P
PeterJ
Guest
The Christian faith faces a number of crushing logical objections. I can no longer hold it in good conscience. I will outline these objections below:
1.) The Bible is not inerrant, neither factually nor morally:
1.1 Factually:
20th and 21st century Biblical scholarship has shown beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible errs. The character of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) is entirely different from that of John and the accounts are riddled with inconsistencies. The infancy narratives - to state one notable example - of Matthew and Luke cannot be rationally reconciled (see the census of Quirinius).
It may well be rational to suggest that the Bible is loosely accurate, compiled from eyewitness accounts and adapted to fit the audience, but to suggest that it is accurate to the letter is simply untenable.
1.2 Morally:
Let’s face it, the Old Testament is filled with immoralities. In the Old Testament God is portrayed as a genocidal deity an iniquitous, underhanded master, a senseless murderer who kills children with great floods and commands the extermination of entire peoples. Yes some people will contend that what God allegedly orders is good. But is it?
Take 1 Samuel for instance, God through the prophet Samuel orders that children be massacred. Some Christians no doubt would say that his actions are perfectly moral. Well maybe they are- if God did command them. But how can one be sure that he did? Herein lies the problem, how can God - infinitely separated from man ever infallibly reveal his will without the possibility of doubt. It is certainly immoral if Samuel ordered genocide if there were any room for doubt.
Would the believer today commit this genocide on the word of Samuel, certain as the Bible teaches that he is a prophet of God? Or would doubt creep in? It certainly did for me.
2.) Faith, without some corresponding supernatural experience, is not only unjustified but is immoral.
The famous Clifford lectures conclude that is wrong for everyone, everywhere to form a belief based on insufficient evidence. To me this is clearly the case.
To show that this I will use Clifford’s example - of the ship owner who fails to inspect an unseaworthy vessel. In Clifford’s example the owner of a certain vessel is required to test his ships for seaworthiness before he allows passengers to sail on them. Yet he does not do this, instead he forms a belief by ‘faith’ that the vessel is seaworthy. Is this man not guilty of a most heinous crime? What if his patrons die because of his ‘faith’? I defy the believer to show how Christian faith differs.
In response to Clifford the believer may assert that his faith is justified, as it is formed in him by God himself. Yet what evidence does the believer have for this. Faith merely moves up an order and an infinite regress follows – or a rigid dogmatism, and the believer cannot quell his irrationality.
As a final retort the believer may contend that God produces this faith in him by some special means - a Sensus Divinitatis, and because of this his belief is produced by a reliable belief producing mechanism and is perfectly justified. But really? Does such a faculty exist, surely not. The great diversity of religious belief goes to prove this.
I defy any serious scholar to produce a valid argument, from plausible premises that proves contraception to be immoral. It simply cannot be done.
3.2 The Catholic teaching on masturbation is equally logically unsupportable, equally ridiculous and puts people under great pressure for no good reason. Again no scholar to my knowledge has produced a sound argument to its detriment – don’t send me links to Aquinas.
3.3 The principle of double effect in some instances seems an absurd way of working around dogmatic rules e.g. in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.
Yet even without these objections (which I believe are crushing and decisive defeaters) Catholic moral teaching is too rigid, it will not change depending on the circumstance, it simplifies where human nature is complex and will not listen to reason. In the end Catholic morality comes down to uncompromising dogmatism, natural law its’ facade.
For these reasons I have renounced my faith. Any comments?
P.S Sorry if my tone is angry - I do not mean to cause offense
1.) The Bible is not inerrant, neither factually nor morally:
1.1 Factually:
20th and 21st century Biblical scholarship has shown beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible errs. The character of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) is entirely different from that of John and the accounts are riddled with inconsistencies. The infancy narratives - to state one notable example - of Matthew and Luke cannot be rationally reconciled (see the census of Quirinius).
It may well be rational to suggest that the Bible is loosely accurate, compiled from eyewitness accounts and adapted to fit the audience, but to suggest that it is accurate to the letter is simply untenable.
1.2 Morally:
Let’s face it, the Old Testament is filled with immoralities. In the Old Testament God is portrayed as a genocidal deity an iniquitous, underhanded master, a senseless murderer who kills children with great floods and commands the extermination of entire peoples. Yes some people will contend that what God allegedly orders is good. But is it?
Take 1 Samuel for instance, God through the prophet Samuel orders that children be massacred. Some Christians no doubt would say that his actions are perfectly moral. Well maybe they are- if God did command them. But how can one be sure that he did? Herein lies the problem, how can God - infinitely separated from man ever infallibly reveal his will without the possibility of doubt. It is certainly immoral if Samuel ordered genocide if there were any room for doubt.
Would the believer today commit this genocide on the word of Samuel, certain as the Bible teaches that he is a prophet of God? Or would doubt creep in? It certainly did for me.
2.) Faith, without some corresponding supernatural experience, is not only unjustified but is immoral.
The famous Clifford lectures conclude that is wrong for everyone, everywhere to form a belief based on insufficient evidence. To me this is clearly the case.
To show that this I will use Clifford’s example - of the ship owner who fails to inspect an unseaworthy vessel. In Clifford’s example the owner of a certain vessel is required to test his ships for seaworthiness before he allows passengers to sail on them. Yet he does not do this, instead he forms a belief by ‘faith’ that the vessel is seaworthy. Is this man not guilty of a most heinous crime? What if his patrons die because of his ‘faith’? I defy the believer to show how Christian faith differs.
In response to Clifford the believer may assert that his faith is justified, as it is formed in him by God himself. Yet what evidence does the believer have for this. Faith merely moves up an order and an infinite regress follows – or a rigid dogmatism, and the believer cannot quell his irrationality.
As a final retort the believer may contend that God produces this faith in him by some special means - a Sensus Divinitatis, and because of this his belief is produced by a reliable belief producing mechanism and is perfectly justified. But really? Does such a faculty exist, surely not. The great diversity of religious belief goes to prove this.
- Catholic moral teaching is ridiculous:
I defy any serious scholar to produce a valid argument, from plausible premises that proves contraception to be immoral. It simply cannot be done.
3.2 The Catholic teaching on masturbation is equally logically unsupportable, equally ridiculous and puts people under great pressure for no good reason. Again no scholar to my knowledge has produced a sound argument to its detriment – don’t send me links to Aquinas.
3.3 The principle of double effect in some instances seems an absurd way of working around dogmatic rules e.g. in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.
Yet even without these objections (which I believe are crushing and decisive defeaters) Catholic moral teaching is too rigid, it will not change depending on the circumstance, it simplifies where human nature is complex and will not listen to reason. In the end Catholic morality comes down to uncompromising dogmatism, natural law its’ facade.
For these reasons I have renounced my faith. Any comments?
P.S Sorry if my tone is angry - I do not mean to cause offense
Just odd that this would be the subject lately from more then one new member. 