How to respond to the "Expedite Heaven" argument from nonbelievers?

[ThomasToo]

It was not a universal claim.

You claimed all religions ‘have the same fundamental beliefs, values, spiritual principles and goals.’ That surely is a universal claim. If, however, you are going to try to argue that some religions are superior to others and these superior religions are the ones that share these properties we are, as I said above, seeing the true Scottsman fallacy as well as the fallacy of special pleading.

Even a superficial acquaintance with religion reveals that the main religions of the world are superior to primitive cults and tribal religions.

Without assuming a notion of superiority that is deeply steeped in western ideology there is no way to defend that claim.

I don’t think Gandhi accepted the resurrection so death in that context would be profoundly more meaningful than a bad weekend.

Of course it is. Yet that does not make bodily death meaningless, i.e. a matter of no concern. On the contrary death is meaningful because it is a test and a proof: “Greater love hath no man than this…”

Again, death is meaningful in the context of laying it down in support of another or of a principle or an idea because it is the ultimate sacrifice from which there is no return. Without that ‘death’–and death–has no meaning.

Are you suggesting that Fr Jerzy was not primarily motivated by his vocation?

I know nothing about him. I am saying to try to pick out one from the dozens if not hundreds or thousands of motivations that go into a human action is impossible in all but the most banal cases.

What evils have been caused by the influence of Jesus?

Note that I said however tenuous. The list is longer than I have here but these are the first that popped into my head. Before you respond I have no desire to debate these points one by one but if you do not see how the influence of Jesus (including Christianity) in these I can explain my reasoning.

• The retardation of science and technology for several centuries
• The persecution of the Jews culminating in the Holocaust
• The Crusades
• The Inquisition
• Witch trials
• Systematic child rape
• Slavery
• Segregation
• Systemic lynching of blacks in the American south for decades

You are making at least six assumptions:

1. Oral tradition is unreliable.

Have you ever played Chinese whispers? Oral tradition–absent a strong and very well trained priest class to memorize the tradition as in the Vedic tradition–is unreliable.

1. Few books written more than thirty years after events “bear even the most passing relationship to reality”.

I see this as part of the above. In the cultural context (i.e. no notes, photographs or recordings and much shorter lifespans) that these books were written, 30 years meant a whole lot more than it does now.

1. There were no intervening accounts of the life of Jesus.

Aside from the idea of the Q gospel, I don’t think there is any evidence that any intervening accounts were used in the writing of the gospels.

1. There were no books that were rejected by the Church.

I’m not quite sure how you got here but I’m aware of non-canonical Gospels.

1. The first Christians were superstitious, gullible and untrustworthy.

I think you’re being overly specific, I would say most Christians (and in fact most people) fulfill these criteria but I don’t think it’s relevant to the case at hand.

1. They could write and distribute their accounts freely in a time of persecution.

Again, I fail to see the relevance here but I am aware of the persecution.

The truth <> the whole truth.

Then where’s the line? Where they agree with you they have the truth and when they disagree they’re wrong?

You need to justify that contention with regard to the fundamental truths I have listed.

I have and I have supplied contrary evidence which you have waved off.

Time is one of the best tests of any belief but it has to be taken in conjunction with its adequacy, coherence, simplicity and fertility.

Then I don’t see how you can reject the Vedic, Buddhist or Muslim explanations of phenomena. Two of those three are centuries older than Christianity and are as coherent, simple and fertile (though I would also contest the inclusion of this final item in the list).

 

[tonyrey]

It was not a universal claim.

You claimed all religions ‘have the same fundamental beliefs, values, spiritual principles and goals.’ That surely is a universal claim.

You are misrepresenting me. I did not state that “All religions have the same fundamental beliefs, values, spiritual principles and goals” but:

“The fundamental tenets of the main religions of the world remain the same: the existence of God, the soul, good and evil, free will, the power of prayer, the need for worship, an afterlife and cosmic justice…”

Not all Buddhists believe in God but even they share the other tenets.

It remains true that:

“Even in primitive religions there is belief in spiritual reality, the need for sacrifice and worship, the distinction between good and evil and the efficacy of prayer.”

Even a superficial acquaintance with religion reveals that the main religions of the world are superior to primitive cults and tribal religions.

Without assuming a notion of superiority that is deeply steeped in western ideology there is no way to defend that claim.

Why aren’t they superior?

For Gandhi Jesus was the greatest exponent of Satyagraha:
“To me, He was one of the greatest teachers humanity has ever had… His life was the key of his nearness to God, that he expressed as no other could, the spirit and will of God…”

I don’t think Gandhi accepted the resurrection so death in that context would be profoundly more meaningful than a bad weekend.

You are changing the subject. You ignored the influence of Jesus on Gandhi and asserted:

“Satyagraha was a principle enacted to raise the world’s ire in an age of international media to raise the hackles of the British people at the actions of their government in India.”

Without that ‘death’–and death–has no meaning.

The acceptance of physical death is meaningful if it is motivated by love - regardless of an afterlife.

Are you suggesting that Fr Jerzy was not primarily motivated by his vocation?

I know nothing about him.

Significantly…

I am saying to try to pick out one from the dozens if not hundreds or thousands of motivations that go into a human action is impossible in all but the most banal cases.

Your cynicism is revealing. When a man has devoted his life to the service of others and to fighting injustice it is absurd to seek another stronger motivation. What do you suggest? Vainglory, ambition, self-hatred, a death wish, a desire for posthumous fame?

What evils have been caused by the influence of Jesus?

Note that I said however tenuous.

Again significantly…

The retardation of science and technology for several centuries
The persecution of the Jews culminating in the Holocaust
The Crusades
The Inquisition
Witch trials
Systematic child rape
Slavery
Segregation
Systemic lynching of blacks in the American south for decades

Please cite the words of Jesus inciting His followers to commit those crimes and atrocities.

1. Oral tradition is unreliable.

Have you ever played Chinese whispers?

Your arguments are getting steadily weaker…

Oral tradition–absent a strong and very well trained priest class to memorize the tradition as in the Vedic tradition–is unreliable.

Not in the historical context of the New Testament. The prayers, parables, teachings and events are authentic because they are memorable, original, consistent and coherent.

In the cultural context (i.e. no notes, photographs or recordings and much shorter lifespans) that these books were written, 30 years meant a whole lot more than it does now.

Your criteria would obliterate most recorded history!

Aside from the idea of the Q gospel, I don’t think there is any evidence that any intervening accounts were used in the writing of the gospels.

Hardly surprising when they were being hounded to death.

1. There were no books that were rejected by the Church.

I’m not quite sure how you got here but I’m aware of non-canonical Gospels.

Please refer to 5.

1. The first Christians were superstitious, gullible and untrustworthy.

I would say most Christians (and in fact most people) fulfill these criteria…

Your cynicism is again revealing itself…

…but I don’t think it’s relevant to the case at hand.

Not relevant to the unreliability of the New Testament?

1. They could write and distribute their accounts freely in a time of persecution.

Again, I fail to see the relevance here but I am aware of the persecution.

Please refer to 3.

The truth <> the whole truth.

Where they agree with you they have the truth and when they disagree they’re wrong?

I have and I have supplied contrary evidence which you have waved off.
Apart from the fact that some Buddhist sects do not believe in God the other truths remain intact.

I don’t see how you can reject the Vedic, Buddhist or Muslim explanations of phenomena. Two of those three are centuries older than Christianity and are as coherent, simple and fertile (though I would also contest the inclusion of this final item in the list).

This is not the place to discuss their relative merits. I simply note that you omit “adequate” - probably unwittingly but significantly because only Christianity has overcome the problem of evil.

Is materialism more coherent, simple and fertile than religion? If so how?

 

[tonyrey]

There is no consensus on atheists on any question other than that there is insufficient evidence to believe in gods of any sort and to claim otherwise is indicative of misunderstanding–at best–of our group.

There is a consensus of atheists that both moral and natural evil are evidence against theism. If you doubt me look up a few books on the subject.

It is a matter of terminology, you’re trying to term natural disasters, the existence of disease &c as ‘natural evil’ and my continued claim with regards to that is that I dispute the terminology as I do not deny the presence of these realities in our world, terrible as they may be.

Suffering is caused by nature or by human beings. In both cases it is dysteleological and has negative effects. That is why philosophers see no reason to disassociate them and distinguish them by their origin. I think you are reluctant to grant the status of natural evil because it seems to threaten your view that reality is amoral. Yet I don’t see how it can be completely amoral if - as you believe - at least one aspect of reality is objectively good, i.e. life.

I wrote a critique of Camus in a dissertation more than thirty years ago…

I would be interested, really and truly, to read it.

No computers or photocopiers in those days. Fifteen pages of typescript! I’ll summarise it tomorrow.

Everything we do is an attempt to stave off the inevitable (i.e. fight back entropy and stave off death) but surely you would not argue that death ought always and everywhere be welcomed with open arms. We take medication, get vaccinations and undergo surgery and other treatment to live longer (and hopefully healthier) lives but we will die regardless. Many however would argue that there is a moral imperative–barring extraordinary means–to safeguard our life.

“To say something is unavoidable does not imply it oughtn’t to be stopped.”

“postponed” would have been less misleading. The question still remains as to why it is a moral imperative rather than a matter of expediency. Life must be intrinsically valuable if it is morally wrong not to safeguard our life. But then don’t we have the right - as many argue - to terminate our life if we wish to? Confusion remains supreme in secular morality.

Then beauty is simply a matter of taste…

In a great many things, yes.

I detect a loophole!

I don’t understand how you see there to be no implicit assumption. I would grant, perhaps, that the two questions (‘why ought there to be nothing rather than something?’ and ‘why ought there to be something rather than nothing?’) could be considered together but the question ‘why does the universe exist?’ is itself invalid without justifying its foundation.

I didn’t ask “Why?” but “How?” To which there are only three answers:

1. The universe has an unknown cause (or causes).
2. The universe has no cause because it is eternal.
3. The universe has no cause because it emerged spontaneously.

The most reasonable is #1 because #2 and #3 raise further problems.

Science cannot answer mathematical questions, for example, but that doesn’t dispute the physicality hypothesis.

What about metaphysical, epistemological, moral and spiritual questions?

I believe the mind is brain activity.

If the mind is brain activity the self is an illusion. “We” exist only as mindless bodies.

I’m not quite sure what you mean about intangibles being words

Truth, freedom and negativity, for example, are not realities but arbitrary symbols.

A view supported by ample evidence, e.g. hypnosis and the power of the mind.

But that doesn’t prove that the mind is a separate existing thing…

The gulf between tangible and intangible reality.

… or whether hypnosis is attributable to purely physical phenomena.

No mechanism has been adduced for consciousness, hypnosis, self-awareness, self-control, intuition, hindsight, insight, foresight, discernment and premonitions.

My point is that–to take a very simple example–if you just look at the molecules of a rock you lose the rock-ness of it just as if you look to closely at any individual tree you lose sight of the forest.

The rock is still inanimate. The forest is still composed of plants. A vastly different proposition from the transformation of particles into persons.

But you’re not only positing one mind; you’re positing all of the same reality I am plus almost seven billion minds plus one Mind.

It is the most parsimonious explanation of the **origin **of reality.

The burden is therefore on the positer to prove tangible objects exist prior to intangible thoughts.

As I’ve said before philosophy of knowledge is not my field and trying to box me into trying to argue against a piece I have not read what was written in response to another piece I have not read is neither fair, realistic nor charitable.

No profound knowledge of epistemology is required to understand that knowledge of external reality is based on knowledge of internal reality. We infer that things exist from our perceptions of their qualities. No more no less…

 

[ThomasToo]

There is a consensus of atheists that both moral and natural evil are evidence against theism. If you doubt me look up a few books on the subject.

My background has put me at a disadvantage here, I am again associating ‘consensus’ with ‘full and unanimous agreement,’ which you will agree that atheists have on no point save the one that defines them as atheists. I think, however, that the consensus is much less full throated when on the necessity of terming these conditions ‘evil.’

Suffering is caused by nature or by human beings. In both cases it is dysteleological and has negative effects. That is why philosophers see no reason to disassociate them and distinguish them by their origin. I think you are reluctant to grant the status of natural evil because it seems to threaten your view that reality is amoral. Yet I don’t see how it can be completely amoral if - as you believe - at least one aspect of reality is objectively good, i.e. life.

My reluctance is despite the obvious and objective negativity of what you term ‘natural evil’ is that it implies moral judgment of natural and non-human phenomena which cannot be analyzed with moral tools.

No computers or photocopiers in those days. Fifteen pages of typescript! I’ll summarise it tomorrow.

Thanks. I realized after I said that that if it was 30 years ago and you couldn’t just email it to me.

“postponed” would have been less misleading. The question still remains as to why it is a moral imperative rather than a matter of expediency. Life must be intrinsically valuable if it is morally wrong not to safeguard our life. But then don’t we have the right - as many argue - to terminate our life if we wish to? Confusion remains supreme in secular morality.

‘Postponed’ would have been a better word; I think I meant to type ‘ought to try to be stopped.’ I would disagree that there is such a moral duty for our own lives and support the right of sane adults to terminate their lives (other conditions having been met). I only meant that many people would argue for such a duty–including the Catholic moral tradition.

I detect a loophole!

Not quite. As we discussed above I think suffering is and must be recognized as always and everywhere ugly. At this point I think that may be the only point on which there must be complete agreement with regard to aesthetics but again this isn’t my field.

I didn’t ask “Why?” but “How?” To which there are only three answers:
…
The most reasonable is #1 because #2 and #3 raise further problems.

As I said before I wasn’t understanding your question. This makes much more sense at least so far as the question goes. I think it is beyond nonsense to think that your (1) raises no problems; what caused this cause? How can a cause be uncaused? Why is it in the nature of this cause to be uncaused? I suppose these are ultimately forms of one of the key questions that brought me to atheism: ‘where did God come from?’ I’m not asking for answers to these questions but I simply want to point out that this answer is not without its complications as well.

What about metaphysical, epistemological, moral and spiritual questions?

I would first except ‘spiritual’ since I think a proper (i.e. skeptical) epistomology renders it a null word. I think there are some questions that fall under these headings to which science can contribute important data (e.g. Harris’s thesis that science has things to say on moral questions which I discussed above). That said, I think many of the questions under these headings cannot be entirely answered by science.

If the mind is brain activity the self is an illusion. “We” exist only as mindless bodies.

Explaining the neurological origins of consciousness do not explain away self-identity any more than the realities of interconnectedness advanced by Alan Watts.

Truth, freedom and negativity, for example, are not realities but arbitrary symbols.

I thought we covered this territory; these things exist but only as properties of other things such as suppositions and individuals.

No mechanism has been adduced for consciousness, hypnosis, self-awareness, self-control, intuition, hindsight, insight, foresight, discernment and premonitions.

Except the one you’ve waved off. There is no proof whatever for premonition or–at least in one reading of the word–insight and I would argue that anyone who claims to have these abilities could, if he or she is speaking truthfully, easily be a million dollars richer if he or she can show James Randi he or she was claiming truthfully.

The rock is still inanimate. The forest is still composed of plants. A vastly different proposition from the transformation of particles into persons.

But they are also made of molecules. If you want to say something of the sort that I’m trying to prove one animal is unique in the animal kingdom that’s one thing but to say I’m trying to make people out of molecules without acknowledging that you’re making trees, dogs, rocks, stars and planets of them as well.

No profound knowledge of epistemology is required to understand that knowledge of external reality is based on knowledge of internal reality. We infer that things exist from our perceptions of their qualities. No more no less…

So you’re arguing that we have no proof of the reality of objective reality, that everything we see (and hear, smell, taste and feel) could be the result of a Cartesian evil genius or Martix style robot overlords?

 

[ThomasToo]

You are misrepresenting me. I did not state that “All religions have the same fundamental beliefs, values, spiritual principles and goals” but:

My apologies for the confusion.

Not all Buddhists believe in God but even they share the other tenets.

Without any gods I’m not sure how prayer is anything but nonsensical for them. There is also not (always) an afterlife.

Why aren’t they superior?

Really… I don’t see any reason to see that any one religion is superior to any other. At my reading, as I said above, religions lay on a plane not a hierarchy.

You are changing the subject. You ignored the influence of Jesus on Gandhi and asserted:

“Satyagraha was a principle enacted to raise the world’s ire in an age of international media to raise the hackles of the British people at the actions of their government in India.”

My point is that for Gandhi Jesus’s death actually meant something since it was really death.

The acceptance of physical death is meaningful if it is motivated by love - regardless of an afterlife.

I’m not talking about an afterlife I’m talking about near immediate resurrection. If, for example, my heartbeat and respiration stop for twenty seconds we could say I was dead for those twenty seconds but it seems to defy the real intention behind the word.

Your cynicism is revealing. When a man has devoted his life to the service of others and to fighting injustice it is absurd to seek another stronger motivation. What do you suggest? Vainglory, ambition, self-hatred, a death wish, a desire for posthumous fame?

Perhaps he joined the priesthood because his mother

Please cite the words of Jesus inciting His followers to commit those crimes and atrocities.

I don’t need his words–as if we have them. If we assume the life story of Jesus you have posited then it is a necessary–but perhaps not sufficient–condition for the events I cited. Remove him and those events would probably not have happened or at least would have looked quite different.

Your arguments are getting steadily weaker.

… You assert that oral tradition over thirty years is reliable while a party game shows that an oral tradition–absent a strong priest (and I ought to have added bard) class–will not last thirty minutes.

Not in the historical context of the New Testament. The prayers, parables, teachings and events are authentic because they are memorable, original, consistent and coherent.

Memorability, consistency, coherence and originality are not–even when taken as a whole–isomorphic to truth. The Quran and the Haddiths are memorable, consistent, coherent and original but they are still not true.

Your criteria would obliterate most recorded history!

How so? I’m not saying those things must exist only that contemporary evidence of a claim is markedly more important as time goes back. Contemporary evidence, might I add, that is absent in this case.

Hardly surprising when they were being hounded to death.

You took me to task for assuming there were no written records and when I say why I found that to be reasonable, you agree with me?!

Not relevant to the unreliability of the New Testament?

Yes, I never posited that the Gospels were anything other than four men’s honest attempts to record what they thought was the truth. I just think they were, to say the least, mistaken.

Apart from the fact that some Buddhist sects do not believe in God the other truths remain intact.

Many philosophies, especially from the ancient world, would fulfill your criteria. Are those then religions?

This is not the place to discuss their relative merits. I simply note that you omit “adequate” - probably unwittingly but significantly because only Christianity has overcome the problem of evil.

I actually wasn’t sure what you intended by ‘adequate’ so I felt uncomfortable claiming something I didn’t comprehend. Without a god the problem of evil does not adhere to Buddhism and Islam had offered as many–and quite similar–theodicies (e.g. Al-Kindi, Ibn Rushd, Al-Ghazzali, Alkindus, Iqbal and Avicenna).

Is materialism more coherent, simple and fertile than religion? If so how?

Certainly for two of the three at least. Materialism is, as your vociferous objection shows, a hard pill to swallow so its memetic fitness is slippery so I would be hesitant to call it fertile. It is, however, coherent and profoundly and beautifully simple. On the other hand, materialism leaves many questions religion attempts to answer to other realms since it isn’t a weltanschauung.

 

[tonyrey]

Suffering is caused by nature or by human beings. In both cases it is dysteleological and has negative effects. That is why philosophers see no reason to disassociate them and distinguish them by their origin. I think you are reluctant to grant the status of natural evil because it seems to threaten your view that reality is amoral. Yet how can it be completely amoral if - as you believe - at least one aspect of reality is objectively good, i.e. life?

Then the Problem of Evil is an illusion?

I would disagree that there is such a moral duty for our own lives and support the right of sane adults to terminate their lives (other conditions having been met).

A logical consequence of the belief that life is essentially purposeless!

As we discussed above I think suffering is and must be recognized as always and everywhere ugly.

“ugly” is a grossly inadequate term to describe the wanton, needless and hideous pain deliberately inflicted by human beings on their defenceless victims. It conveys the impression that responsibility (like evil) is an illusion and another logical consequence of materialism.

I think it is beyond nonsense to think that your (1) raises no problems; what caused this cause? How can a cause be uncaused? Why is it in the nature of this cause to be uncaused? I suppose these are ultimately forms of one of the key questions that brought me to atheism: ‘where did God come from?’ I’m not asking for answers to these questions but I simply want to point out that this answer is not without its complications as well.

It would be presumptuous to think we can understand the nature of the Ultimate Being.
What we do know is that it must satisfy the principle of adequate explanation.

I would first except ‘spiritual’ since I think a proper (i.e. skeptical) epistemology renders it a null word.

This too is a logical consequence of materialism. Persons are reduced to bodies!

That said, I think many of the questions under these headings cannot be entirely answered by science.

“cannot” in principle or at present?

If the mind is brain activity the self is an illusion. “We” exist only as mindless bodies.

Explaining the neurological origins of consciousness do not explain away self-identity any more than the realities of interconnectedness advanced by Alan Watts.

The term “interconnectedness” is reminiscent of Hume’s “bundle of perceptions” which are hardly a basis for personal identity, continuity, autonomy and responsibility. What is the integrating factor?

Truth, freedom and negativity, for example, are not realities but arbitrary symbols.

I thought we covered this territory; these things exist but only as properties of other things such as suppositions and individuals.

If tangible objects have intangible properties materialism is inadequate. There must be a dimension of reality inaccessible to the senses.

No mechanism has been adduced for consciousness, hypnosis, self-awareness, self-control, intuition, hindsight, insight, foresight, discernment and premonitions.

Except the one you’ve waved off.

You have not explained the mechanism by which tangible neural activity is transformed into those intangible powers. How does the concrete become abstract?

There is no proof whatever for premonition or–at least in one reading of the word–insight and I would argue that anyone who claims to have these abilities could, if he or she is speaking truthfully, easily be a million dollars richer if he or she can show James Randi he or she was claiming truthfully.

Your argument disposes of scientific insight and reduces reasoning to computation - which is consistent with the view that we are no more than biological machines.

The rock is still inanimate. The forest is still composed of plants. A vastly different proposition from the transformation of particles into persons.

But they are also made of molecules. If you want to say something of the sort that I’m trying to prove one animal is unique in the animal kingdom that’s one thing but to say I’m trying to make people out of molecules without acknowledging that you’re making trees, dogs, rocks, stars and planets of them as well.

I’m not making anything out of anything! I am simply noting that the progression:

inanimate matter>living organisms>rational beings

is a less adequate explanation than

SupraRational Being> inanimate matter>living organisms>rational beings

An atomistic explanation of reality is inferior to a holistic explanation. The Many do not account for the One. In other words there must be a Source of unity and purpose beyond the multiplicity, complexity and organization.

No profound knowledge of epistemology is required to understand that knowledge of external reality is based on knowledge of internal reality. We infer that things exist from our perceptions of their qualities. No more no less…

So you’re arguing that we have no proof of the reality of objective reality, that everything we see (and hear, smell, taste and feel) could be the result of a Cartesian evil genius or Martix style robot overlords?

Yes! It is logically possible - but not worth considering because the success of science provides overwhelming evidence of objective reality. Nevertheless the primacy of internal reality remains an indisputable fact to which the very success of science is due. The most significant and valuable aspects of existence are intangible…

 

[tonyrey]

Without any gods I’m not sure how prayer is anything but nonsensical for them.

Their inconsistency doesn’t alter the fact that they pray.

There is also not (always) an afterlife.

The exceptions that prove the general rule…

I don’t see any reason to see that any one religion is superior to any other. At my reading, as I said above, religions lay on a plane not a hierarchy.

If you had lived in Africa for fifteen years and seen the devastating consequences of tribal religious beliefs you would change your mind.

My point is that for Gandhi Jesus’s death actually meant something since it was really death.

Belief in survival does not detract from the courage and determination needed to face a death one can avoid.

The acceptance of physical death is meaningful if it is motivated by love - regardless of an afterlife.

I’m not talking about an afterlife I’m talking about near immediate resurrection. If, for example, my heartbeat and respiration stop for twenty seconds we could say I was dead for those twenty seconds but it seems to defy the real intention behind the word.

I don’t follow…

Your cynicism is revealing. When a man has devoted his life to the service of others and to fighting injustice it is absurd to seek another stronger motivation. What do you suggest? Vainglory, ambition, self-hatred, a death wish, a desire for posthumous fame?

Perhaps he joined the priesthood because his mother.

Thomas, is that the best you can do?!

Please cite the words of Jesus inciting His followers to commit those crimes and atrocities.

I don’t need his words–as if we have them. If we assume the life story of Jesus you have posited then it is a necessary–but perhaps not sufficient–condition for the events I cited. Remove him and those events would probably not have happened or at least would have looked quite different.

A necessary condition is not an adequate reason to regard anyone’s influence as baleful.
To commit atrocities in the name of a person does not impugn his or her positive influence.

…

. You assert that oral tradition over thirty years is reliable while a party game shows that an oral tradition–absent a strong priest (and I ought to have added bard) class–will not last thirty minutes.

Private whispers are rather different from communal worship and teaching.

Not in the historical context of the New Testament. The prayers, parables, teachings and events are authentic because they are memorable, original, consistent and coherent.

Memorability, consistency, coherence and originality are not–even when taken as a whole–isomorphic to truth. The Quran and the Haddiths are memorable, consistent, coherent and original but they are still not true.

There is much truth in those writings.

Contemporary evidence, might I add, that is absent in this case.

Contemporary evidence is provided by archaeological discoveries as well as Jewish and Roman references to Christianity, Biblical exegesis and liturgical practices which verify historical facts recorded in the New Testament.

You took me to task for assuming there were no written records and when I say why I found that to be reasonable, you agree with me?!

I am not agreeing with you! The writings of the Christians would have been lost or destroyed when they were captured and executed.

I never posited that the Gospels were anything other than four men’s honest attempts to record what they thought was the truth. I just think they were, to say the least, mistaken.

I admire your honesty in recognising their veracity. You need to explain why you think they were mistaken.

Many philosophies, especially from the ancient world, would fulfill your criteria. Are those then religions?

They do not count as religions if worship is absent but they confirm the worldwide recognition of fundamental religious truths.

I actually wasn’t sure what you intended by ‘adequate’ so I felt uncomfortable claiming something I didn’t comprehend. Without a god the problem of evil does not adhere to Buddhism and Islam had offered as many–and quite similar–theodicies (e.g. Al-Kindi, Ibn Rushd, Al-Ghazzali, Alkindus, Iqbal and Avicenna).

The problem of evil does not exist for Buddhism because its notion of free will is obscure. Not surprisingly Islam owes much to its predecessor.

Is materialism more coherent, simple and fertile than religion? If so how?

Certainly for two of the three at least. Materialism is, as your vociferous objection shows, a hard pill to swallow so its memetic fitness is slippery so I would be hesitant to call it fertile

.
I regard “sterile” as a far more appropriate term because it restricts research to “natural” phenomena, whatever that may mean…

It is, however, coherent and profoundly and beautifully simple.

The tangible-intangible anomaly militates against its coherence. Its simplicity can be regarded as a simplistic interpretation of reality which does not do justice to the richness, value and purposefulness of existence.

On the other hand, materialism leaves many questions religion attempts to answer to other realms since it isn’t a weltanschauung.

The theory that everything is derived from matter implies that all realms are offshoots of science.

 

[ThomasToo]

Then the Problem of Evil is an illusion?

The problem of evil is a bad term but what I could call the problem of suffering is a legitimate philosophical quandary and substantive argument against an all-powerful and all-loving god.

A logical consequence of the belief that life is essentially purposeless!

A logical consequence of my ideas of liberty.

“ugly” is a grossly inadequate term to describe the wanton, needless and hideous pain deliberately inflicted by human beings on their defenceless victims. It conveys the impression that responsibility (like evil) is an illusion and another logical consequence of materialism.

I would happily, perhaps ‘happily’ isn’t the right word–‘readily’ may be better–,admit that the intentional infliction of suffering on sentient beings is morally wrong. But to make moral judgment of suffering in the general case seems a bit of a leap.

It would be presumptuous to think we can understand the nature of the Ultimate Being. What we do know is that it must satisfy the principle of adequate explanation.

My sole point was to make it clear that your explanation was not free of complications–at least not without special pleading.

“cannot” in principle or at present?

In principle. It would be like asking a biological to answer a physics deep and substantive question or a mathematician a chemistry one. They are different fields.

The term “interconnectedness” is reminiscent of Hume’s “bundle of perceptions” which are hardly a basis for personal identity, continuity, autonomy and responsibility. What is the integrating factor?

Alan Watts’s interconnectedness integrates the whole of the Earth–and to a degree, the cosmos–into the notion of self. He argues ‘that the whole universe consists of a cosmic self playing hide-and-seek (Lila), hiding from itself (Maya) by becoming all the living and non-living things in the universe, forgetting what it really is; the upshot being that we are all IT in disguise’ (Wikipedia, Alan Watts).

If tangible objects have intangible properties materialism is inadequate. There must be a dimension of reality inaccessible to the senses.

Intentionality (what Aristotle would call the final cause which I think only adheres to artifacts). Properties such as these are based on observable phenomena (plus intellection). There is, however, no need to postulate another sense for this.

You have not explained the mechanism by which tangible neural activity is transformed into those intangible powers. How does the concrete become abstract?

I’ll show you mine if you show me yours? I’m not a neuroscientist so I only have a layman’s understanding of the biology involved and you have not explained the mechanism by which an incorporeal object can alter and be altered by a physical one.

Your argument disposes of scientific insight and reduces reasoning to computation - which is consistent with the view that we are no more than biological machines.

I think I misunderstood you. When you say ‘insight’ I think of ESP sorts of things. If you only mean ‘thought’ then I have no quarrel.

I’m not making anything out of anything! I am simply noting that the progression:

inanimate matter>living organisms>rational beings

is a less adequate explanation than

SupraRational Being> inanimate matter>living organisms>rational beings

An atomistic explanation of reality is inferior to a holistic explanation. The Many do not account for the One. In other words there must be a Source of unity and purpose beyond the multiplicity, complexity and organization.

The problem is that if it is necessary to posit a more complex being than us because our complexity necessitates some other sort of creator then the complexity of that creator must certainly necessitate a still more impressive creator (i.e. a god-maker).

Yes! It is logically possible - but not worth considering because the success of science provides overwhelming evidence of objective reality. Nevertheless the primacy of internal reality remains an indisputable fact to which the very success of science is due. The most significant and valuable aspects of existence are intangible…

If you term thought–which I attribute to physical phenomena–intangible then I would grant that their primacy is a given but there is no way to prove they are not physical just as there is no way to prove there are not fairies in my back garden.

 

[ThomasToo]

If you had lived in Africa for fifteen years and seen the devastating consequences of tribal religious beliefs you would change your mind.

There are devastating consequences of those religious beliefs you call superior too including child abuse, child rape, war, murder, genocide &c.

Belief in survival does not detract from the courage and determination needed to face a death one can avoid.

Sure it does. The whole point of death is that you cannot come back from it. No amount of pain can overcome the fact that death is, as Shakespeare put it, the undiscovered country from whose born no traveler returns. If there is a belief that one will survive this death then it is a death one believes one will avoid.

I don’t follow…

My point is that ‘death’ has a meaning that includes not coming back afterward. To say Jesus died stretches the meaning of the word beyond recognition.

Thomas, is that the best you can do?!

I know nothing about the man so I can’t speak to his motives but I don’t think people are so simple that we can attribute any action as complex as giving up one’s life to a simple, single point explanation.

A necessary condition is not an adequate reason to regard anyone’s influence as baleful.
To commit atrocities in the name of a person does not impugn his or her positive influence.

I didn’t say they were committed in his name but if Jesus’s life and death is a necessary–but not sufficient–condition for the goods you describe and so too for the ills I describe then it is an all or nothing on accepting the blame for them as well.

Private whispers are rather different from communal worship and teaching.

Can it be both hidden, covert and secret as well as public and communal? I think rumors, spread communally, show how Chinese whispers can be a realistic model of how stories can grow rapidly from their origin.

There is much truth in those writings.

And there are many truths in the Bible (and the Gita, the Tao Te Ching, the Talmud, &c&c) but those seem to be on the tropological or anagogical levels not on the literal one–as the Church seems to say about much of Genesis.

Contemporary evidence is provided by archaeological discoveries as well as Jewish and Roman references to Christianity, Biblical exegesis and liturgical practices which verify historical facts recorded in the New Testament.

We have no contemporary records; there are later copies of these records made by Christians the culture of whom held no objection to adding facts that ought to be in a text. We’re back to the historicity of Jesus thing and I don’t think there is nothing new to cover here.

I am not agreeing with you! The writings of the Christians would have been lost or destroyed when they were captured and executed.

Ah.

I admire your honesty in recognising their veracity. You need to explain why you think they were mistaken.

I have. I don’t think there ever was a historical Jesus and if there was–as I cannot believe in a god, especially the Christian one–I cannot imagine him as the Son of God.

They do not count as religions if worship is absent but they confirm the worldwide recognition of fundamental religious truths.

I think you’re trying to lump ‘fundamental religious truths’ with the universal attempts to find meaning in the universe and answering moral questions.

I regard “sterile” as a far more appropriate term because it restricts research to “natural” phenomena, whatever that may mean…

I’m not sure I would grant that point. Are moral questions natural phenomena? Materialists cannot ponder on ethics?

The tangible-intangible anomaly militates against its coherence. Its simplicity can be regarded as a simplistic interpretation of reality which does not do justice to the richness, value and purposefulness of existence.

There is richness in the universe which is more evident through scientific eyes than religions ones which I argued (far) above but this is an aesthetic question and open to much debate and interpretation. I, however, deny any assertion of purposefulness of existence. In space, which is–well…–big we are the only rational lifeforms of which we are aware. I don’t think this implies any sort of purpose in the universe; seems like an awful waste of space.

The theory that everything is derived from matter implies that all realms are offshoots of science.

Not at all as I’ve discussed above.

 

[tonyrey]

There are devastating consequences of those religious beliefs you call superior too including child abuse, child rape, war, murder, genocide &c.

There are no religious precepts that promote those evils.

No amount of pain can overcome the fact that death is, as Shakespeare put it, the undiscovered country from whose born no traveler returns. If there is a belief that one will survive this death then it is a death one believes one will avoid.

Belief is distinct from knowledge. The very possibility of error implies that courage and determination are needed to face suffering and death one can avoid.

I know nothing about the man so I can’t speak to his motives but I don’t think people are so simple that we can attribute any action as complex as giving up one’s life to a simple, single point explanation.

To dedicate one’s life to the priesthood is not a simple, single point explanation.

To commit atrocities in the name of a person does not impugn his or her positive influence.

I didn’t say they were committed in his name but if Jesus’s life and death is a necessary–but not sufficient–condition for the goods you describe and so too for the ills I describe then it is an all or nothing on accepting the blame for them as well.

In that case all moral teaching has evil consequences and should be prohibited!

Private whispers are rather different from communal worship and teaching. Can it be both hidden, covert and secret as well as public and communal?

Yes - in places like the Catacombs.

And there are many truths in the Bible (and the Gita, the Tao Te Ching, the Talmud, &c&c) but those seem to be on the tropological or anagogical levels not on the literal one–as the Church seems to say about much of Genesis.

The Epistles and Gospels are clearly intended to be taken literally.

Contemporary evidence is provided by archaeological discoveries as well as Jewish and Roman references to Christianity, Biblical exegesis and liturgical practices which verify historical facts recorded in the New Testament.

We have no contemporary records; there are later copies of these records made by Christians the culture of whom held no objection to adding facts that ought to be in a text.

Records are not the only form of evidence and reputable historians frequently add facts to their texts.

We’re back to the historicity of Jesus thing and I don’t think there is nothing new to cover here.

It is unreasonable to deny the historicity of Jesus without giving a good reason for doing so.

The writings of the Christians would have been lost or destroyed when they were captured and executed.

Ah.

Indisputable!

I admire your honesty in recognising their veracity. You need to explain why you think they were mistaken.

I have. I don’t think there ever was a historical Jesus and if there was–as I cannot believe in a god, especially the Christian one–I cannot imagine him as the Son of God.

I’m afraid that does not explain why they were mistaken.

They do not count as religions if worship is absent but they confirm the worldwide recognition of fundamental religious truths.

I think you’re trying to lump ‘fundamental religious truths’ with the universal attempts to find meaning in the universe and answering moral questions.

Fundamental truths are not restricted to religions. Their existence in secular societies confirms their significance.

I regard “sterile” as a far more appropriate term because it restricts research to “natural” phenomena, whatever that may mean…

Are moral questions natural phenomena? Materialists cannot ponder on ethics?

They can but if they reduce ethics to natural phenomena it ceases to be ethics.

The tangible-intangible anomaly militates against its coherence. Its simplicity can be regarded as a simplistic interpretation of reality which does not do justice to the richness, value and purposefulness of existence.

There is richness in the universe which is more evident through scientific eyes than religions ones which I argued (far) above but this is an aesthetic question and open to much debate and interpretation. I, however, deny any assertion of purposefulness of existence.

That is the primary reason for the sterility of scientific explanations associated with materialism.

In space, which is–well…–big we are the only rational lifeforms of which we are aware. I don’t think this implies any sort of purpose in the universe; seems like an awful waste of space.

Human notions of economy are irrelevant to the nature of reality.

The theory that everything is derived from matter implies that all realms are offshoots of science.

Not at all as I’ve discussed above.

By everything I mean the whole of reality, not just material objects.

 

[ThomasToo]

There are no religious precepts that promote those evils.

Sure there are. There were biblical citations given to support slavery and one of many slogans of National Socialist Germany was ‘Gott ist mit us’ (if I remember the German correctly). There are no religious precepts in your reading of your religion to promote them but there are surely religious precepts given in their defense as in the defense of any number of ideas with which you disagree.

Belief is distinct from knowledge. The very possibility of error implies that courage and determination are needed to face suffering and death one can avoid.

So Jesus could have been wrong and could have been not God and have stayed dead?

To dedicate one’s life to the priesthood is not a simple, single point explanation.

But you’re wanting to give a simple explanation for that dedication which is simplistic–in every negative sense of that word.

In that case all moral teaching has evil consequences and should be prohibited!

Double effect applies at least to a degree. There, however, seems to be no evil consequences from the most basic moral precepts (e.g. do not rape).

The Epistles and Gospels are clearly intended to be taken literally.

And at the times of their writing so were the books of the Torah and Nevim. What has changed? In another two thousand years will people be making the argument that the <> are clearly intended to be taken literally but the Gospels, Epistles can be taken metaphorically along with the Tahakah?

Records are not the only form of evidence and reputable historians frequently add facts to their texts.

Reputable historians add facts to their own texts but they would never add something to a source account because they thought it belonged there and its exclusion was an oversight even if they would indicate this in their own dicta.

It is unreasonable to deny the historicity of Jesus without giving a good reason for doing so.

I have given the reasons I feel to be sufficient above. For more on this question I have found Robert Price and Richard Carrier to be more than persuasive.

Indisputable!

I’m not a Roman historian but I am dubious that all writings from the interim we are discussing would have been lost in this way.

I’m afraid that does not explain why they were mistaken.

You said I needed to explain why I think they’re mistaken and I did that and have shown why I think the notion that there is a historical figure is mistaken is above as well.

Fundamental truths are not restricted to religions. Their existence in secular societies confirms their significance.

So then why is it meaningful to attribute all these questions to religion?

They can but if they reduce ethics to natural phenomena it ceases to be ethics.

But I am not trying to reduce ethics to natural phenomena; I’m trying to reduce ethical actors to natural phenomena. This difference is substantive and meaningful.

Human notions of economy are irrelevant to the nature of reality.

But human notions of perfection are (cf. the ontological argument)? To say the universe must have purpose suggests things about how the universe should look (i.e. purposeful) which doesn’'t pan out in the face of reality.

By everything I mean the whole of reality, not just material objects.

I know. I don’t think science can fully answer aesthetic questions, nor metaphysical ones, nor ethical ones and so on and so on.

 

[tonyrey]

There are no religious precepts that promote those evils.

Biblical citations can be used to support anything! ‘Gott ist mit us’ is not a precept.

There are no religious precepts in your reading of your religion to promote them but there are surely religious precepts given in their defense as in the defense of any number of ideas with which you disagree.

Religious precepts given in their defense are not the original precepts and do not form a coherent whole.

Belief is distinct from knowledge. The very possibility of error implies that courage and determination are needed to face suffering and death one can avoid.

So Jesus could have been wrong and could have been not God and have stayed dead?

It is logically possible like the belief that the universe exists but extremely unlikely in view of the nobility of His teaching and influence on humanity.

To dedicate one’s life to the priesthood is not a simple, single point explanation.

But you’re wanting to give a simple explanation for that dedication which is simplistic–in every negative sense of that word.

Hardly simplistic when that dedication was severely tested and renewed for more than twenty years.

In that case all moral teaching has evil consequences and should be prohibited!

Double effect applies at least to a degree.

So what is your solution?

There, however, seems to be no evil consequences from the most basic moral precepts (e.g. do not rape).

Why have you chosen rape? Is it the most serious crime?

The Epistles and Gospels are clearly intended to be taken literally.

And at the times of their writing so were the books of the Torah and Nevim. What has changed?

The coming of Christ!

In another two thousand years will people be making the argument that the <> are clearly intended to be taken literally but the Gospels, Epistles can be taken metaphorically along with the Tahakah?

It is a forlorn argument that moral teaching which has lasted two thousand years and is the basis of modern civilisation will be discarded. What improvements can you suggest?

Reputable historians add facts to their own texts but they would never add something to a source account because they thought it belonged there and its exclusion was an oversight even if they would indicate this in their own dicta.

The evangelists were not individuals writing for an academic audience about people with whom they had no personal contact but members of the first Christian community with direct links with the Apostles who were writing for those who wanted to know the facts about the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus.

QUOTE]It is unreasonable to deny the historicity of Jesus without giving a good reason for doing so.

I have given the reasons I feel to be sufficient above. For more on this question I have found Robert Price and Richard Carrier to be more than persuasive.
Persuasive two thousand years later! Do they reject His moral teaching? It would be more consistent to reject the whole lock, stock and barrel…

I’m not a Roman historian but I am dubious that all writings from the interim we are discussing would have been lost in this way.

You haven’t lived in a time of persecution by both the Romans and the Jews…

You said I needed to explain why I think they’re mistaken and I did that and have shown why I think the notion that there is a historical figure is mistaken is above as well.

I cannot recall where you specified mistakes they have made. How do you explain the belief in the mythical author of unsurpassed moral teaching for whom so many people sacrificed their lives?

Fundamental truths are not restricted to religions. Their existence in secular societies confirms their significance.

So then why is it meaningful to attribute all these questions to religion?

Because human beings have always been instinctively religious. Even primitive man intuitively recognised the inadequacy of materialism.

But I am not trying to reduce ethics to natural phenomena; I’m trying to reduce ethical actors to natural phenomena. This difference is substantive and meaningful.

If ethical actors are reduced to natural phenomena their script is inexorably reduced to natural phenomena - which are substantive and meaningless!

Human notions of economy are irrelevant to the nature of reality.

But human notions of perfection are (cf. the ontological argument)?

The economy in question is physical (spatial and temporal) whereas perfection is ontological and moral.

To say the universe must have purpose suggests things about how the universe should look (i.e. purposeful) which doesn’'t pan out in the face of reality.

Even the archsceptic David Hume acknowledged the ubiquity of purpose. You yourself have acknowledged the richness and wonder of reality- which are inadequately explained as the result of blind processes.

By everything I mean the whole of reality, not just material objects.

I know. I don’t think science can fully answer aesthetic questions, nor metaphysical ones, nor ethical ones and so on and so on.

In that case why are you a materialist?

 

[ThomasToo]

Biblical citations can be used to support anything! ‘Gott ist mit us’ is not a precept.

That’s my point. That the Bible is true, important and a guide for living the good life is a religious precept and from that flows all that the Bible is used to defend.

Religious precepts given in their defense are not the original precepts and do not form a coherent whole.

The religious precepts presented in modern day Catholicism are not the original precepts presented in–for want of a better word–primative Catholicism. The fact that they’re not original is not relevant and as you have cited not all religious precepts form a coherent whole. I would also make a very similar claim about religious precepts given in defense of removing the legal protections of civil marriage from homosexuals (not a debate for this time or place, however).

It is logically possible like the belief that the universe exists but extremely unlikely in view of the nobility of His teaching and influence on humanity.

But at the time he was dying none of that had happened. I’m asking about your christology; is it possible Jesus was wrong or did he have unambiguous and fully correct knowledge about his divine status.

Hardly simplistic when that dedication was severely tested and renewed for more than twenty years.

We’re talking about different things; you’re saying it’s not simple for dedication to be tested while I’m saying your explanation is unnecessarily–and incorrectly–simple.

So what is your solution?

Apply double effect? A limited morality perhaps; one that prohibits obviously harmful acts (e.g. rape, murder, torture)?

Why have you chosen rape? Is it the most serious crime?

It is perhaps the only act that it is impossible even to try to defend. Killing and torture are defended but I’ve never heard a someone try to philosophically defend rape.

The coming of Christ!

That changes the past? Couldn’t then the ‘coming’ of another savior or prophet change how the Bible is meant to be understood too then? A letter day (and quite different) Joseph Smith perhaps?

It is a forlorn argument that moral teaching which has lasted two thousand years and is the basis of modern civilisation will be discarded. What improvements can you suggest?

I disagree that Christian morality (as opposed to evident morality which is usurped and to a degree taken up by Christianity) is the basis for civilization.

The evangelists were not individuals writing for an academic audience about people with whom they had no personal contact but members of the first Christian community with direct links with the Apostles who were writing for those who wanted to know the facts about the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus.

But they can’t even agree on those points. Why do only half of them mention the virgin birth? Surely that would be important to mention. They disagree on facts such as Jesus’s last words, his genealogy and who saw him first after the resurrection.

Persuasive two thousand years later! Do they reject His moral teaching? It would be more consistent to reject the whole lock, stock and barrel…

They reject as much of Christian moral teaching which is not ubiquitous in sensical secular ethical philosophy. Simply because the ostensible founder was a lunatic if he happened to have existed doesn’t mean we reject all of his ideas a priori. Surely you wouldn’t expect us to reject true statements even if they come from a less than reliable source if the statements pass scrutiny.

You haven’t lived in a time of persecution by both the Romans and the Jews…

And neither have you… Unless you have some sort of evidence to show that it is all but impossible for any intermediate account to have survived such contemporaries you’re just blowing smoke on this point.

I cannot recall where you specified mistakes they have made. How do you explain the belief in the mythical author of unsurpassed moral teaching for whom so many people sacrificed their lives?

The belief in gods goes back to animism and primitive science. Attempts to establish codes of ethical behavior also fell under the banner of religion because a separation of social and religious reality was nonexistent for much of human history.

Because human beings have always been instinctively religious. Even primitive man intuitively recognised the inadequacy of materialism.

Primitive man didn’t have the tools to understand materialism let alone establish its inadequacy. The fact that you’re supporting the supremacy of a prehistoric epistemology implies to me a desire to shed the developments–philosophical, scientific, technological and moral–of the last tens of thousands of years.

 

[ThomasToo]

If ethical actors are reduced to natural phenomena their script is inexorably reduced to natural phenomena - which are substantive and meaningless!

You’re conflating materialism and determinism.

The economy in question is physical (spatial and temporal) whereas perfection is ontological and moral.

I would argue that perfection–at least aesthetic perfection, since this is a perfectly perfect being we’re discussing (setting aside obvious problems with such a conception)–would necessitate a canvas no larger than necessary. To say that the entire universe was created for one species of primate on a ball of iron-nickle orbiting an unremarkable star in an underpopulated local cluster in a rather typical spiral galaxy is the height of hubris.

Even the archsceptic David Hume acknowledged the ubiquity of purpose. You yourself have acknowledged the richness and wonder of reality- which are inadequately explained as the result of blind processes.

So you are willing and prepared to argue that the hand of god guides the development of the physical universe? Or just that it set up the original constants and set the machine running (perhaps mod the installation of a rational principle in man)?

In that case why are you a materialist?

Because materialism is a result of a rigorously skeptical epistemology. Frankly I’m not even sure why this question comes from. Science isn’t the be all and end all of every question ever raised. Science cannot, it seems to me, answer a question such as ‘why do I find intriguing and beautiful phenomenon A more intriguing and beautiful than intriguing and beautiful phenomenon B?’ even if it can explain why I find chocolate more delicious than lettuce. The sorts of questions that science is not sufficiently equipped to answer–at least at the moment–is not by any means an indictment of materialism but an acknowledgment that, in the words of Sir Humphry Davy, ‘nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete, and that there are no new worlds to conquer.’

 

[tonyrey]

That the Bible is true, important and a guide for living the good life is a religious precept and from that flows all that the Bible is used to defend.

The Bible is a collection of writings selected and **interpreted **by the community founded by Jesus.

The religious precepts presented in modern day Catholicism are not the original precepts presented in–for want of a better word–primitive Catholicism.

The fundamental precepts are the original precepts on which all subsequent precepts are based.

The fact that they’re not original is not relevant and as you have cited not all religious precepts form a coherent whole.

Not all the precepts of** religions** form a coherent whole…

I would also make a very similar claim about religious precepts given in defense of removing the legal protections of civil marriage from homosexuals (not a debate for this time or place, however).

Marriage was not a religious institution for homosexuals.

Is it possible Jesus was wrong or did he have unambiguous and fully correct knowledge about his divine status.

Christians obviously believe Jesus was not mistaken. It is presumptuous to claim to **know **the extent to which He was aware of His divine status.

You’re saying it’s not simple for dedication to be tested while I’m saying your explanation is unnecessarily–and incorrectly–simple.

It is cynical to think a man’s dedication cannot be sincere and authentic - and consistent with the view that our decisions are beyond our control.

A limited morality perhaps; one that prohibits obviously harmful acts (e.g. rape, murder, torture)?

This is covered by the injunction to love your neighbour.

Killing and torture are defended but I’ve never heard someone try to philosophically defend rape.

In certain circumstances rape could be regarded - like killing and torture - as the lesser of two evils.

The coming of Christ!

That changes the past?

It changes our view of the past by fulfilling the prophecies and transforming the history of humanity.

Couldn’t then the ‘coming’ of another savior or prophet change how the Bible is meant to be understood too then? A letter day (and quite different) Joseph Smith perhaps?

Your example makes your question rhetorical! The Bible does not exist as an isolated set of writings but as the expression of the beliefs and values of a living community which has existed for over two thousand years and developed in accordance with social changes and scientific discoveries.

I disagree that Christian morality (as opposed to evident morality which is usurped and to a degree taken up by Christianity) is the basis for civilization.

What is the source of “evident morality”?

The evangelists were not individuals writing for an academic audience about people with whom they had no personal contact but members of the first Christian community with direct links with the Apostles who were writing for those who wanted to know the facts about the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus.

But they can’t even agree on those points.

If they were unanimous their accounts would be suspect. Their authenticity is strengthened by minor discrepancies which always occur when there is more than one testimony.

Why do only half of them mention the virgin birth? They disagree on facts such as Jesus’s last words, his genealogy and who saw him first after the resurrection.

The Gospels were written for different purposes:

1. St Mark presented Jesus as the Suffering Servant giving His life for everyone.
2. St Matthew presented Jesus as the Messiah fulfilling the prophecies for the Jewish community - hence His lineage and Virgin Birth.
3. St Luke presented Jesus as the Son of Man on His mission to the Gentiles - hence His lineage and Virgin Birth.
4. St John presented Jesus as the Son of God in reply to the Gnostics and sects questioning His divine origin.

They reject as much of Christian moral teaching which is not ubiquitous in sensical secular ethical philosophy.

Where do you obtain “sensical secular ethical philosophy”?

Simply because the ostensible founder was a lunatic if he happened to have existed doesn’t mean we reject all of his ideas a priori.

You need to justify your lunacy hypothesis and explain how a lunatic could produce profound moral truths.

Unless you have some sort of evidence to show that it is all but impossible for any intermediate account to have survived such contemporaries you’re just blowing smoke on this point.

You are implying that all accounts must have survived. The large number of apocryphal texts makes it highly likely there were two reasons why they disappeared: they purported to be Christian and they were not recognised as authentic by the Church.

I cannot recall where you specified mistakes the Evangelists have made.

The belief in gods goes back to animism and primitive science.

Animism is evidence of man’s intuitive recognition of supernatural reality.

Attempts to establish codes of ethical behavior also fell under the banner of religion because a separation of social and religious reality was nonexistent for much of human history.

There is no separation of social and religious reality in Christianity: the idea that “no man is an island” stems from the doctrine of the Communion of Saints.

 

[tonyrey]

Primitive man didn’t have the tools to understand materialism let alone establish its inadequacy.

You’re conflating materialism and determinism.

Can you explain how ethical actors deviate from their script so that they are accountable for their deviations?

The economy in question is physical (spatial and temporal) whereas perfection is ontological and moral.

I would argue that perfection–at least aesthetic perfection, since this is a perfectly perfect being we’re discussing (setting aside obvious problems with such a conception)–would necessitate a canvas no larger than necessary. To say that the entire universe was created for one species of primate on a ball of iron-nickle orbiting an unremarkable star in an underpopulated local cluster in a rather typical spiral galaxy is the height of hubris.

Please give a reference for that assertion.

Even the archsceptic David Hume acknowledged the ubiquity of purpose. You yourself have acknowledged the richness and wonder of reality- which are inadequately explained as the result of blind processes.

So you are willing and prepared to argue that the hand of god guides the development of the physical universe? Or just that it set up the original constants and set the machine running (perhaps mod the installation of a rational principle in man)?

I have often argued (and I firmly believe) it is ludicrous to attribute the richness, beauty and wonder of reality to blind processes. It is more rational to explain existence in terms of its highest aspects rather than its lowest. Explanation itself presupposes the power of reason…

In that case why are you a materialist?

Because materialism is a result of a rigorously skeptical epistemology.

Epistemology presupposes a rational foundation not found in blind processes.

Frankly I’m not even sure why this question comes from. Science isn’t the be all and end all of every question ever raised. Science cannot, it seems to me, answer a question such as ‘why do I find intriguing and beautiful phenomenon A more intriguing and beautiful than intriguing and beautiful phenomenon B?’ even if it can explain why I find chocolate more delicious than lettuce.

Then materialism must be false!

The sorts of questions that science is not sufficiently equipped to answer–at least at the moment–is not by any means an indictment of materialism but an acknowledgment that, in the words of Sir Humphry Davy, ‘nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete, and that there are no new worlds to conquer.’

Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that science can in principle explain everything. To assume that it can is to restrict one’s attention to that which valueless and purposeless.

[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

**They asked, “why don’t Catholics who wish to get to heaven faster, engage in activities that are not considered mortal (eg. smoking, eating McDonalds) which will shorten the amount of time we spend in this earthly kingdom ruled by Satan, and expedite our trip to heaven to be in paradise with God?”

How do you respond? **

1. Getting to heaven is not the sole purpose of being on earth.
2. Getting to heaven is not a question of minimising the risks of going to hell!
3. Getting to heaven is the result of doing as much good as we can while we are on earth.
4. Getting to heaven is the result of caring for others rather than for our own salvation.
5. This earthly kingdom is not ruled by Satan…