The Gospels are Myths (and other obvious observations)

[Joseph_Kemp]

I’m not trying to cause trouble. I believe in the Gospels myself.

But AntiTheist is not saying that EVERYTHING in the Gospels is untrue. Just the supernatural things. Such things, thought of in this way, would qualify as “myths.” Just as tales of centaurs and unicorns would qualify as myths.

J.R.R. Tolkien himself referred to the Gospels as myths. They are just myths that happen to be true.

Denying the Bible in its entirety would be quiet different. That really WOULD be classifying it as lies.

AntiTheist is not rejecting the Bible as unhistorical. It is very historical. Very accurate about names and places and certain events.

AntiTheist just has a problem with miracles.

As far as I can determine, there is no objective basis for rejecting miracles. They are not impossible. They contradict no Laws of Logic. So they are not logically impossible. People may argue that they are PHYSICALLY impossible, but there is no conclusive way of demonstrating this.

AntiTheist is simply making the point that there is not enough evidence to establish the miracles of the Bible BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. And there is nothing wrong with this.

Even if you saw a miracle for yourself, it would require faith to see it as a miracle, rather than as something else. Such a thing is only possible through the use of faith. There is no known rational knowledge that could incline a non-believer to see a miracle as a miracle. And I’m afraid that’s just something we’re all going to have to live with.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no known rational knowledge that could incline a non-believer to see a miracle as a miracle. And I’m afraid that’s just something we’re all going to have to live with.

What about the life, death and teaching of Jesus? Do you regard that as irrational?

 

[tonyrey]

A great many people died for, I’m sure we’d both agree, nothing. I think the same thing happened with the apostles.

Why?

 

[tonyrey]

Anyone, if he chooses to, can believe that the Gospels are all a pack of lies. But such a belief should be called what it is … the accusation of a pack of lies … not a myth. Then, after you have **first **read the gospels, ask yourself if the evangelists sound to you like a pack of liars.

Many people reject the historical truth of the Gospels while accept the moral teaching of Jesus - as if they are entirely unrelated! It would be more logical to reject the lot - lock, stock and barrel…

 

[Holly3278]

The Gospels most certainly are not myths. They are fact. Whether or not you choose to believe that is up to you.

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

Someone wrote: “What about the life, death and teaching of Jesus? Do you regard that as irrational?”

I repeat: There is no known rational knowledge that could incline a non-believer to see a miracle as a miracle.

Non-believers, by definition, do not believe in God. If a non-believer saw someone miraculously healed at Lourdes (for example), it would just be an odd physical phenomenon to them. There would be no absolute, airtight, rational way to prove that such a healing definitively came from God.

Such a “miracle healing” would certainly appear weird and inexplicable to a non-believer. But rationally, just because you can’t explain something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a physical explanation. It might. This possibility simply cannot be dismissed.

No matter how miraculous something seems, it may simply have a rational, physical explanation behind it. Even the life, death and teaching of Jesus. Even the Resurrection. Even the dead rising from the grave.

Rationally speaking, even if I saw God Himself descending from Heaven in all His radiant Glory, what does that prove? I could be asleep. I could be hallucinating. I could be having a waking dream. I could be experiencing auto-hypnotic suggestion. My mind could be feeding me false images. I could be dehydrated and seeing things. My brain could be experiencing a spontaneous imaging malfunction. The possible explanations for what I am seeing are virtually endless. And there is no airtight, rational way of dismissing all of them. There just isn’t.

As a Catholic, I trust what I can determine from my rationality. And my rationality tells me there is absolutely no known knowledge that could incline a non-believer to see a miracle as a miracle. Seeing a miracle as being from God is something that can only arise out of religious belief. It can arise only from faith.

This is the reason why the Catholic Church says that faith is a gift. Because it is. It is something you could never reason your way to, if you relied on reason alone. It is simply not enough. You have to be willing to go a little further.

Believing in God is like believing in a happy fantasy. You have to be somewhat imaginative to authentically believe in God. But I do trust that there is enough rational evidence in this world to suggest that believing in God may be one fantasy that may, in fact, turn out to be true.

It is my fondest hope.

Which is precisely how the Church says it should be.

Someone wrote: “The Gospels most certainly are not myths. They are fact. Whether or not you choose to believe that is up to you.”

Facts leave no room AT ALL for doubt. And there are plenty of reasons to doubt the Gospels. That’s why we have faith. There are also plenty of good reasons for believing in the Gospels. Nothing is conclusive.

We have FAITH that the Gospels are true, because we don’t know for sure if they are. If we had airtight proof that the Gospels were absolutely true, we wouldn’t need faith at all. We would have knowledge. And knowledge is superior to faith. Stronger. More conclusive.

As it is, faith is enough. There is enough good evidence that the Gospels are PROBABLY true. This makes it possible to believe in the Gospels without giving up one’s reason. And that is all I really ask out of my faith. Anyone who thinks the situation is different than this is flatly wrong.

 

[4Horsemen]

Someone wrote: “What about the life, death and teaching of Jesus? Do you regard that as irrational?”

I repeat: There is no known rational knowledge that could incline a non-believer to see a miracle as a miracle.

Non-believers, by definition, do not believe in God. If a non-believer saw someone miraculously healed at Lourdes (for example), it would just be an odd physical phenomenon to them. There would be no absolute, airtight, rational way to prove that such a healing definitively came from God.

Such a “miracle healing” would certainly appear weird and inexplicable to a non-believer. But rationally, just because you can’t explain something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a physical explanation. It might. This possibility simply cannot be dismissed.

No matter how miraculous something seems, it may simply have a rational, physical explanation behind it. Even the life, death and teaching of Jesus. Even the Resurrection. Even the dead rising from the grave.

Rationally speaking, even if I saw God Himself descending from Heaven in all His radiant Glory, what does that prove? I could be asleep. I could be hallucinating. I could be having a waking dream. I could be experiencing auto-hypnotic suggestion. My mind could be feeding me false images. I could be dehydrated and seeing things. My brain could be experiencing a spontaneous imaging malfunction. The possible explanations for what I am seeing are virtually endless. And there is no airtight, rational way of dismissing all of them. There just isn’t.

As a Catholic, I trust what I can determine from my rationality. And my rationality tells me there is absolutely no known knowledge that could incline a non-believer to see a miracle as a miracle. Seeing a miracle as being from God is something that can only arise out of religious belief. It can arise only from faith.

This is the reason why the Catholic Church says that faith is a gift. Because it is. It is something you could never reason your way to, if you relied on reason alone. It is simply not enough. You have to be willing to go a little further.

Believing in God is like believing in a happy fantasy. You have to be somewhat imaginative to authentically believe in God. But I do trust that there is enough rational evidence in this world to suggest that believing in God may be one fantasy that may, in fact, turn out to be true.

It is my fondest hope.

Which is precisely how the Church says it should be.

Someone wrote: “The Gospels most certainly are not myths. They are fact. Whether or not you choose to believe that is up to you.”

Facts leave no room AT ALL for doubt. And there are plenty of reasons to doubt the Gospels. That’s why we have faith. There are also plenty of good reasons for believing in the Gospels. Nothing is conclusive.

We have FAITH that the Gospels are true, because we don’t know for sure if they are. If we had airtight proof that the Gospels were absolutely true, we wouldn’t need faith at all. We would have knowledge. And knowledge is superior to faith. Stronger. More conclusive.

As it is, faith is enough. There is enough good evidence that the Gospels are PROBABLY true. This makes it possible to believe in the Gospels without giving up one’s reason. And that is all I really ask out of my faith. Anyone who thinks the situation is different than this is flatly wrong.

There are miracles acclaimed by the Church in order to canonize or beatify a saint. A miracle has been attributed to Pope John Paul II as a step in the process of canonization. A nun was healed from Parkinson’s. Doctors have to verify that there is no known physical or natural cause for the cure. I know you will say that there may be underlying, physical reasons that were the actual cause of her cure. I’m sure God could use material factors in a person’s cure or purely supernatural. Since there is no known physical or material reason for the miracles in the gospels, we have faith to believe, but reason tells us that Christ’s miracles are from a divine source and that can only be from God.

Recall the genuine miracle of Fatima on Oct. 13, 1917 when the sun appeared to plunge to the earth with vibrant colors and then whirl like a disk. People thought it was the end of the world. Then their clothes, which were soak and wet from constant rain, became dry. Unbelievers (atheists who ran the government at the time) found these events incredible.

There’s a book called Meet the Witnesses, which I had but can’t find. Anyhow it details how people even 10 miles away saw the spinning sun, so it wasn’t mass hallucination/mass hysteria.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Considering that the person who is being responded to has been banned, and is unable to respond, I’ll take some time to clear up what I think are misunderstandings of the point he was trying to make:

You wrote: “…we know that in the world revealed by our senses, there is insufficient evidence to accept the claim that gods exist.”

That is quite correct. There is not enough evidence to prove that God exists.

I don’t think that’s his point. I think Antitheist’s point is that there is no reason to think that a god does exist, thus, one aught not believe that a god exists.

There IS some evidence for the existence of God.

It would be great if the ban on the topic of atheism was lifted so that this could be discussed as the topic of a thread.

There is one very simple reason why people choose to believe in God. We humans are highly ordered creatures. We are capable of putting a great deal of order into the world. We build roads and cars to drive on them. We create traffic laws. We organize farms to grow food.

But if one looks at the natural world, there is already a great deal of order in it. The seasons follow a certain pattern. Trees grow a certain way. One day follows the next. Animals migrate annually. Highly ordered. Highly structured.

Since humans are capable of imposing order on nature because of our highly ordered minds, and since there is already a great deal of order present in the natural world, it is thus reasonable to believe that perhaps this order in nature was ALSO placed there by a highly ordered mind – a God of some sort. Perhaps.

There’s a lot of organized complexity, but for that to be evidence for the existence of a god, one must demonstrate that it is evidence for a god. What you offered, (“Since humans are capable of imposing order on nature . . .]”) doesn’t logically do this.

The absence of a verified explanation for some phenomenon is evidence of nothing more than mystery.

If you would like to discuss this further, perhaps it would be good to start a new thread.

You said: “Sometimes, these Matrix-mongers…say something as asinine like “To use science, you have to have faith that it works! All systems of knowledge have faith at their root!” Obviously, that statement is false – …there is quite a lot of evidence that evidence-based inquiry (of which science is a subset) works.”

This is also quite true. But not absolutely true. The idea that science “works” is true beyond a reasonable doubt. Meaning that there is no good reason to doubt it. But this does not imply absolute truth.

I think this is from his thread on the “matrix argument”.

I think he was trying to make the point that evidence-based inquiry (of which science is a subset) is the best possible way to evaluate claims, and we know nothing (except maybe “I think, therefore I am”) with radical absoluteness.

GOOD theories are testable. They lead to new information. They unify our knowledge. They open new questions that nobody has ever asked before.

Good post!

Too often I hear people propose hypotheses that are untestable and unfalsifiable.

You wrote: “It’s all “faith” to these Matrix-mongers, which means they live in a completely irrational world, which is ironically what so many people accuse atheists of doing.”

There is a problem I have with atheism. It is a problem of logic. Many atheists I have encountered believe that the Universe came from “nothing.” I cannot understand this.

I just want to clarify that atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god. An atheist could suspend belief about how the universe started or could subscribe to many different ideas, including many whacked out ideas.

I see the beginning of the universe (if that even makes sense to say) as a big unknown. It’s tempting to reach for easy answers, but unless there is some explanation that is verified by evidence, it’s best to admit ignorance.

I’ve heard some physicists suggest that “nothingness” is unstable, and thus there cannot not be anything. Here is an interesting lecture about that. For the most part, physics and cosmology, beyond introductory levels, are beyond me.

Even if you saw a miracle for yourself, it would require faith to see it as a miracle, rather than as something else. Such a thing is only possible through the use of faith. There is no known rational knowledge that could incline a non-believer to see a miracle as a miracle. And I’m afraid that’s just something we’re all going to have to live with.

I disagree. There are ways that an intervention by a god could be reasonably verified to be an intervention from a god.

Charlemagne II:

AntiTheist

The eyewitness testimony of these people is insufficient to accept these claims – so, obviously, anonymous non-eyewitness testimony written decades after a supposed supernatural event is insufficient to accept that the supernatural event took place.

Then what you are saying is that the Gospels are a pack of lies. Not myths. Lies.

No. “These stories are true” and “these stories are lies” is a false dichotomy. They could have been written by authors who were honestly mistaken. One must consider that the gospels were written decades, at earliest, after the events would have taken place by authors who were not eyewitness.

Anyways, a traditional story which has no rational basis for considering to be true is generally what people mean by “myth”. It is in this sense, I think, that Antitheist was saying that the gospels are myth.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I admit that the fact that many died for their belief in Christ, like Stephen and others was pretty compelling. Until I I read where someone brought up David korresh and the branch davidians, and the Jonesboro cult. A great many people died for, I’m sure we’d both agree, nothing. I think the same thing happened with the apostles.

Please go back and read the accounts of David Korresh and the Branch Dividians and I think you mean Jonestown (Jonesboro is a school shooting) I don’t think you’ll find the similarities you imply. What happened with the apostles is nothing like what happened with Branch Dividians or at Jonestown. If you think it is please make your case point by point.

Thank you,
Mark in Oregon

 

[Pieman333272]

There’s a lot of organized complexity, but for that to be evidence for the existence of a god, one must demonstrate that it is evidence for a god. What you offered, (“Since humans are capable of imposing order on nature . . .]”) doesn’t logically do this.

The absence of a verified explanation for some phenomenon is evidence of nothing more than mystery.

As I’ve said on another thread, so many things you would have to chuck out the window if you applied this philosophy to major fields of study or scientific facts. Let’s just name a few:

• Big Bang
• Dark Matter and Dark Energy
• Applied probability
• Evolution
• Many subatomic particles

None of these can be proven (or have any value) without plugging in them or their results where a phenomenon needs explanation. That’s the only “evidence” we have for them. Why apply this philosophy to God and not these scientific facts and fields?

 

[hazcompat]

As I’ve said on another thread, so many things you would have to chuck out the window if you applied this philosophy to major fields of study or scientific facts. Let’s just name a few:

• Big Bang
• Dark Matter and Dark Energy
• Applied probability
• Evolution
• Many subatomic particles

None of these can be proven (or have any value) without plugging in them or their results where a phenomenon needs explanation. That’s the only “evidence” we have for them. Why apply this philosophy to God and not these scientific facts and fields?

But not antihelium.

Jesus is present in His Word.

peace

 

[tonyrey]

I just want to clarify that atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god.

Lack of belief implies that you have reasons for lack of belief - unless you are irrational!

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7890569:

There’s a lot of organized complexity, but for that to be evidence for the existence of a god, one must demonstrate that it is evidence for a god. What you offered, (“Since humans are capable of imposing order on nature . . .]”) doesn’t logically do this.

The absence of a verified explanation for some phenomenon is evidence of nothing more than mystery.

If you would like to discuss this further, perhaps it would be good to start a new thread.

As I’ve said on another thread, so many things you would have to chuck out the window if you applied this philosophy to major fields of study or scientific facts. Let’s just name a few:

• Big Bang
• Dark Matter and Dark Energy
• Applied probability
• Evolution
• Many subatomic particles

None of these can be proven (or have any value) without plugging in them or their results where a phenomenon needs explanation. That’s the only “evidence” we have for them.

That’s simply false! Those are all hypotheses (or theories) that have been verified to certain degrees of certainty because they are falsifiable, predictive, and/or testable to varying degrees, and are considered to be true only to those degrees. Scientists don’t just say, “this idea would plug this gap in knowledge. I can’t think of an alternative. Thus, it must be true.”

Occasionally, scientists will propose speculative ideas, but until those ideas are somehow falsifiable, predictive, and/or testable, the scientific community does not consider it a valid hypothesis, much less a true hypothesis.

Are you going to ask me to spend my time explaining each one? If you think that scientists do simply say “this idea would plug this gap in knowledge, I can’t think of an alternative, thus, it must be true,” for any of the things you listed above, perhaps you could start a thread about that.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7890569:

I just want to clarify that atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god.

Lack of belief implies that you have reasons for lack of belief - unless you are irrational!

Presence of belief implies that one has reasons to believe. Anyone else aught not believe for the reason of having no reason to believe (presence of belief and lack of belief is a true dichotomy).

 

[stevekehl]

Anyone interested in examining the historical accuracy and truthfulness of the Gospels should read “Jesus Under Fire,” A collection of essays about the Gospels and historical documents.

 

[tonyrey]

Lack of belief implies that you have reasons for lack of belief - unless you are irrational!

The “reason of having no reason to believe” is not a reason! It implies that you have no reason to believe anything. In other words you live in no-man’s-land…

 

[Pieman333272]

That’s simply false! Those are all hypotheses (or theories) that have been verified to certain degrees of certainty because they are falsifiable, predictive, and/or testable to varying degrees, and are considered to be true only to those degrees. Scientists don’t just say, “this idea would plug this gap in knowledge. I can’t think of an alternative. Thus, it must be true.”

Yes, they do. All the evidence, except maybe the particles, is circumstantial. Why do they accept Dark Matter and Energy? Because something besides regular matter and energy and antimatter and energy needs to fill the universe. Why do we accept the big bang? Because it’s the best explanation for cosmic background radiation, the galaxies moving apart, and the need for a beginning.

That is how higher levels of science WORK. Theories and Hypotheses are made to FILL IN GAPS with CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. If you apply your idea of God having to be proven before he becomes plugged in to these, you will realize that your idea is not rational.

Occasionally, scientists will propose speculative ideas, but until those ideas are somehow falsifiable, predictive, and/or testable, the scientific community does not consider it a valid hypothesis, much less a true hypothesis.

And God is falsifiable and predictive. One could even argue He’s testable. But it doesn’t matter: God is a ** metaphysical assumption** (note that “assumption” is not used in the sense it’s a given without evidence), not a scientific hypothesis. God bearing or not bearing the traits of what other ideas such as the BB and Evolution does not lower the chance of His existence.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Anyways, a traditional story which has no rational basis for considering to be true is generally what people mean by “myth”. It is in this sense, I think, that Antitheist was saying that the gospels are myth. **

Not so. You don’t know bible history.

Mark was a follower of Peter and wrote the first gospel. It stands to reason that he learned about Jesus from Peter. What AntiTheist is saying is that Mark and/or Peter were liars.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7892313:

Pieman333272;7890753:

TruthSeeker60;7890569:

There’s a lot of organized complexity, but for that to be evidence for the existence of a god, one must demonstrate that it is evidence for a god. What you offered, (“Since humans are capable of imposing order on nature . . .]”) doesn’t logically do this.

The absence of a verified explanation for some phenomenon is evidence of nothing more than mystery.

If you would like to discuss this further, perhaps it would be good to start a new thread.

As I’ve said on another thread, so many things you would have to chuck out the window if you applied this philosophy to major fields of study or scientific facts. Let’s just name a few:

• Big Bang
• Dark Matter and Dark Energy
• Applied probability
• Evolution
• Many subatomic particles

None of these can be proven (or have any value) without plugging in them or their results where a phenomenon needs explanation. That’s the only “evidence” we have for them. Why apply this philosophy to God and not these scientific facts and fields?

That’s simply false! Those are all hypotheses (or theories) that have been verified to certain degrees of certainty because they are falsifiable, predictive, and/or testable to varying degrees, and are considered to be true only to those degrees. Scientists don’t just say, “this idea would plug this gap in knowledge. I can’t think of an alternative. Thus, it must be true.”

Yes, they do. All the evidence, except maybe the particles, is circumstantial. Why do they accept Dark Matter and Energy? Because something besides regular matter and energy and antimatter and energy needs to fill the universe. Why do we accept the big bang? Because it’s the best explanation for cosmic background radiation, the galaxies moving apart, and the need for a beginning.

That is how higher levels of science WORK. Theories and Hypotheses are made to FILL IN GAPS with CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

You just completely ignored what I wrote about scientific hypotheses being falsifiable, predictive, and/or testable. The theories or hypotheses you listed above that scientists accept are accepted in part because they have those characteristics. The idea that the universe and/or life within it are designed does not. That’s why no scientists takes it seriously and no articles are being published in respected academic journals.

If you apply your idea of God having to be proven before he becomes plugged in to these, you will realize that your idea is not rational.

You misunderstood. My original point is that if organized complexity is to be considered evidence for a god you need some way of verifying that there is organized complexity because of a god. If it’s unfalsifiable, not predictive, and untestable, how could one possibly verify that particular cause?

And God is falsifiable and predictive. One could even argue He’s testable.

Really! Given that no one has ever presented how the general idea of a (deistic) god, or the idea that a god designed the universe/life, is falsifiable, predictive or testable, I would be interested in hearing how it is. A say deistic because any time one proposes something about god that may be testable (such as those who are prayed for will heal faster) and it doesn’t work, people tent to move more toward o deistic type of god.

But it doesn’t matter: God is a ** metaphysical assumption** (note that “assumption” is not used in the sense it’s a given without evidence), not a scientific hypothesis. God bearing or not bearing the traits of what other ideas such as the BB and Evolution does not lower the chance of His existence.

Haha! You’re essentially saying that god doesn’t qualify as a scientific hypotheses! On this point, I agree with you. How do you verify the metaphysical assumption of a god without evidence?

I take it you’re dropping the argument that if I don’t assume that organized complexity is evidence for a god I have to drop all of these scientific theories/hypotheses (which are believed by scientists partly because they are verifiable by being falsifiable, predictive, and testable).

 

[TruthSeeker60]

**Anyways, a traditional story which has no rational basis for considering to be true is generally what people mean by “myth”. It is in this sense, I think, that Antitheist was saying that the gospels are myth. **

Not so. You don’t know bible history.

Mark was a follower of Peter and wrote the first gospel. It stands to reason that he learned about Jesus from Peter. What AntiTheist is saying is that Mark and/or Peter were liars.

Leaving the issue of the authorship of the gospels aside for a moment, if a group of people today told you they were abducted by aliens, and they seemed to be very sincere, would you believe them? You will find people who will tell you that today. Now if you read that in gospels that were written 2000 years ago, instead of hearing it from them personally today, would you believe them? Any sane person should say no because eyewitness accounts, much less stories that might have been written 2000 years ago by people who may have known eyewitness, cannot justify belief in miracles.

Now on top of that, lets return to authorship. We have none of the originals. We have no copies signed by the authors. We have very little evidence for determining who wrote them. Even if they were written by an eyewitness (scholars agree that they aren’t), that is not a rational basis for considering all the events in the gospels, such as walking on water, to be true.