they do not become harmful to themselves or others. But there's the rub with many religions. Each one thinks and asserts that they have the exclusive inside track on what is right and wrong and not only want to proselytize their beliefs but if they can't persuade people to "come to Jesus" voluntarily, they would impose it on them by force. When dealing with these people in a "civilized society" we resort to the ballot boxes and lawsuits. When they are uncivilized, we send out our military to bomb them in their caves.
BTW, when it's the missionaries against the cannibals in the movies...I always root for the cannibals. I feel that this is the first useful purpose missionaries have served in the lives. Serving others by being served. :-)
Complain about this comment
Paul (PC3) your posting # 46
You said: "Portwyne, having now read the Guardian article, it's clear that you were wrong. The word 'probably' was used for the same reason Carlsberg used it (to get round regulations) and also because it's impossible to prove that something (even as unlikely as God) doesn't exist.
You seem to have accepted what Ms Sherine said at face value - I have found it useful in life (and work) not automatically to believe what anyone tells me. You will note that in my reference to the Guardian article in my post # 37 I said that Ms Sherine's account was 'somewhat disingenuous' - I did not just toss that phrase in as an otiose verbal flourish, I had looked-up the CAP Code (British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing) to see what it actually required.
Let me quote from Rule 3.1 (Substantiation) "Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation.
I think most people would agree with you that the claim 'There is no God' is "impossible to prove". There is therefore no requirement to hold proof of the assertion prior to publishing it.
I think it is even possible that Carlsberg were themselves being disingenuous - I suspect best, unlike say strongest, is not capable of objective verification. Chesney's , for example, have long marketed their product as 'The World's Most Beautiful Fireplaces' without any problem from the ASA.
If the stated reason for choosing the form of the advert is not necessarily the real one then it is surely legitimate to query, as I did, what the real purpose might be.
Complain about this comment
Graham - post # 63
Brian has written a book on Shakespeare? Tell me more I must read!!
In my impatience I Googled "The Shakespeare Mastermind for Rude Mechanicals" but he appears to have shunned the obvious in his choice of title.
Complain about this comment
All this discussion leaves me puzzled. Is belief in the existance of god a matter that must be taken on faith, a matter that must be proved, or for those seeking followers, they'll take 'em any way they can get 'em? The problem for people who claim to be able to prove the existance of god seems to me to be that their evidence is highly suspect (to put it generously) and their logic badly flawed.
If god has to be proved, then why do so many believers speak about their faith? Have they been unpersuaded by proof also?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mark
I am not sure if your post # 67 was at least in part in response to mine.
I was simply pointing out the official requirements of the British Advertising Standards Authority. They appear only to require an advertiser to prove something that is capable of proof - quite a reasonable position I must say.
If one looks at the volume and nature of the religious advertising they seem to have had no difficulty in permitting it is quite clear that they take the position I hold myself: that God is not capable of being "objectively substantiated".
I really find it really hard to believe how easily people swallowed the line that they would then require Atheists to prove the negative. It is, however, fascinating how quickly how many rational people buy into mythologies.
Complain about this comment
Gveale,Re: post 63. Where did you see Brian's book?
Complain about this comment
portwyne, I was speaking in general about the seeming need for many who want to "sell" the product of their religion to prove that god exists as a scientist would prove a scientific theory based on observation and logical deduction. In the past, I think religion has been sold on faith. Those who sold it asserted that there are some mysteries in life which defy the kind of proof science offers and must be either accepted or rejected without it. I can accept that people feel that way even though I don't believe in god myeslf. But when the creationists try to prove the earth is only 7000 years old and carbon dating doesn't work, or the intelligent design advocates try to prove that the theory of evolution and natural selection isn't valid to justify belief in god, they are way out on a limb they can't crawl back from and sawing themselves off. When their arguments are disproved, their justification for belief in god dies with them.
People speak of someone as being rational or irrational but life is not so simple. We can be rational about some things, irrational about others. Scientists can rationally argue the theory of relativity at one moment based on observations and mathematical equations and irrationally argue the existance of god based on their unsupportable beliefs the next. And that is the point. Is belief in god to be the result of rational or irrational thoughts? Thoughts ruled by emotion or intellect? In the past, dependence on faith as the persuasive method asserted that it was not meant to be a rational conclusion despite the efforts of some philosophers to prove otherwise. Now we have the opposite. So which is it, rational or irrational? Can it be both? Is that presumption irrational in itself? Getting caught in this trap is what made Andy McIntosh look so foolish. You wouldn't know it until he blurted out what was either a blunder of sheer blind ignorance in his supposed field of expertise or an argument which he knew flew in the face of facts. Wilder-Smith on the other hand struck me as someone who is rarely if ever rational.
Complain about this comment
I can't help wondering if this discussion is straying a bit far from the side of the bus!
Besides, any debate about the existence of God must sooner or later confront the Person of Jesus Christ. How do you explain Him without reference to the God He claimed to know as His Father?
Paul wrote, " In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2:9) No other explanation makes sense.
Complain about this comment
It should be too trivial to have to point it out to believers like pastorphilip, but apparently it's not: spelling words with capitols isn't really a valid substitute for sound arguments. 'His Father', 'Person of Jesus Christ', duh.
Quoting bibble verses isn't very convincing either, your pastorship. :D
Complain about this comment
pastorphilip - of course it's possible to discuss god without even referring to Christianity or "the person of Jesus Christ".
It's very presumptuous to think that we are just talking about a Christian god.
It's possible to be a deist who believes in a notion of god as a first cause and still reject all the different flavours of theism.
It's one thing to think that a god created the universe, but to presume to know what that god thinks and that he impacts on our lives and responds to our prayers is an even more outlandish notion.
"in him dwells all the fullness of the godhead bodily - no other explanation makes sense"
Are you trying to tell me that that makes sense.
Any way where's pb ?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
pastorphillip, this makes no sense to me. First of all, many biblical scholars take issue with Colossians even having been written by Paul. Then there is the fact that the epistle may have been written as late as between 70 and 80 AD probably by someone who didn't even know Jesus first hand. There are many theories including that it was written by Timothy. Anyway, this is the conclusion of a mortal man and a primitive one at that. How can it possibly be relied upon unless you take it on "faith" that it is true? Belief in god based on the teachings of the bible relies on circular reasoning. The bible is the word of god, god's existance is attested to in the bible. That is not a valid logical argument and there is no reliable independent evidence or test to prove it. So we are left with faith alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Colossians
" Unlike the Twelve Apostles, there is no indication that Paul ever met Jesus before the latter's crucifixion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus
So we are not even talking about someone who had a first hand experience with Jesus. Now how do you propose to convince me? So far I'm unmoved.
Complain about this comment
Mark - your post # 71
I can almost completely agree with you here though I would go a little further. I would say it is not only possible but healthy to have, on occasion, both rational and non-rational thoughts even about the same thing or matter.
I feel modern society has too readily and too absolutely bought into the the supremacy of reason as interpreter of experience and environment. I absolutely endorse reason and science in their place: I simply impose limits on that place. I think creationism and intelligent design are rationally speaking nonsensical and the result of a category mistake by religious believers. Instead of arguing - or indeed just asserting - the bounds of rationality they are embarking on an impossible, fruitless and ultimately impoverishing argument. Science has nothing important or useful to say about spirituality and equally the spiritual man has (from that perspective) no especially useful contribution to make to science's quest for knowledge.
PeterM - I find we agree about the effect what I might clinically call the religious experience should have on a believer's life, how it should shape his attitudes and actions. I think Brian is right in suggesting you understand and perhaps sympathise with my position on a lot of issues. Your post # 43, with most of which I can agree, nonetheless highlights the one, absolutely central, tenet of my world-view which you either have not quite grasped or cannot accept. You suggest that I do not think Christ was real but, on the contrary, I think he was and is totally and transcendently real.
For me reality is not bound up in historical narrative; in a religious sense, reality is where the seen and unseen realms collide and in their collision chime a resonance which vibrates though human perception undiminished by constraints of time or space. I see such a resonance in the person, ministry, teaching, and self-sacrifice of Jesus the Christ.
Jesus is sublimely real.
Complain about this comment
Brian - post # 38
I wish just to comment on one point - you said that I "have already dismissed disciplines such as philosophy and economics, which try to understand the complexities of life". That is absolutely true and absolutely consistent with my thought processes. I have no desire to understand the complexities of life - quite the opposite - I have been trying (obviously with very limited success) to assert that the understanding is an inadequate instrument with which to approach the tapestry of existence. I wish rather to embrace complexity - to dance with it and indeed (if I can borrow PeterM's metaphor) all around it.
Complain about this comment
Portwyne:
Rubbish.
You are hardly dancing with complexity on the joke thread, linking a radio humiliation of a comedian who has stood for 'humiliation' (get the joke?) to attacks on old people. This is crass transference of the worst kind. In fact, that thread reveals that, behind all the apparent freethinking hippy god talk, you are actually a puritan at heart.
Perhaps a bit of philosophy would sort your mind out a bit.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Actually I don't get the joke you're trying to make, unless of course you think humiliation is funny. Personally whether it's Faulty Towers, or Ross or Brand, I don't find humiliation funny. There is one possible difference though, and it lies in the fact that Manuel was fictional, Mr. Sachs is real. However even though this is the case we ought always to consider the sub-text.
Maybe we can pick it up on the joke thread.
One thing did make me laugh though - Puritanical Portwyne - screamer!!
Complain about this comment
Portwyne
When I speak of the historical reality I do not mean less than, Jesus the Christ was and is totally transcendently real; what I mean is that he who has always been real, also became real (flesh like us) in order that we like Saint John the Apostle might say, "we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the father, full of grace and truth."
I can therefore also agree that, "reality is where the seen and unseen realms collide and in their collision chime a resonance which vibrates though human perception undiminished by constraints of time or space. I see such a resonance in the person, ministry, teaching, and self-sacrifice of Jesus the Christ."
Please understand that when I speak of history I do not limit God to the dust of Palestine, but what I will say is that God has chosen to overlap heaven and earth, the unseen and the seen finally and fully in the person of Jesus the Christ. That God in Christ is both imminent and transcendent, that he brought significance to both the washing of dust from dirty feet and to prayer lends dignity and meaning to all aspects of our lives.
If I might refer to NT Wright, "God's future has arrived in the present, has arrived in the person of Jesus, (and) not only heaven and earth, but also future and present, overlap and interlock. And the way that interlocking becomes real, not just imaginary, is through the powerful work of God's Spirit... Christian ethics is not a matter of discovering what's going on in the world and getting in tune with it. It is not a matter of doing things to earn God's favour. It is not about trying to obey dusty rule-books from long ago or far away. It is about practising, in the present, the tunes we shall sing in God's new world.
Yes indeed Jesus is sublimely real.
?
Complain about this comment
hi pk
i would have thought that using capitals for words like, father, his, lord, christ, jesus, saviour and so on would probably make grammatical sense if written in something like the following order, lord and saviour jesus christ, our advocate with the father, (although i suspect that jesus being a popular south american forename might always warrant a capital ‘J’ in the same way that you and i warrant a capital ‘P’)
but you are right about one thing, CAPITALS don't make an ArGuMeNt, although i doubt that pastorphilip was relying on uppercase letters to make his point.
Hi Oliver
Of course is possible to discuss god, God, or gods, without referring to Jesus, but I don't think that was the point. I think the point was that 'sooner or later' we might have to say something about it. And we might!
You then go on to say, "It's one thing to think that a god created the universe, but to presume to know what that god thinks and that he impacts on our lives and responds to our prayers is an even more outlandish notion."
Even more outlandish? Why?
I actually am a christian and it's the god bit, you know that idea that there actually is one that, from time to time, bothers me. You see, you have a false premise in that last sentence. It's one thing to say that god might impact our lives (which he might want to if he made us) but to think that we might 'presume to know what that god thinks' is a presumption I do not make. People keep telling me that they find it impossible to accept events like, the virgin birth, the deity of Jesus and the resurrection as true, frankly, when I doubt, these are not the things I doubt, when I doubt it's the concept of God I doubt, full stop.
Complain about this comment
Peter:
I wasn't trying to defend Ross or Brand, who were wrong and have been dealt with. I was merely pointing out their thinking. The reaction has definitely been OTT: too much moralising and not enough morality.
Complain about this comment
I'm glad to see that - irrespective of the authorship of Colossians and my use of capitals (!) - some consideration is at last being given to Jesus Christ and His claim to be divine.
Christians contend that the only logical explanation of His virgin birth, sinless life, His teaching, miracles, death and resurrection, is that what the gospel writers were witnessing was nothing less than 'God manifested in the flesh'
(1 Timothy 3:16)
To hold on to atheism surely requires a credible alternative explanation for the person of Jesus Christ - and there simply isn't one.
Complain about this comment
Pastorphilip:
Your last paragraph is obscure and needs clarification. All anyone needs is a bit of historical accuracy, surely?
Virgin birth? Like Osiris Etc? It's a common myth, surely? 'Sinless life'? How do you know? Apart from anything else, there are long gaps in the life story as told in the Gospels. His teaching? Not original. Check Confucius, the Buddha, Isocrates etc. Miracles? Don't believe them. Death. Surely. Resurrection? A likely story.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Points about Ross and Brand taken, ignore my comments on the relevant thread.
I'm sure pastorphilip is more than capable of dealing with your points in post 85 so, for now, just a few quick comments.
Virgin birth? In the bible we are dealing with historical people. 'Sinless life'? We could discuss biblical authority! How does he know? We could discuss biblical authority!! There are long gaps in the life story in the gospels. We could discuss the authors', purpose, intention and audience. His teaching not original. I think its the bits which actually are unique which are the problem. As in I am or even 'I Am' (the capitals are important here!) the way, rather than I teach a way. Miracles? You don't believe them. OK let's not discuss them!!! But then that sort of rules out virgin births, sinless lives, biblical authority, unique teaching, and resurrection!!! (see my point to Oliver above) Resurrection? Well if there's probably no God then he probably didn't die and he probably didn't rise!!!!
Complain about this comment
Brian
Thank-you. I am delighted with the thought of myself as a puritan - I cherish your notion and will try to refrain from imagining the undoubtedly vibrant inner life which gives you such a perspective.
I am slightly annoyed at the attack on my hippy credentials nonetheless. I am totally at one with "peace and love" as a mantra for life - I am glad though that I cannot see the love (as I failed to see the joke) in humiliating an elderly man for amusement and money. I would not have thought there was a lot of humanism in it either - if you see it, well, that sort of philosophy I can well do without.
Peter - I would probably phrase some thing differently and see some things from a different angle but essentially would arrive at the same conclusion as in your post # 81.
Complain about this comment
pastorphillip, the credible alternative is that I don't believe any of it. I don't have faith. My mind does not work that way. It takes a leap of faith to buy into this story even if the people who wrote it were not primitives or did not rely on second or third hand accounts. There is no way to prove or disprove it. This is why it cannot be explained within the realm of science or a pseudoscience trying to masquerade as one. There is no evidence for it, just a story in a book. I've got videos of what people swear are flying saucers. Some were hoaxes, some were weather balloons, some were rare but explainable optical phenomena, and some had no explanation at all but I do not believe space aliens have visited earth (except for Wilder-Smith :-) This is why I ask if those who tolerate the young earth creationists or the intelligent design advocates are looking for converts any way they can get them? Would you call someone who relies on that type of badly flawed science for their belief a true Christian?
Complain about this comment
#82
Peter, thanks for your comment.
what i think i was trying to say was that the more we atttribute to a god the more unlikely it seems. A god creator seems the simplest of ideas, but then more and more has to be added to this basic principle for us to end up with the Christian god.
as an atheist i don't even believe in the creator god, so i wouldn't presume to know what your faith leads you to believe.
Marcus, i'm sure that some of the theists on this site would agree that it is not possible to prove god scientifically, and that science doesn't deal with religious matters.
So what i want to ask is, what standards of proof do we apply to religion if we aren't allowed to apply the scientific method ?
We can hardly rely on religious texts to validate their own truth - as Sam Harris says - you end up with an epistemological black hole.
Complain about this comment
Brian
You aren't the first to be sceptical about the resurrection of Jesus Christ: so was Frank Morison....until he examined the evidence for himself.(see his book 'Who Moved the Stone?')
Of course, miracles - such as the virgin birth or the resurrection - are impossible....unless God was involved. Obviously He was!
As to the Gospel records themselves, it is worth remembering that there is abundant documentary evidence to support their authenticity - much more than books of similar antiquity, and whose provenance is never questioned.
Christians have nothing to fear from an honest examination of the evidence. I accept that evidence is not 'proof', but the facts are clearly on our side!
Complain about this comment
Pastorphilip:
Just a couple of questions for the moment.
1. Was Osiris resurrected?
2. What is the evidence that supports the authenticity of the Jesus resurrection?
Complain about this comment
OliverBenin
"What standards of proof do we apply to religion...?)
I don't know. That's your problem not mine. I don't have a religion. Therefore it is of no concern to me. I just want to know from a pastor's point of view if god's existance is justified by faith alone, must have some sort of scientific explanation, or if any method of persuasion that works is alright. I merely point out that if it requires a scientific explanation as some attempt and that explanation is discredited as many scientific theories are, where does that leave you? Is badly flawed science like ID better than no science at all if it sells the product?
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian,
Pardon me for butting in but,
"Was Osiris resurrected?"
I think the answer is:
Isis briefly brought Osiris back to life by use of a spell that she learned from her father. This spell gave her time to become pregnant by Osiris before he again died.
(or 'no', for short)
So I suppose we could say he went out with a bang.
And of course coming back to life is NOT the same thing as resurrection!!
;-)
Complain about this comment
#92
??
its not a problem for me either - i was just throwing it out there as a line of enquiry for the theists to respond to, from what i can gather i think we were making pretty much the same point.
Complain about this comment
pastorphillip, I'm the test god sent you. You're flunking badly. You haven't even come close to convincing me I have a soul let alone succeeded in saving it. I hate to break it to you but you are going to hell when you die :-)
Complain about this comment
Peter:
You say that "Isis briefly brought Osiris back to life by use of a spell that she learned from her father. This spell gave her time to become pregnant by Osiris before he again died". Do you actually believe this? Or are you being mischievous?
The word 'resurrection' is open to interpretation. There are, of course, nuanced differences in different myths and within these myths. The Jesus one disagrees about it. In some versions he appeared in human form; in other versions he appeared as a spirit. But in neither did he return to earth to live as a human being.
Neither did Osiris. In the usual form of his myth, Osiris was thrown into the Nile in a coffin by his brother Set who had tricked him into it. Isis, his wife and sister, found the body and hid it in a marsh. Set found the body, tore it into thirteen pieces and throw it back into the river. Isis found all the pieces, except his penis which had been eaten by fish. She bandaged the body together and fashioned a phallus out of gold. She then sang a song around Osiris until he came back to life. They conceived Horus and Osiris then went to the underworld to become king over and judge of the dead.
If Osiris was able to conceive without real genitals, then I think we can truly say he was more resurrected than Jesus!
Complain about this comment
Brian,
You asked about evidence for the resurrection of Jesus - if I may summarise....
1. The tomb of Jesus was empty on the third day after He died.
2. No credible alternative explanation has been found for why that was so.
3. Many eye witnesses saw Him alive.
4. The Disciples of Jesus were transformed men, subsequently preaching fearlessly the Gospel of the Risen Christ. Most went to their deaths with that conviction, and not one confessed that their preaching had been based on a lie.
5. The existence and survival of the Christian Church.
6. The setting aside of Sunday as a day for regular Christian worship.
7. He changed lives then; He still does now!
I respectfully suggest that Jesus Christ desreves rather more attention than Osiris!!
Marcus,
(You do keep late hours, don't you?!)
Love to know your opinion of the above, since the 'test' for all of us is how we respond to Christ and what He has done. Knowing Him personally is what life is all about, and also delivers from the fear of hell!
Complain about this comment
Brian
I can't really believe you asked me if I was serious about believing the Osiris story. You called me a fundamentalist - remember?
There is a significant difference, which you overlook, between the Jesus narrative and what we popularly call myth and it can basically be summed up in this way. The record of Jesus speaks of him, eating and drinking, washing dusty feet and having dusty feet, sleeping on a cushion/pillow, doodling with his finger in the dust, and post resurrection cooking and eating fish. In other words there is a surprising amount of the ordinary in this God story.
Of course you wish to set various aspects of the record of Christ's resurrection in opposition to one another, but as I said in another post a while back, if you are up for more biblical interpretation, I'm more than happy to travel the road with you.
C.S. Lewis put it this way, "I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legend and myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know none of them are like this. Of this (the gospel) text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage...or else, some unknown writer...without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic realistic narrative."
I'm glad though that you recognise the difference between resurrection and merely coming back to life to die again.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
You say, "pastorphillip, I'm the test god sent you.
Em, no you're not.
But perhaps Obama is the test God sent you!
Complain about this comment
pastorphillip, I don't believe any of it. But if by some improbable circumstance (I don't believe in probability except as a mathematical abstraction as I think it has no place in the real world but this is merely a manner of speaking) someone could demonstrate that these events happend as they are said to have, I would not believe the explanaton in the bible or what theologians have to offer. I do not take the word of primitives who thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. Those people knew nothing, they had no actual knowlege. Even a child today could easily fool people of their experience with countless tricks.
I am not afraid of hell because I do not believe it exists except in the imaginations of those who were frightened as children to believe in it. But if there is a hell and I go there, I'll try to send you a postcard, preferably a picture postcard so that you can see what you are missing... unless you beat me to it :-)
petermorrow
If Barack Obama is god's test of me, I'm surely going to hell because once I get past his slick talk, he has not proven to me through any accopmlishments in his life except getting a diploma from Harvard Law School and persuading people to vote for him that he has accomplished anything of merit and is qualified to be President. Because his opponent was equally incompetent for entirely different reasons, I did not vote for either of them. I voted NO! At least I will have the satisfaction of not having endorsed the captain of the Titanic for his new assignment. The difference is that the ship has already hit more than one iceberg and is taking on water before he even takes command.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
Do you really believe that those who lived at the time of Christ 'knew nothing... had 'no actual knowledge' and were 'primitives who thought the earth was flat' etc? I'd love to know the name of an ancient historian who shares that view!!
As I say, the documents of the New Testament are well authenticated and the accounts of Christ's resurrection well supported by eye witness testimony. And 21st century scepticism won't make the evidence go away!!
Complain about this comment
The name of the historian who documented that most people believed that the world was flat is lost to history. He went off sailing into the horizon one day and was never seen or heard from again. Most people believed he fell over the edge and went to hades.
Do you accept the testimony of those who swear they've seen flying saucers too pastor phillip? How about those who say they've been abducted by aliens from other worlds? And what about those who say they've died, crossed over to another world and come back. Far more people say these things than ever said they saw Jesus rise from the dead. It may be due to mass delusion, illusion, insanity, a hoax or any one of a number of other explanations but it doesn't even begin to constitute proof. It's just a story. A made up story used to invent a religion.
Yes they were true primitives and had no real knowledge at all. A typical five year old today knows far more than they ever learned about the real nature of their physical existance in their entire lives combined. It is hard to imagine what it was like to live pretty much as people in the stone age who lived in caves did. But their existance was not so far removed from it.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
I don't want to get involved in the specifics of the debate - for me it's the reality not the historicity of the resurrection which matters.
But what's with the down on primitives? Primitive societies have maybe as much to teach us as we them - if not more. Do we live at one with our environment? Are we vividly conscious of that dense weaving of all the stands of existence of which your name sake wrote? Have our lives the edge and vigour given by the immediacy of the quest for survival? Do we value long lives over rich lives?
Don't dismiss the primitive!!
I would, though, also question your idea that the Judea of Jesus' day could reasonably be considered primitive. It was part of the Roman Empire, previously part of Alexander's Empire. The sophistication of Hellenistic thought had certainly penetrated to its educated classes at least some of whom would have been counted among Jesus' followers. I would suggest their education far surpassed that of the majority of British school-leavers today. They would not, for example, have believed in a flat earth, the notion had been rejected by most of the major thinkers centuries earlier.
Complain about this comment
Hi Marcus
Why don't you spend the weekend trying to make fire from damp twigs and flint, assuming, of course, that you can find both.
Complain about this comment
It amy be worth noting that Obama won between 1/3 and 1/4 of self identifying evangelicals. Down on Clinton, but up on Kerry.
I would be much more interested to see how faithful church attending evangelicals (ie those with "internalised" religious attitudes) voted, as opposed to polls that focus on "externalised" faith (mere self identification). Pollsters often don't care.
But if the Veritas Forum or Christianity Today's website are anythng to go by, the alliance between Evangelicals and the GOP is under review.
G Veale
Complain about this comment
In fact the "God Gap" is narrowing according to some reports. This shouldn't be surprising. Many Black and Latino Churches have conservative views on Abortion and Gay Marriage, yet have traditionally voted Democrat.
Evangelicalism tends to be a sub-urban phenomenon, as is support for Republicans.
Steve Bruce has argued that the Religious Right could never achieve it's goals, as it could never accomodate it's idealism to the pragmatics of political life. There is also a traditional suspicion of politicians in Fundamentalist Churches that has never quite disappeared.
Younger Evangelicals have tended to show more concern over the Environment and Poverty. Voting Democrat would be one way to signal to the old guard that these need to be given as much priority as Abortion or Stem Cell research.
An interesting piece of Moral Panic can be read in this piece by Robert George. Presumably he will be expecting a Presidential order for the Slaughter of the Innocents in Bethlehem Pennsylvania.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/printerfriendly.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama's%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml
In fact it occurs to me that if Obama were to moderate, say, some of his support for Stem Cell Research or Partial Birth Abortion then he could still pursue a strong Pro-Choice agenda, AND look like a moderate who is willing to compromise and unite the nation.
Some info. on how the Religious voted for those with nothing to do...
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2008/11/06/copy/electreligion.ART_ART_11-06-08_A3_2HBQEGO.htmladsec=politics&sid=101
Complain about this comment
It also occurs to me that I've posted these on the wrong thread. Apologies. Not that anyone reads my missives anyway...
Complain about this comment
Pastorphilip:
Claims of resurrections or 'spirit' appearances are legion. Did the miracle of Lourdes happen? You think that in the earlier resurrection myths, nobody claimed to have been there either? They were just 'made up', I suppose.
The only alleged eye witness of the Jesus resurrection myth who actually wrote anything about it is Paul. How reliable is he? As Marcus says, thousands of people have claimed to have seen have seen flying saucers, etc, but it doesn’t exactly count as evidence. No neutral or hostile witness or contemporary wrote anything, not Joseph, Caiaphas, Pilate or anyone alive at the time. No critical historian documents a single detail, or even the claim itself, until centuries later, and then only by Christian apologists who can only cite the New Testament as their source.
No physical evidence of any kind was produced - no coins, no inscriptions, no documentary papyri. And everything that followed in history was caused by the belief in that resurrection, not the resurrection itself - and we know an actual resurrection is not the only possible cause of a belief in a resurrection. So, again, we still have no eyewitness testimony to the Resurrection.
Take the alleged resurrection of Romulus, which was believed by many Romans. It was written about by various writers who claimed to be eyewitnesses. Romulus, after reigning as king for thirty-seven years, suddenly disappeared during a gathering. At the same time there was a solar eclipse, accompanied by a violent thunderstorm. There was no trace of Romulus to be found. However, one morning he appeared to his friend Julius Proculus, larger and more beautiful than in real life, armed with weapons shining like fire. Although in a state of shock, the friend managed to take in Romulus' last words and instructions. The resurrected Romulus explained that he now dwelled again in heaven, where he originally came from. Proculus reported his experience to the Roman people and vouched for the accuracy of his account with a solemn oath. Others claimed that he appeared to them as well.
As I said on another thread, the earliest Christian community, including Paul, believed that Jesus Christ rose from the dead 'spiritually'. They did not believe that he rose from the dead 'bodily'. This is supported by the facts.
The Christian community then went through a process, an evolutionary process of thought regarding the resurrection of Jesus until about a half century had passed, and then, and only then, do we find these fantastic embellishments and exaggerations in the thoughts of the early Christians of a 'bodily’' resurrected Jesus.
Complain about this comment
And an answer to my question - in part.
"Mr. Obama ... also cut the Republican share of votes among those who attend church weekly or more often to 55% from 61%".
Wall Street Journal
Again, I'd like exact figures on Evangelicals if anyone can find them.
GV
Complain about this comment
portwyne
Think for a moment what primitives didn't know than any five year old knows today. They didn't know that the earth was a sphere about 8000 miles in diameter. They didn't know that the sun is just another star only closer than the others. They didn't know that living things are made out of cells. They didn't know what DNA was. They didn't know that diseases are caused by viruses ande bacteria. They didn't know what an atom or a molecule was. They didn't know that clouds are nothing more than water vapor. They didn't know that our sun is one of 400 billion stars in our galaxy and that there are between 50 billion and a trillion galaxies. They didn't know that the universe is 12.5 billion years old and that the earth is 4 billion years old.
They thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe. They thought everything was made of four elements earth water fire and air. They thought disease was god's will. And you expect me to take their explanation of how the universe was created seriously? Why should they know any more about that than they did about anything else? BTW, they didn't all live in harmony with their environment, some ancient civilizations perished beacuse they didn't. But that they did not adversely affect their environment to the degree we do only proves that they had no control over it, they were completely at its mercy. That is why they had to invent fantasies to explain what they couldn't understand. When it came to the physical universe, even Aristotle's ideas were a joke. But to continue to believe in them in light of what we do know in our modern world reflects a degree of absurd irrationality which boggles the mind. It's one thing to study ancient civilizations, it's quite another to accept their beliefs as true because they were handed down to children from generation to generation for thousands of years. In that regard, some of us are still primitives ourselves. But not me.
Complain about this comment
Brian
These parallels no longer have any credence in the academic community. That is, peer-reviewed Scholarship has left it behind. There is simply too great a gap between "appearances" or "rebirths" of legendary figures, and the "resurrection" of an historical figure. There is no clear way to explain how a Jewish group could begin with pagan ideas (a theology based on Osiris) and then become more Jewish
(a Theology based on a Pharisaic view of Resurrection) as time went on.
You also seem to be endorsing a view that is similar to that of the form critics - that the Resurrection stories were passed on by oral tradition. Which is true - but the Form critics used the parallel of Scandanavian epics etc. The Palestinian Jewish community had a much more structured method of passing on Oral Tradition/History.
So on the two key points (method of transmission/ theological content) your comparison of the Easter Story with Osiris etc. will not hold. You need a better explanation for the origins of Easter Faith.
GVeale
Complain about this comment
Graham:
"These parallels no longer have any credence in the academic community". This is total nonsense. who says so? What academic community?
You are actually telling me that all the other resurrections are fakes and that yours is not? You must be kidding!
"The resurrections of legendary figures cannot be compared to an historical figure"? I'm sorry, but I am rolling in the aisles at this one! What is 'historical' about Jesus? Surely, there is much dispute about him. Which Jesus?
And if we agree on which one, which stories about him are true and which are false?
Romulus did exist, according to many in 'the academic community'.
Incidentally, Graham, please stop lumping the 'academic community' together as if it was a homogeneous sect which is on your side. It isn't. Academics disagree about a lot of things, and quoting some who may agree with you as if their opinion was 'gospel' is not very 'scientific'.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
Sorry I can't reply as fully as I'd like to - am off on the circuit once again and have to rush.
We have made scientific progress and advanced human knowledge but are we really better-off as a result? We are conditioned to think of new discoveries as progress but often they only change the pattern of suffering. We cure or ameliorate physical diseases only to open ourselves to depression and the other mental illness of plenty. We extend lifespan but destroy community condemning many of those we keep alive to lonely and meaningless existences in nursing homes and hospitals.
I could exist very well without any notion of the diameter of the earth or the age of the universe. We might be better feeling that spirits shaped the world rather than knowing that it is a random happenstance.
I could say more but have to dash.
How's that for hope and light, John?
Have a good weekend all - mine will be busy but, shall we say, lubricated...
Complain about this comment
Brian
a) I'm not lumping the academic community together on my side. I'm using standard textbooks as my source; and I'm saying that those who reject the Resurrection don't use parallels with the mystery religions to do so.
b) The disanalogies bewteen Osiris and Christ are huge. Of course that doesn't prove the resurrection happened. It doesn't even prove you are wrong to draw an analogy. But simply drawing attention to long noticed similarities doesn't prove much, as the similarities do not explain the nature or transmission of Easter Faith.
c) Osiris was not "Resurrected". Not many Pharisees in Ancient Egypt, I imagine.
GV
Complain about this comment
Oh, if you're rolling in the aisles you haven't read widely enough on the topic. There is a wide consensus on many key facts. Interpretations differ.
GV
Complain about this comment
Now where to begin? Spirit appearances or resurrections? Paul and the absence(?) of other writers? Reliability? Hostile witnesses? Coins? (Was that coins? What the heck have coins got to do with it?) Papyri? Belief, or as Helio would write, *belief* in the resurrection as opposed to actual resurrection? Eye witnesses? Wolf boy? (and his brother) The idea that Paul believed in a spiritual Jesus resurrection? (Mmmmm, maybe) Which Jesus? (I'm Je-spartacus) Or fantastical embellishments?
Any ideas anyone?
Complain about this comment
-gveale
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here, just interested to know which standard text books you are using as you source. As some of your argument sounds like special pleading.
In fact, Brian - I'd be interested in your sources as well.
I find this an endlessly fascinating topic. A lot of claims are made for the historicity of Jesus - but I’d like to know is there any consensus amongst biblical scholars ? (believers and non believers)
Complain about this comment
"The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide" by Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz
"The Shadow of the Gallilean" by Gerd Thiessen
"The Gospels and Jesus" (Oxford Bible Series) by Graham N. Stanton
"Jesus Remembered" James Dunn
"Jesus of Nazareth" by Paula Fredriksen
"The Historical Figure of Jesus" by E. P. Sanders
"Jesus and Judaism" by E. P. Sanders
A wide variety of interpreters there, not one of whom wants to use Graeco-Roman/Egyptian religion as the source of the Resurrection.
For a consensus view of the Historical Jesus
http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl80/Comm11.htm
Again, not an Evangelical. He outlines his own views here.
http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Dec1997/feature3.asp
So anyone who knows my posts will know I'm not sending you to a scholar who will tell you what I want you to hear.
I'm away for the weekend again, so see y'all Monday.
GVeale
Complain about this comment
My conscience won't let me not include an Evangelical. But the article does give a good outline of current thinking on Jesus, even if you don't agree with the conclusions.
http://www.craigaevans.com/Third_Quest.rev.pdf
Much more radical - James Tabor's website. But he has the reputation of being an excellent scholar.
So you have Tabor, radical. Meier, moderate. Evans, conservative.
If that doesn't give you a good view of Historical Jesus research, and help you form a picture, you should pursue a PhD.
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/indexb.html
G Veale
Complain about this comment
thanks Graham - enjoy your weekend.
Complain about this comment
Graham, Pastorphilip:
All the following writers dispute the historicity of the so-called Jesus resurrection:
Bruno Bauer: Christianity Exposed
Earl Doherty: The Jesus Puzzle
Everett Ferguson: Background of Early Christianity
Freke and Gandy: The Jesus Mysteries
William Harwood: Mythology's Last Gods
Hoffman and Larue: Jesus in History and Myth
Randel Helms: Gospel Fictions
David Hume: Dialogues of Natural Religion
Werner Kelber, et al: The Passion in Mark
Michael Martin: The Case against Christianity
Frans Neirynck: Duality in Mark
Robert Price: Deconstructing Jesus
Uta Ranke Heinemann: Putting Away Childish Things
Ernest Renan: Jesus
J.M. Robertson: The Historical Jesus
J.M. Roberston: The Jesus Problem
J.M. Roberston: Pagan Christs
Baruch Spinoza: Theologico-Political Treatise
Bishop Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality
Albert Schweitzer: THe Quest of the Historical Jesus
David Strauss: Life of Jesus Critically Examined
Geza Vermes: Jesus the Jew
Johannes Weiss: Jesus’s Proclamation of the Kingdom of God
G.A. Wells: The Jesus Myth
G.A. Wells: The Jesus Legend
G.A. Wells: The Historical Evidence for Jesus
A.N. Wilson: Jesus
Wilhelm Wrede: The Messianic Secret
Your own list includes nobody who could claim to be remotely objective on the topic. Some of the above resurrection sceptics, however, claimed to be Christians.
The notion that the so-called empty tomb, which is a legend without any basis in fact, proves anything about anything is ludicrous. First of all, Paul says nothing about it, though he believes in a resurrection. I think it is patently obvious that it is an embroidery on an event - a resurrection- that people wanted to imagine in a concrete sense. Christians have generally looked on the empty tomb story as a sort of consequence of the resurrection, and then classified it as a proof of the resurrection. But, even if there were an empty tomb, it proves precisely zilch.
There are are many possible reasons why a tomb might be empty. The women in the story might have gone to the wromng tomb; the disciples saw hallucinations; Jesus didn't die on the cross but was resusitated; some unknown person(s) removed the body.
The most obvious is that his friends removed the body to Galilee for burial. Even Matthew says that there was a story in circulation that the disciples had stolen the body. Suppose that you are on holiday in Paris and decide to visit the tomb of Napoleon in the Invalides. You find the tomb completely empty. Would you conclude that the emperor had risen from the dead and gone to heaven? Of course not. You would probably conclude that the body or bones were taken out of it!
If there was a Jesus; if he died on the cross; if he was buried in a tomb; and if his friends removed the body; then it looks as if they invented the story of a resurrection. There are many 'if's but the most improbable one of all is to say: "if he rose from the dead..."
The whole of pagan history is infused with the idea of rebirth in the spring. The Jesus story merely replicates it. Surely that is obvious to any intelligent inquirer. Sure, there are variations, but they all share the same basic idea.
Complain about this comment
so pastor phillip, are we all going to meet in hell or what? How disappointing it will be if I don't see you there. But if you do manage to get there, according to you I'll have an eternity to find you. After all, there have only been a few billion people who ever lived put together. Think of all the eons we'll have to meet them all. BTW, wear a red carnation on your lapel so I can recognize you. I'll buy the first round.
Complain about this comment
Peter, Graham, Pastorphilip et al:
Reading some of your comments, I think that if you will insist that earlier 'resurrections' were not really resurrections, then you will have to explain why not. A resurrection is an act of rising from the dead or returning to life.
Whether it is 'physical' or 'spiritual' or both is irrelevant.
In this definition, Adonis, Attis, Osiris, Tammuz, Romulus, Dionysus, Krishna, Mithra(s) and Quetzalcoatl were all resurrected.
If you say not, then you will explain in detail why each of the above was not in fact resurrected and that each belief was mistaken.
You cannot dismiss the tales of these pagan resurrected saviours as mythology while adamantly insisting that it is rational to believe that the story of Jesus's resurrection is factual or that his 'resurrection' was somehow 'better' than theirs. Showing that Christianity isn't an exact clone of Pagan resurrections doesn't disprove charges of plagiarism. This is just not good enough.
You also have to explain God's point in performing this act to a selected group of observers in a small corner of the earth.
The so-called resurrection of Jesus is presumably meant to prove God's triumph over death and to assure humankind that, by believing in this deed, God will perform the same deed for us. But why did he not, for example, carve 'Jesus lives' on the face of the moon, where all mankind could witness the miracle, instead of relying on hearsay and inconsistent localised reports which are bound to be questioned by a sceptical and rational mind?
Why is this God continually playing tedious games of hide-and-seek? Why is he asking us today to believe a 2000 year-old secondhand Middle Eastern report recorded only by the small number who believed in it?
Complain about this comment
Brian
The authors I quoted do not all believe in the physical resurrection. They simply do not make use of Osiris et al in their explanations.
Paula Friedrikden is a Jew, EP Sanders is agnostic, Gerd Thiessen does not hold to a physical resurrection. James Tabor is a radical.
Renan, Wrede etc. don't exactly count as recent research. Spong is not a NT scholar, GA Wells views are usually dealt with in a few paragraphs in most texts.
I'm not questioning your breadth of reading. I'm just pointing out that the current consensus has moved away from your sort of explanation. Of course this doesn't prove that you're wrong.
I'll have more time to respond to your substantial questions tomorrow or Monday. I just want to make it clear that I am *not* saying that contemporary scholarship unaminously advocates the Resurrection. And I did not give a list of conservative evangelical scholars.
G Veale
Complain about this comment
EP Sanders is agnostic about the physical resurrection - not an agnostic. Bad typo there. Apologies.
GV
Complain about this comment
Graham:
Look, I said that it doesn't matter whether we are talking a physical or a spiritual resurrection: almost certainly they did not happen.
When you say that a 'current consensus' has moved away from 'my sort of explanation', what on earth do you mean? That most scholars accept that Jesus was resurrected in some way? I'm sorry, but that is nonsense.
If most scholars believed there was a resurrection of a human being in Palestine around 30AD, it is not just we non-believers who would have to sit and take notice.
Imagine the newspapers headlines: "There was almost certainly a resurrection of Jesus", say experts. How would Hindus, Sikhs and Jews react?
Complain about this comment
I expect pastor phillip has been too busy writing his sermon for today to bother himself with internet blogs. I don't blame him. It's hard. Hey maybe that opens up a niche for a business on the internet, selling pre-canned sermons. A catalog of 20 minute sermons, example #64871, the ressurection of Christ and how it affects your life in modern times; $100. Master Card and Visa cheerfully accepted. Think of all the time that would save clergymen around the world for other things.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
I must refer you to Ecclesiastes 1 vv. 9-10: "...there is no new thing under the sun. Is there a thing whereof men say, See, this is new? it hath been already..."
You might care to look at - the only thing is they definitely missed a trick - doesn't look like they charge!
I think this lot might suit the pastor all right - but, if I've wronged him, he'll undoubtedly let us know...
Complain about this comment
Sorry - here's the missing link!
http://www.bible-sermons.org.uk/
Complain about this comment
My Mother In Law was resurrected once at the dentists when she had a rather bad reaction to the anaesthetic. She, the dentist and his assistant were witnesses, but she's yet to start a world religion.
Complain about this comment
Brian & Marcus,
Christians accept the Biblical account of Christ's physical resurrection from the dead. ('Spiritual Resurrection' is a contradiction in terms.)
This is obviously what Paul believed - he knew how vital this historical event was to Christian faith, and in 1 Corinthians 15 he discusses its importance, and lists eyewitnesses who saw the risen Christ alive.
The evidence is available for anyone to examine, but Jesus Himself predicted that resurrection would not be enough to persuade people that the Scripture is true. (see Luke 16v31)
Seems He got that right too!
Complain about this comment
pastorphillip, I am not a Christian. I do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I also do not believe in the immaculate conception. In fact I have no beliefs in the supernatural at all. But this brings us full circle back to my point which neither you nor other believers answered. Is belief in god a matter strictly of faith or does it require scientific proof which creationists, intelligent design and others advocating similar theories try to advance. If that is the case and their scientific evidence or logic proves flawed, doesn't that in effect defeat the argument for the existance of god? It seems to me that even the Catholic Church now accepts the theory of evolution as scientific fact beyone dispute.
Complain about this comment
Hi Marcus
You say the question about faith and science has not been answered, however I recall a long discussion, a very long discussion where I almost lost the will to live (!), a while back relating to faith and reason; maybe the answers were not to your liking.
Let me then try a different approach. Are you asking if there is scientific evidence for God and is scientific evidence the only kind of evidence you will accept?
By scientific I mean, can we observe god, place him in a lab, measure him, weigh him and so on, if you mean something different let me know.
BTW I'm not a scientist so if I've got my view all wrong you're going to have to help me out.
Complain about this comment
Pastorphilip:
"Spiritual resurrection is a contradiction in terms"
Well, now, human beings have a spirit, i.e. a consciousness or vital principle or force within them. It is an integral part of our material being and dies when we die. It cannot be resurrected BECAUSE
there cannot be a physical resurrection of the brain from which it emanates.
When you are dead, you are truly and finally dead and the worms have a good meal. This is true of Romulus, if he existed, Dionysus, if he existed, Tammuz, if he existed, Mithra, if he existed, Osiris, if he existed, Krishna, if he existed.
And, Pastorphilip, it is true of a man called Jesus Christ, if he existed. No one escapes the grim reaper. You accused atheists on this thread of being fools. Well, anyone who believes that Jesus Christ or anyone else rose from the dead is certainly being very foolish indeed.
Complain about this comment
Brian
I made it very clear that I was *not* saying that most modern scholars believe in the Resurection accounts.
I made it very clear that modern scholars do not use parallels to Graeco-Roman religions etc. in their explanations. Osiris was a mythological figure, Jesus was not. Legends about other ancient figures were not written within two or three generations of that figure.
This does not, by itself, prove historicity or anything like it. After all, we have contemporary reports that Benny Hinn performs miracles. All we know is that witnesses believed or affirmed certain things about Jesus before and after his death. Everyone is agreed (even the Jesus seminar) that at least some of the Gospel accounts go back to eyewitness reports.
There simply isn't enough time for an Osiris like legend to form about Jesus. If we had a gap of two or three centuries between Jesus life and the Gospels you might have a case. As it is you have 30-40 years at most, plus evidence of a prior oral history.
Furthermore, Paul began his ministry within a shorter period of time. It is interesting to see that he presupposed that the congregations that he wrote to had a very high Christology. He also presupposes that Peter and the founders also had a high Christology. This reduces the time available for developing legendary accounts even further. So I think contemporary scholars are quite correct to dismiss mystery religions etc as the source of Christian theology.
There are some parallels to Cynic philosophy offered by Crossnan, but he would be the first to say that even then the similarities should not be overplayed.
GV
Complain about this comment
133 petermorrow
Not what I had in mind at all. Let me give you an example. Andy McIntosh asserted that DNA could not come together spontaneously because that would violate the second law of thermodynamics, therefore god must have created it, therefore there must be a god or so his argument goes or something like that. This takes his argument out of the realm of faith and into a kind of pseudo science, a logical argument based on facts the people in ancient times never dreamt of by the way. So if this is why he believes in god and you prove that it isn't true, that eliminates his reason for believing. The other ID, creationists, young earthers and assortments of fruits and nuts often argue along similar lines. They look for evidence of Noah's Ark on the side of Mount Ararat for example. So my question is, is belief in god to be taken on faith alone, depend on some sort of logic or science, or do pastors take it any way they can get it? The Catholic Church was hardly immune from this sort of reasoning. It pinned its hopes on Copernicus, Galileo and Newton being wrong because their prevailing theory at the time was that the Earth was the center of the universe, man the reason for god's having creating it, and they the true messengers of god. When it was shown that the earth was not the center of anything, that whole argument fell apart. Other Christians have been fighting a rear guard action against Darwin's theory ever since he published it. But even the Catholic Church concedes that Darwin was almost certainly correct and acknowledges our modern understanding of the celestial universe as also being correct. To them I presume, belief in god is strictly a matter of faith now. I was curious to know what pastorphillip and others think about this question.
Complain about this comment
Brian
I also find it odd that a man of your learning would have any time for GA Wells bizarre thesis that the whole history of Jesus was invented by the Christian Church after AD 70.
If we only had the letters of Paul, which Wells takes as authentic and early, comparison with Josephus' passage on the execution James would show that Jesus existed.
Even the Jesus Seminar, which represents the more radical "Harvard-Claremont" axis in Jesus studies would say 30%-40% of the Gospels go *directly* back to Jesus.
G Veale
Complain about this comment
Marcus
You seem to be saying, although I don't know anything about Andy McIntosh so I can't comment specifically, that some christians argue for the existence of God on the basis of what we might call 'gaps' in science, or maybe we could say current scientific knowledge, which may later prove to have been limited.
Is this a reasonable understanding of what you are saying about how people use science?
And before I make any further comment, it might be helpful to both of us to try to understand what we mean by the word 'faith'. How are you using it? Do you mean it in the 'leap of faith' sense?
Brian
Do you think Jesus was a real person or not?
Complain about this comment
petermorrow; a couple of years ago, a professor of thermodynamics who teaches in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Leeds University Andrew McIntosh argued with Richard Dawkins on Sunday Sequence that the spontaneous formation of DNA in nature was an impossibility because it would violate the second law of thermodynamics. McIntosh and his fellow believers in intelligent design or "creation science" as they call it assert that the chances of DNA forming spontaneously in nature is as unlikely as a Boeing 747 assembling itself spontaneously. While McIntosh may know a lot about thermodynamics as it applies to mechanical engineering, engines, refrigerators, etc., he demonstrated his knowledge of it as it applies to chemical reactions is woefully inadequate as both his assertion and analogy are factually incorrect.
People of this ilk try to use a pseudo scientific sort of reasoning which may be inherently flawed, overlook or dismiss important but inconvenient facts to their argument, etc. to prove one way or another by logical deduction the existance of god. A surprising number of people believe in this. For those that do, is discrediting these false scientists by exposing their errors a matter of discrediting their reason for believing in god?
Faith is accepting something as fact based on no concrete evidence or proof. Many people take the account of the ressurection of Jesus as reported in the bible as fact they have no way of verifying. This may not square with our culture in the modern world but that seems to have been the way many came to believe in god. Some say they just have a feeling or a spirituality. (That has recently been explained by recent discoveries using advanced MRI equipment which shows activity in certain parts of the brain when these feelings occur. This needs more study.) But even in ages past, there were those who asserted logical or scientific reasoning for belief in god. I think Thomas Aquinis was among them.
Complain about this comment
Damn, I felt sure that when I checked back here, you lot would have stopped arguing and instigated a new religion, based around my Mother In Law.
Complain about this comment
Graham:
Your multiple postings are hard to keep up with, especially when some of us have other things to do!
First of all, the question asked by Peter: did Jesus exist? I don't know. I am agnostic on this one. The view that Christianity stole from pagan myth is not new. In the second century, the pagan philosopher Celsus criticised Christians for trying to pass off the Jesus story as a new revelation when it was actually an inferior imitation of pagan myths.
He was writing not long after the Gospels were written.
The early Christians were painfully aware of such criticism. How could pagan myths which predated Christianity by hundreds of years have so much in common with the biography of the one and only saviour, Jesus?
Desperate to come up with an explanation, the early church fathers resorted to one of the most absurd theories ever advanced. They declared that the Devil had plagiarised Christianity by anticipation in order to lead people astray. In other words, the Devil had copied the stories of Jesus’ life IN ADVANCE of it happening and so created the myths of the pagan gods.
Few Christians today know that a pagan temple once stood on the site where the Vatican now stands. Early Christians found the sacred ceremonies practised there so disturbing that they tried to erase all evidence of them. One of these ceremonies celebrated a symbolic meal of bread and wine in memory of their saviour, Mithras, who like Jesus had declared: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation". There are many more examples of the similarities between the early pagan Gods and Jesus, including speeches and parables.
So did a historical Jesus really exist? The Gospel stories cannot serve as examples of eyewitness accounts since they came from as products of their unknown authors, and not from the characters themselves. Many of the passages attributed to Jesus could easily have been invented. For example, many of the alleged statements of Jesus claim to have come from him when he was alone. If so, who heard him?
It becomes even more absurd when the authors report what Jesus THOUGHT. To whom did he confide these thoughts? Take the alleged temptation by Satan. If he was alone when it happened, how could it possibly be known to anyone elsel?
Did a real person called Jesus exist, even if one who was the son of god, born of a virgin and resurrected, did not? There is no physical evidence: no artefacts, no dwellings, no works of carpentry or self-written manuscripts. Not a single historian of philosopher who lived at the time of Jesus mentions him. All claims about him derive from hearsay accounts written many years after his supposed death. Your point about the timescale is not really valid. We are not talking about today but about 2,000 years ago when stories passed by word of mouth and couldn't be easily checked.
Therefore Wells is quite right to be a thoroughgoing sceptic in my view. Until I find some convincing evidence, I shall remain a doubting Thomas.
Incidentally, Wells is not alone and is following a perfectly valid tradition. In The Messianic Secret (1901) Wilhelm Wrede argued that the Gospels were largely fictive and that little if anything could be ascertained about the historical Jesus. This view is repeated more recently in some of the books I cited, e.g. Kelber and Neirynck.
All Wells says is that the notion of Jesus is pure legend is at least as plausible a reading of the evidence as any of the theories which, while demythologising him, assume that he did exist as a historical entity.
In The Jesus Myth he says that perhaps the case of Jesus is similar to that of King Arthur. There may well have been some Romanised British war chief back in the 6th century, who in some measure gave rise to the figure of King Arthur, but that hardly means that Mallory's Arthur is a historical figure. There is really nothing new in saying that only a largely unknown, minimally historical figure lies somewhere behind the myth-screen of the church's dogma.
So, Wells is no crank riding a hobby-horse, though many Christians try to present him in this light.
Complain about this comment
Brian
As I've said longer posts are written at home, and the shorter posts don't take long when you know the info. I've a young family, and lessons to teach and prepare. So I've plenty of other stuff to do adn I do it. This blog does give you plenty of ammo for class discussion. Maybe I'm using it too much. But the Jewel of Medina thread was a godsend.
I'll put this as succinctly as I can. Josephus mentions Jesus outside the Testimonium Flavium. The letters of Paul are taken *by Wells* and everyone else to be authentic and early (that is at least Romans, Galatians and the Corinthian correspondence). There's your evidence that Jesus existed.
To be honest, it is bizarre to have to give it. Wells may not have been a crank, but his theory is as dead as phlogiston or the caloric theory of heat.
G Veale
Complain about this comment
To be clear - to say Jesus "may" have existed is nuts. Throw him out and you may as well throw out Alexander.
Complain about this comment
Graham:
"To say that Jesus may have existed is nuts"
You have to make it clear to which Jesus you are referring. Surely you can see that this is a major part of the problem? No one as far as I know now claims that Alexander walked on water, resurrected people and himself rose from the dead, that in fact he was the son of a god.
Interestingly, though, Alexander’s mother told him he was the son of a god and many biographers suggest that he believed it. We don't, though, any more than we should believe the same of a character called Jesus.
The Alexander the Great comparison is in any case entirely misconceived. His life and conquests are well-documented. Contemporaries who wrote full accounts of his life include the historian Callisthenes, Alexander's general Ptolemy, Aristobulus, Nearchus, and Onesicritus. Later sources include Diodorus of Sicily, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Plutarch of Chaeronea, and Arrian of Nicomedia, all of whom used contemporary sources, now lost. Plutarch's Life was written in about 100AD and Arrian’s book on The Campaigns of Alexander was wrtitten in about 140AD.
There is much archaeological evidence of his conquests, for example, the burning of Persepolis. Numerous coins showing Alexander were minted during his reign. In fact, they were the most widely used currency in regions under his reign and in foreign countries. As a result of Alexander's coins being the most widely dispersed currency in antique times, today they can be found in many regions, from the Balkan Peninsula to Egypt, Persia and India. Busts of him were made and cities named after him. He is also mentioned in the Bible. Daniel 8:5–8 and 21–22 states that a King of Greece will conquer the Medes and Persians but then die at the height of his power and have his kingdom broken into four kingdoms. This is sometimes taken as a reference to Alexander. He is briefly mentioned in the first Book of the Maccabees. All of Chapter 1, verses 1–7 is about Alexander.
Jesus, by contrast, has little objective evidence in his favour. Both of Josephus's references are generally accepted by scholars, many of them Christian, as interpolations by Christians. If he existed, he is a historically trivial figure. During the reign of Tiberius, Pontius Pilate may have executed an alleged criminal called Jesus. It was a common name and the Romans executed many criminals. If he existed, this Jesus was not a major figure, as nobody other than his followers wrote about him for over half a century.
There is no independent record, in all of recorded history, of any of the following: his alleged bloodline from Abraham and David, his alleged virgin birth, his parent's alleged flight from Herod, his alleged baptism by John the Baptist, his alleged preaching to large multitudes, his alleged miracles (walking on water, reviving the dead etc), the nature of his trial or his death, or his alleged return from being dead to being alive again.
His early life is obscure. We do not know his birth date, or even the year. We don’t know the year of his death. Jesus never wrote one book, one sentence, not even as much as a letter. None of his supposed teachings is original. They can all be found in religions that existed hundreds if not thousands of years earlier.
I would conclude that in every aspect of Jesus's supposed life, there is good reason to question his existence because of the errors, contradictions and fallacies not only within the Bible but also concerning the utter lack of evidence about the events of his life. It is certainly not 'nuts'.
Complain about this comment
No, it's nuts. Totally and incontrovertably.
I'll do a quick write up tonight and reply tomorrow. I've got soccer practice now.
Good show yesterday by the way.
GV
Complain about this comment
Graham:
No, it's not nuts. Totally and incontrovertibly.
I hope that you will make it crystal clear as to which Jesus you are referring when you say that he definitely existed. Jesus the itinerant preacher? Jesus the Jewish revolutionary? Jesus the 'son of god'? Or whoever.
Complain about this comment
Brian
I know you'll probably not appreciate me throwing in my oar again, but maybe he was all of these and more, Jesus I mean, not Graham.
I mean, which Brian exists, Brian the teacher, Brian the cricket fan, Brian the editor of Humanist Ireland?
:)
Complain about this comment
Peter:
Your oar is steering the boat onto the rocks. It is a totally inane and irrelevant comment. We have been discussing historical evidence for Jesus.
I exist but I am hardly the son of God. Such a claim needs a bit of corroboration, other than wishful thinking, surely?
Even if there was evidence that a man called Jesus, the son of Mary, existed back then - which I question - this is a long way off divinity.
You are also personalising the issue - yet again!
Complain about this comment
Brian
This is nuts!
On another thread I have OT thinking I'm criticising biblical authority and here you think I'm personalising the issue.
Brian I used your name. That's not being personal, it's an example. Here's another one.
Which Graham exists? Graham the RE teacher, Graham the football coach, Graham the blogger...
I could also use my name as an example!
Anyway we're nowhere near the rocks. My response was simple. Your questions in post 146 set various aspects of the character of the biblical Jesus in opposition to one another, I simply said that we didn't have to do that by pointing out there are various aspects to each one of us. Surely your argument isn't, either that there were various Jesus(s) all woven into one story, or that he couldn't have been understood in a variety of ways?
Take a chill pill guys.
Complain about this comment
Peter-
I see you're sparring with the humanists now. You're quite the instigator! ;-)
Complain about this comment
Peter:
Can we not have a discussion without bringing us personally (you, me, Graham, or whoever you like) into it?
It doesn't achieve anything and diverts the topic away from the main issue we have been discussing, which is the historicity of Jesus.
As far as I can see, the evidence for the existence of the man is flimsy. It's just not backed up by the kind of evidence we should expect, like contemporary references, artefacts, and so on.
But that is not even the main point. It is that many of the attributes ascribed to this person through the centuries, assuming he existed at all, may well have been inventions.
Take an incident like turning five loaves and two fishes into a meal for 5,000. I mean: is there are any evidence that a man such as this alleged Jesus did, or was even remotely capable of doing, this? Or turning water into wine at a wedding in Cana? A person who could do these things is not a 'normal' person like you or me. what evidence is there that such a person could do these things?
Claiming divinity for such a person is the most problematic of all these alleged 'attributes', given that he is said to be unique in this respect, and all the other alleged divinities in the past are assumed to be fakes.
Of course, there are many aspects to each of us. Being god incarnate, however, is certainly not one of them. Of course, this attribute was not officially attributed until the 4th century.
Thus, there MAY have been an historical character (who knows?), but with supernatural attributes?
That IS stretching it.
Complain about this comment
Brian-
Please, he was simply using an example and you know it. Sheesh.
Complain about this comment
Hi John
The conversation with Brian goes back a bit.
Brian
You are going to have to help me out here, I am genuinely confused about the example I gave and then explained. How is it personal? Was it offensive, is that what you mean? Do you find it uncomfortable? Can I not draw attention to the characteristics of Jesus by using a contemporary illustration relating to the people involved in the discussion.
I haven't slighted anyone, I haven't questioned their character, I haven't used abusive or 'foul' language; really, I don't get it, and how is it off topic?
I really am confused.
In terms of Jesus, I see your post 151 primarily emphasises the supernatural claims relating to him, but my initial question was asking whether or not you believed he was a person at all, not if he was supernatural. You say insufficient evidence e.g. minted coins contemporary accounts etc. but part of the point was that he wasn't noticed much, this fits perfectly with the role of servant.
Seems to me that it a pretty hard case to make that nobody called Jesus, whom some thought to be the Christ, lived in, say 2nd Century Palestine.
Complain about this comment
Peter:
It has absolutely nothing to do with offence and everything to do with relevance.
I have already answered the question about the existence of an historical figure. I don't know.
Now, I shall get personal. It seems that some Christians just cannot accept that questions like: "did the universe have a beginning?" and "did Jesus exist?" cannot be definitively answered in our state of knowledge. As a result, scepticism is the only reasonable position.
As for a supernatural character not being noticed much, I would have thought that news about somebody walking on water, turning water into wine and raising people from the dead would have spread pretty rapidly.
Complain about this comment
Brian
If you doubt that Jesus existed *at all* or that we can know *nothing* historically relevant about him, then you're going one step further than Dan Brown.
1) Regarding Alexander the Great, all the original sources have been lost. The Primary sources would have been Callisthenes, a propagandist, and the testimony of his soldiers taken by Cleitarchus. Given your standards of proof best to be sceptical about all we think we know about Alexander.
2) I'll try to show that we can have
knowledge of Jesus' existence using Bayes Theorem. Take the prior probability of a Charismatic Holy Man gaining a wide following in Galilee. It’s not wildly improbable. That’s our hypothesis - a Holy Man called Yeshua gained a wide following and passed on some teachings which his followers remembered after his death. This is what everyone in Jesus studies is agreed on.
Test the hypothesis - are we likely to find all the following if it is true? (i)We have multiple independent sources all presupposing this teacher existed. The oral traditions in the Gospels, Paul’s letters, James’s letter, etc in the New Testament. (ii)Josephus' reference to the execution of Jesus’ brother James, which looks nothing like the Testimonium Flavium. (iii)The letter of Pliny the Younger around 100-110. (iv)The testimony of Tacitus 115.(v)The traditions in the Talmud, which surely would have included any doubts about Jesus existence. (vi)The total lack of any passage in the NT or the Early Church Fathers that attempts to prove Jesus existence (so opponents of Christianity accepted his existence). (vii)The existence of a Church in Jerusalem, and a Church in Palestine.
Then compare the likelihood of all these being found if the hypothesis is false. What is the likelihood of all these independent sources being mistaken, or lying given their conflicting motives? The evidence is much likelier on the truth of the hypothesis. And the hypothesis does not have a low prior probability. The "value" of the hypothesis multiplied by the likelihood of the evidence existing given the truth of the hypothesis is much greater than the likelihood of the evidence existing due to a mistake consistently and persistently made by multiple independent sources. (P(h) x P(e given h) >P(e given a massive Christian conspiracy)+ P(e given lot’s of REALLY dumb historians, Christians and their persecutors).
It’s really difficult to get that kind of confirmation in any field of study.
3) We only have four Roman sources for the reign of Tiberius. Velleius Paterculus, Dio Cassius, Tacitus and Suetonius. Given that Suetonius probably refers to Jesus as Chrestus, and Tacitus' reference is clearly not a Christian interpolation, and that none of these writers concentrates on Palestine, the paucity of references to Jesus is not unusual.
4) We also need to compare Jesus to figures like Johanan ben Zakkai - who was instrumental in the birth of Rabbinic Judaism and the council of Javneh, yet who receives no mention in Josephus. His existence and importance is uncontroversial.
So I think the hypothesis outlined and examined under point 2 is more than enough to found the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Given that historians differ in their interpretations of Churchill and Hitler, I'm not sure how differing interpretations of Jesus is relevant.
And to be clear - I think skepticism about the Historical Jesus is nuts, I don't think you're nuts. I'm sure I hold to a few nutty theories myself. It's the danger you run when you have opinions.
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
Graham:
Dan Brown has absolutely damn all to do with it.
1. True, the original written sources about Alexander have been lost, and other sources may be fragmentary, but they involve us in disputes about real people and events. We have coins minted at the time, and Alexander's letter to the people of Chios, engraved in stone, which dates from 332BC. His father Philip of Macedon existed, and we have the tombs of the Macedonian Royal House, including that of Philip.
We know that Alexander: was born in July 356 BC; was probably taught by Aristotle, who was at court in Macedon; succeeded his murdered father in 336; conquered the armies of the Persian King Darius; and took over the palaces and treasures of the Persian Empire. His enemies wrote about these events, not just his friends. There is archaeological evidence of battles at Issus and Gaugamela and proof of King Darius.
As for 'propagandists', that is a surely more accurate a description of Mark, Paul, and so on. If Callisthenes was a 'propagandist' for Alexander, he was a poor one, because he apparently lost his favour. Arrian, in his History of Alexander, states that Ptolemy and Aristolubos are reliable contemporary sources because they were eyewitnesses. Arrian admires Alexander but is critical of aspects of his behaviour. Similarly, Cleitarchus is critical of Alexander, suggesting that he was corrupted by his constant success. None of these writers is as sycophantic or uncritical towards Alexander as the Gospel writers and Paul are towards Jesus. That in itself raises questions about the reliability of the latter.
There is ample evidence that Alexander existed. Whether he did all the deeds attributed to him is a different matter, and I agree that we should remain sceptical. Was he really taught by Aristotle? Was he gay, or bisexual? How did he die? Was he poisoned? Or bitten by a mosquito? These are matters of dispute; but nevertheless the person definitely existed.
2. As for Jesus, it is quite likely that Flavius Josephus knew nothing about Jesus. Both passages are probably fake. The first, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum, is obviously an interpolation since it appears out of context and would mean that he subscribed to Christian doctrine, which he didn't. the second passage about James the brother of Jesus is disputed, but many scholars also consider it a forgery.
3. The Roman historians, whose testimony you repeat in points 2 and 3, all relied on hearsay. Tacitus is probably using Christian material from the early 2nd century; Suetonius refers to 'Chrestus', a common Greek name, and probably alludes to a Jewish agitator in Rome, not in Palestine.
4. Graham: you seem to think that plastering names all over a post, sometimes more than once, adds to the weight of your argument. I’m afraid not. You haven't addressed my basic question. Even if there was some historical figure, let's say a wandering preacher, who acted as the basis for all the fantastical stories, it is all light years away from showing any evidence that this foggy figure was in any way supernatural. We are back in the realms of King Arthur.
Complain about this comment
Brian
First of all I didn't find post 154 personal at all. Maybe I'm weird.
A few comments.
Obviously if you reject any references to Jesus, then you have no references.
Using the argument that if there was a Jesus then he couldn't have been god isn't an argument against there being a Jesus. You simply cannot conveniently conflate the two.
Anyway here is the question that I think really counts, why is it so important to you that Jesus of Nazareth probably didn't exist?
Complain about this comment
Peter:
1. I didn't say that the person probably didn't exist. I said that I DON'T KNOW!
2. I don't say that because the person couldn't have been god, therefore the person couldn't have existed. That's ridiculous. The conflation of the two is all done by Christians, who seem to think that if you can find evidence that a person existed, then hey presto, so did the god.
3. Whether Jesus existed or not matters in the sense that truth matters. But that's not the subject of this discussion.
4. The subject is evidence. Why don't you address some of it instead of talking in riddles?
Complain about this comment
5. If you prove Jesus doesn't exist you don't prove that God doesn't exist.
6. No evidence that disproves God is possible.
:-)
Complain about this comment
Brian
Is there any kind of evidence I can give you that you won't reject?
And BTW I do not take the view that if Jesus existed then that automatically means he was god.
Complain about this comment
Brian
1) You totally ignored the central and rather substantial argument. The existence of Jesus, and the fact that some of his teachings were passed on is certain. Oddly enough, historians don't take the Gospels at face value.
Not even Evangelicals - when they're presenting historical arguments, their premises need to be accepted by all. So teachings that would embarrass or be useless to the Early Church are of interest to all historians, as are independently attested teachings, and teachings that cohere with the Palestinian milieu. Obviously teachings and events that would be memorable and fit some or all of these criteria have a very high probability of being authentic.
Then historians debate just how the teachings were passed on. Just how good was the oral culture at preserving teachings and stories? The miraculous is usually kept out of the discussion(save for the Resurrection), but it is not controversial to say that Jesus' followers believed he could miraculously heal. After all, people believe that Benny Hinn does the same.
2) As for plastering names -(a) I usually outline the author's argument (b) or direct you to an article or web-page so you can check the author's argument for yourself.
But I didn't mention a single scholar in that last post. All my own work I'm afraid, (although I can't take the credit for Bayes Theorem or using that theorem to test propositions, historical or otherwise). If you are complaining about my reference to Johannan ben Zakkai, do a Google search. You can't debate this without using analogies and parallels.
Besides - didn't you give a very long list of notables who doubted that Shakespeare the actor wrote the plays? I was glad to learn that Twain and Dickens and Brannagh shared your doubts - even if you didn't give their arguments. The fact that you cited these individuals made me take more notice of your posts. I can't remember thinking that you weren't adding any weight to your posts.
3) As for Jesus being "supernatural" (which is a tiny bit of a caricature of Chalcedon, but we'll let that go), if you read back I was just challenging you for taking GA Wells seriously. If you don't know that Jesus existed, and that some of his teaching survived, given the high degree of improbability that the converse is true, then you really are wedded to a strong skepticism.
4) Tacitus using Christian sources? Interesting. What's your evidence? Which scholars doubt that Jospehus' mention of James is a Christian interpolation (which is a bit like name-dropping without mentioning the names)? What' s their argument? Who supports it?
5) With Chrestus you are on more solid ground. But there is some probability that he was referring to Jesus, and it is not a remote probability. So it offers some confirmation.
6) Are you of the opinion that given two or more interpretations, we should not decide on a best interpretation? That would seem to follow from what you are saying about "which Jesus?" You are talking about historical figures as if they are social constructs. Are you turning post-modernist Brian?
7) Joking aside (yep, point 6 was a joke, I know you're an Renaissance/ Enlightenment man. I'm assuming you can spot when I'm winding you up.) you're point about the supernatural is a good one. I would love to discuss the miraculous with someone who knows Hume so well (and Bacon for that matter - his philosophy is bound to have implications for miracles, or am I way off beam here?)
You do seem up to your ears with the article (very good by the way) and no doubt Bernard and you are due a long exchange. But if you want to come back to that, or fire away now, great!
Graham Veale
BTW, I don't know if you've noticed given how busy the thread is, but I'm pretty much in agreement with your stance on Religious Education in NI. I don't know if it will be any help (I'm no notable), but I'm prepared to stick my neck out on this.
My only proviso is that at Key stage 1 and 2 I wouldn't want parents religious beliefs challenged too much *if avoidable*. That's mainly because I don't like the state sticking it's nose into family life. But at Key stage 3 &4, we're really talking about young adults. So ideas need to be tested. Including faith.
GV
Complain about this comment
Ariane, the idea of atheistic bus is extremely stupid!!!
God has a little bit to do with religion.
You do not like religion? Put on the bus some anti-religion slogan. But not anti God.
"Stop warring and enjoy you life!!!" Do murders, drug dealer, pedophiles can as well enjoy theirs lives??! Why not??! If there is no God, they have nothing to be warred about.
Even like a joke it's really dangerous to say that kind of things not telling to put promotion on 800 buses!
God bless you!
Pierre Stoiko
The Master of the moment.
http://www.piersto.com
Complain about this comment
Oddly enough, a good point.
Complain about this comment
The problem logica_sine_vanitate is that i don't really mind what you believe or don't, that is your choice. What i am fed up of is having to deal with peoples actions in the name of religion. Actions that directly affect me, the fact that the whole idea is a fairy tale makes it even more insulting. There maybe a campaign to put adverts on the side of busses, but that is as far as it will go. People in the name of religion will however bomb the same busses to get their point across. I doubt a bus would be bombed in the name of a humanist cause. When people stop trying to kill people in the name of "God" then we will all be able to sleep a little easier.
Complain about this comment
not read all the comments and just caught up with the whole 'bus' thing. Think it's really interesting and could we really give up something on a probably, and the advert has a lot of pre-concieved ideas about God and really throws a whole broad spectrum of Christianity in one basket. But I think it's clever advert, so much so we have a similar one on our website (hope it soesn't break any copyright!), only that God probably IS real...discuss....
This really needs a lot more diecussion, glad someone is opening the door. Check www.knightswoodcongregational.org.uk
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS