Part 1/2
Tonyrey, this discussion began because you claimed that for me to say that it’s possible that the apostles were wrong, I have to explain why the moral teachings that the gospels attribute to Jesus are accepted by many. That’s extremely misguided. Having the moral teaching that the gospels attribute to Jesus in no way removes the possibility of the apostles simply being wrong.
False beliefs usually have adverse effects on those who hold them. What adverse effects are experienced by Christians?
First, I would like to emphasize the word usually because we don’t determine whether a belief is true based on whether or not it has adverse effects.
Second, I don’t want to turn this into a thread about the effects of Christianity, so I’ll just mention one general negative effect: fear of going to hell. Studies show that Catholics tend to fear death the most.
TruthSeeker60;7637817:
tonyrey;7637397:
TruthSeeker60;7631395:
Is your point that because many people today are Christians, that must mean that the apostles cannot have been mistaken? If so, that’s a non-sequitur and an argument ad populum
(
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum). It’s fallacious.
It’s not only a question of quantity but also of quality. The moral teaching of Christ is generally accepted even by non-Christians and is the basis of modern civilised values.
The moral teachings of a religion have little to do with how likely the religion is to be true.
They do when the life and death of the founder is the basis of the moral teachings.
Going from, “the life and death of the founder of my religion is the basis of great moral teachings that are accepted by most people,” to, “therefore, the supernatural claims about my religion are probably true,” is a non-sequitor.
TruthSeeker60;7637817:
My argument is that IF Christianity being the most popular religion today makes one justified in believing it to be true, one would have to say the same thing about another religion when the other religion was the most popular religion, or else you’re using a double-standard.
In other words, if the popularity of Christianity today makes you more justifies in being a Christian today, then if you lived thousands of years ago when Hinduism was the most popular religion, one’s Hinduism would be more justified by popularity.
You are assuming all religions are static and do not develop.
You did not understand my point. Re-read what I wrote. My point is that if you consider popularity of a religion to be a criterion that makes the claims of a religion more likely to be true, then if you lived thousands of years ago, you would have concluded, at that time, that the popularity of Hinduism would have made its claims more likely to be true.
TruthSeeker60;7637817:
In other words, if the popularity of Christianity today makes you more justifies in being a Christian today, then if you lived thousands of years ago when Hinduism was the most popular religion, one’s Hinduism would be more justified by popularity.
Please refer to my next point >
Whether a religion corresponds to a person’s needs or whether it has a “ring” of truth (which I take as meaning it merely appears to be true) has nothing to do with whether or not it is true.
Then you must totally reject pragmatism and also our ability to form reasonable judgements of what is true or false from an accumulation of evidence.
Just because I do
not think that the fact that something would satisfy a need if true, or that something may seem true from an unscrupulous analysis (“has a ‘ring’ of truth”) makes it any more true, does not mean that I would have to reject pragmatism or our ability to form reasonable judgments of what’s true or false from evidence.
The argument you were making, that I was rejecting, was that because something fills a spiritual need (whatever that is), it is more likely to be true.
TruthSeeker60;7637817:
tonyrey;7637397:
Other religions are popular because all religions teach the same fundamental truths!
You would have to really water down religions to hold that.
Not at all. All religions teach that we do not exist by chance, that life is immensely valuable, that we are all responsible for what we do and that we should respect the lives of others.
The point that I was refuting was that a religion being popular does not make it any more likely to be true. Even if you were to use this “all religions teach the same fundamental truths” to sidestep the objection that most people belong to non-Christian religions, you would only be making an argument for those fundamental teachings, not Christianity. Those fundamental teachings you mentioned could be held by anyone regardless of whether or not they were religious and/or believe in a god. And that’s only if the fact that a claim is popular means that it’s more likely to be true.
TruthSeeker60;7637817:
Anyways, you originally brought this form of an argument from popularity to attempt to refute the point I made by comparing Christians who gave up their lives, and others who gave up their lives for their false beliefs. I suppose I could refer to Muslim martyrs who died on 911, but you’re now saying that “all religions teach the same fundamental truths!”
I specified that popularity is not the sole criterion.
My point that people have sacrificed their lives due to false beliefs, and that the apostles may have been wrong, stands regardless.
