Science: Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief
Replies
-
We aren't talking once historical fact like a head shot in the JFK assassination, we are talking about virgin births, 3 wise men, death and ressurection, ascending into heaven, the 40 days of fasting, Dec. 25th, all ideas borrowed from more ancient myths. One or two could be explainable, but there is not a single unique part of the Christian mythology. He might not even be the only christ of that time. Hell, even Dionysus, Born of Zues and a human mother, Semele, died, ressurected on the third day and ascended into heaven. he gave great emphasis on the after life. Heck, he even had a confrontation with an authority figure just like Jesus and Pilot. And did I mention he blessed wine? Pretty strange coincidences. And speaking of sloppy history, I can't find any non-christian historians from the time when Christ supposedly lived, died and started off a zombie plague in the streets of J-town that confirm any of this. Dead relatives walking the streets and not a single mention. Strange, I thought someone might think that would be interesting enough to make a note of.
I can find at least 27 documents from the first century that give witness to the death and resurrection of Jesus: the New Testament books. It is easy to say that you don't see a single mention of something when you define away the significance of the writings that do. Its almost like saying, "Except for all the writings that do mention Jesus, there are none that mention him." I would suggest, however, that you look at the first-century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, and you will find mention of Jesus and the basic outline of his life. You will also find various secondary features of the biblical accounts confirmed in his histories of first-century Israel.
Second, you miss my point about JFK. I wasn't talking about one historical fact, I was talking about someone linking that event to similar stories and claiming that because they are similar it must mean that the story was created based on those prior stories. This is complete nonsense. Similarity does not imply origin.
Third, if there are true similarities between the Christian story and pagan myths, this can easily be understood as C. S. Lewis explained it. He once used the same arguments you use (although being an expert in classical literature he understood the context and intention of those writings) but he saw those stories as expressing a yearning in human beings for resurrection, salvation, divine signs, etc. Christianity is like those stories but also different than them in that in Jesus those "stories" are no longer myths but myth has become history. In other words, the deepest longings of human beings have become concretely expressed and answered in time and space in the person of Jesus. If Christianity had nothing to do with the longings of human beings through the centuries (as exprssed in their myths) no one would find meaning and fulfillment in it.0 -
Really. That is hilarious. How does all of those magic tricks translate into mans yearning for "salvation". That is the worst apologist excuse I ever heard. And how about those new testament books. When were they written? 1st or 2nd century AD. ANd they don't agree on much, and actually contradict eachother quite a bit.
And my point about christ not being mentioned, at least in a supernatural sense, but non-christians is completely valid. Greek, Roman, and Jewish scholars, all that lived in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus's supposed life, death, resurrection and magic spectacles, do not mention a the supernatural darkness that follwed his death. They don't mention his ressurection, and they definately don't mention the dead walking the streets greeting the living. Those are all valid points. Christian historians and priests of the ancient world whose main mission was to spread christianity is about as predjudiced as people who believe in Bigfoot who always seem to be the only ones who find evidence of big foot.
And wait, similarity does not imply origin? We aren't talking similar, we are talking complete plagiarism. Your attempt to disguise this as an unconscious yearning is weak, and I don't really care what C.S. Lewis had to say about it. . What is far more likely is that because Jerusalem was occupied by Rome at the time, Greek, Egyption, Indian, and Jewish culture, including their mythologies all mixed.0 -
By “yearning for salvation” I was referring to the various myths you were referencing, not “magic tricks.” Concerning the New Testament books, they were all written in the New Testament and they do not contradict each other. I see great unity in the New Testament books. Only a cynical mind could possibly conclude they “don’t agree on much.” My suspicion is that you know about as much about this as you do the myths you cut and pasted on the prior comment.Really. That is hilarious. How does all of those magic tricks translate into mans yearning for "salvation". That is the worst apologist excuse I ever heard. And how about those new testament books. When were they written? 1st or 2nd century AD. ANd they don't agree on much, and actually contradict eachother quite a bit.
And my point about christ not being mentioned, at least in a supernatural sense, but non-christians is completely valid. Greek, Roman, and Jewish scholars, all that lived in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus's supposed life, death, resurrection and magic spectacles, do not mention a the supernatural darkness that follwed his death. They don't mention his ressurection, and they definately don't mention the dead walking the streets greeting the living. Those are all valid points. Christian historians and priests of the ancient world whose main mission was to spread christianity is about as predjudiced as people who believe in Bigfoot who always seem to be the only ones who find evidence of big foot.
And wait, similarity does not imply origin? We aren't talking similar, we are talking complete plagiarism. Your attempt to disguise this as an unconscious yearning is weak, and I don't really care what C.S. Lewis had to say about it. . What is far more likely is that because Jerusalem was occupied by Rome at the time, Greek, Egyption, Indian, and Jewish culture, including their mythologies all mixed.
Please list for me the Greek, Roman and Jewish scholars who lived in Jerusalem in the first century. Please list their historical writings about first-century Israel. Your list will actually be quite short. The primary historian who lived in Israel in the first century is Josephus who does mention Jesus. The Jewish Talmud, a collection of oral traditions dating back to the time of Jesus, does not deny he did miracles but attributes them to demonic powers.
You don’t think that your evaluation of the biblical documents is “biased”? My guess is that you have never seriously studied the historical value of the New Testament documents but yet you speak as if you can make a definitive judgment on the matter. I have taken the time to study the issue and yet you don’t even show enough humility to listen or seriously question whether or not you are mistaken. You are acting as the apologist for atheism but an “apologist” in the worst sense: one who just argues without really understanding.
Concerning Rome’s occupation of Jerusalem, etc., you simply do not consider all the facts. First, the Jews persistently resisted Hellenism and Roman influence, eventually leading to the destruction of Jerusalem. Further, the issue of the virgin birth of Jesus is rooted in the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14), more than five hundred years before Jesus (long before the Romans). Further, you don’t consider how the birth story of Jesus is related to other miraculous birth-stories in the Old Testament (the far more probable background). Your case is totally unconvincing.0 -
By “yearning for salvation” I was referring to the various myths you were referencing, not “magic tricks.” Concerning the New Testament books, they were all written in the New Testament and they do not contradict each other. I see great unity in the New Testament books. Only a cynical mind could possibly conclude they “don’t agree on much.” My suspicion is that you know about as much about this as you do the myths you cut and pasted on the prior comment.Really. That is hilarious. How does all of those magic tricks translate into mans yearning for "salvation". That is the worst apologist excuse I ever heard. And how about those new testament books. When were they written? 1st or 2nd century AD. ANd they don't agree on much, and actually contradict eachother quite a bit.
And my point about christ not being mentioned, at least in a supernatural sense, but non-christians is completely valid. Greek, Roman, and Jewish scholars, all that lived in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus's supposed life, death, resurrection and magic spectacles, do not mention a the supernatural darkness that follwed his death. They don't mention his ressurection, and they definately don't mention the dead walking the streets greeting the living. Those are all valid points. Christian historians and priests of the ancient world whose main mission was to spread christianity is about as predjudiced as people who believe in Bigfoot who always seem to be the only ones who find evidence of big foot.
And wait, similarity does not imply origin? We aren't talking similar, we are talking complete plagiarism. Your attempt to disguise this as an unconscious yearning is weak, and I don't really care what C.S. Lewis had to say about it. . What is far more likely is that because Jerusalem was occupied by Rome at the time, Greek, Egyption, Indian, and Jewish culture, including their mythologies all mixed.
Please list for me the Greek, Roman and Jewish scholars who lived in Jerusalem in the first century. Please list their historical writings about first-century Israel. Your list will actually be quite short. The primary historian who lived in Israel in the first century is Josephus who does mention Jesus. The Jewish Talmud, a collection of oral traditions dating back to the time of Jesus, does not deny he did miracles but attributes them to demonic powers.
You don’t think that your evaluation of the biblical documents is “biased”? My guess is that you have never seriously studied the historical value of the New Testament documents but yet you speak as if you can make a definitive judgment on the matter. I have taken the time to study the issue and yet you don’t even show enough humility to listen or seriously question whether or not you are mistaken. You are acting as the apologist for atheism but an “apologist” in the worst sense: one who just argues without really understanding.
Concerning Rome’s occupation of Jerusalem, etc., you simply do not consider all the facts. First, the Jews persistently resisted Hellenism and Roman influence, eventually leading to the destruction of Jerusalem. Further, the issue of the virgin birth of Jesus is rooted in the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14), more than five hundred years before Jesus (long before the Romans). Further, you don’t consider how the birth story of Jesus is related to other miraculous birth-stories in the Old Testament (the far more probable background). Your
case is totally unconvincing.
Macpatti, how can you claim that I am the one to lack humility when you consistenly maintain that christianity is the "truth" while other mythologies are just stories? I personally am not insulted by it because I think they are too, I just think it funny that you can't see how the story of christ is a myth as well.
And how did you come to the conclusion I have never studied the christian faith? I didn't know being a devout catholic imbued psychic powers. But if we are guessing, I would guess you are an indoctrinated zealot who will stop at nothing to justify the reality of your fake world.
You go on to say mention Josephus Flavius? You mean the guy that is no longer quoted by most christian scholars. Your evidence is full of half truths. Yes, he lived in 1st century AD. But he was born in 37 AD, he was not even born by the time Christ died. Anything he wrote was based on hand me down stories. But hey, that doesn't exclude him from being a legitamate source of history. What excludes him is that it is widely accepted that the bit he wrote about Jesus was a forgery done by either Constantine or the Pope at the time much later.
And how about Philos- he is a respected source of jewish history who actually lived near or around Jerusalem during the time of christ....not a mention of Jesus's miracles.
And I still yet to hear a convincing story as to how even the sources you have cited failed to mention that the dead walked the streets of Jerusalem and greeted their relatives. That's where this fairytale really messed up. You could make the case that when he crucified and rose, only a small portion of people saw it. Or the water into wine, or any other miracle. But when the dead rise and are walking the streets, I think that would be mentioned.
And, no, I do not have a cynical mind, but I do have a critical one.0 -
Aaaaayyyyyyyyye!!!
I will have to reread this thread a few more times and let it sink in - and no worries, I take full credit for spawning the derailment!0 -
Adrian, since our responses are getting longer, I'll reply without quoting you.
1. I don’t know of anyone who claims that classical mythology is anything more than ancient stories embodying moral truths, etc. Even the ancients understood that (e.g., Plato, Epicurus, Epictetus, Aristotle). The story of Christ is not a myth since virtually all historians grant the historicity of the life of Jesus, that he lived in the first century, did “wonders” around Galilee and Jerusalem, died on a cross, his disciples claimed to experience his resurrection and died insisting that it really happened. These are not myths, they are established as historical realities by the same standards that would be used to establish any other ancient historical claim. This cannot be done for the mythical stories.
2. I conclude you have not seriously studied the Christian faith and its relationship to history because of the uninformed and woefully inadequate sweeping judgments you make.
3.Your statements about Josephus are simply inaccurate. There are two texts referring to Jesus in Josephus’ writings. One of those is thought to be, at least in part, a later interpolation. The other text is believed to be original. Not only does Josephus mention Jesus but he also mentions various other persons connected to the biblical narrative (e.g., Pilate, James, Ciaphas). These provide secondary corroboration of historical details in the Gospel accounts and support the conclusion that those accounts are intended to be serious history.
4. I assume you mean “Philo” (not “Philos”). Philo was not a historian. Philo was a first-century Jewish/Hellenistic Philosopher who lived in Alexandria, Egypt. There is evidence of interaction between Philo’s school of philosophy and early Christianity (see Acts 18-19 in the New Testament, as well as the vocabulary found in the early chapters of the book of Hebrews). What account of first-century Israel/Jerusalem did Philo write? He didn’t. Your reference to Philo only shows that you can’t provide a historian other than Josephus for first-century Israel (that is, of course, excluding the New Testament documents that you won’t even examine, apparently).
5. Concerning the raised people walking on the streets after the resurrection, we only have the one reference in the Gospels. Concerning the resurrection of Jesus we have multiple references. I’m curious about why you focus on the single reference to that event but don’t seem interested in the resurrection of Jesus, arguably the central event of the early Christian preaching.0 -
Adrian, since our responses are getting longer, I'll reply without quoting you.
1. I don’t know of anyone who claims that classical mythology is anything more than ancient stories embodying moral truths, etc. Even the ancients understood that (e.g., Plato, Epicurus, Epictetus, Aristotle). The story of Christ is not a myth since virtually all historians grant the historicity of the life of Jesus, that he lived in the first century, did “wonders” around Galilee and Jerusalem, died on a cross, his disciples claimed to experience his resurrection and died insisting that it really happened. These are not myths, they are established as historical realities by the same standards that would be used to establish any other ancient historical claim. This cannot be done for the mythical stories.
2. I conclude you have not seriously studied the Christian faith and its relationship to history because of the uninformed and woefully inadequate sweeping judgments you make.
3.Your statements about Josephus are simply inaccurate. There are two texts referring to Jesus in Josephus’ writings. One of those is thought to be, at least in part, a later interpolation. The other text is believed to be original. Not only does Josephus mention Jesus but he also mentions various other persons connected to the biblical narrative (e.g., Pilate, James, Ciaphas). These provide secondary corroboration of historical details in the Gospel accounts and support the conclusion that those accounts are intended to be serious history.
4. I assume you mean “Philo” (not “Philos”). Philo was not a historian. Philo was a first-century Jewish/Hellenistic Philosopher who lived in Alexandria, Egypt. There is evidence of interaction between Philo’s school of philosophy and early Christianity (see Acts 18-19 in the New Testament, as well as the vocabulary found in the early chapters of the book of Hebrews). What account of first-century Israel/Jerusalem did Philo write? He didn’t. Your reference to Philo only shows that you can’t provide a historian other than Josephus for first-century Israel (that is, of course, excluding the New Testament documents that you won’t even examine, apparently).
5. Concerning the raised people walking on the streets after the resurrection, we only have the one reference in the Gospels. Concerning the resurrection of Jesus we have multiple references. I’m curious about why you focus on the single reference to that event but don’t seem interested in the resurrection of Jesus, arguably the central event of the early Christian preaching.
1. Really? Ancient people didn't believe in their gods and thought they were myths? How can this conversation even continue with such blatant, purposeful ignorance. Yes, several critical thinkers of their times understood it wasn't real.....it's called atheism. And yes, most historians believe that Jesus was a real person. I never once insinuated he wasn't. But the verification of his miracles is a different matter all together. And going to a non-religious college, I dare say that the historical certainty of Jesus's magic is not iron clad outside of your little bubble.
2. I conclude that you have no ciritical thinking skills, that all of your arguments are not your own, but rather taught to you in some organization or out of a book since you seem completely unable to grasp ancient people's religions as their "truths", how the non-believers can have a rock solid moral foundation, and other mindless arguments that most peopel can easily grasp, but seem beyond you,
3. No, my statement is accurate. Josephus mentioned Jesus, a man. He attributed no supernatural powers to him. Text was added in the 4th century AD by either the Pope or Constantine to esablish Jesus's divinity. Your continued adherence to text that has been discredited proves that you are either behind on your own, I'm sure excellent and unbiased research, or you chose to ignore that the evidence you are using is simply tainted by fraud.
4. Philo was a philospher, I am aware. But he wrote extensively about the Jews in this time period and still doesn't lend any credence to Jesus's divine nature. So, besides Josephus, who is not a credible as a witness to Jesus's divine nature because of his being born after Jesus's death and the fraudulent text done in his name, you have yet to provide a historical source that isn't associated with early christians who were trying to spread their new faith. Once again, your abilities as a psychic are amazing since you apparently know I haven't read the New Testament.
5. I haven't focused on a single incident. I have named many, the water into wine, the virgin birth, the zombie ressurection, Jesus's death, ressurection and ascendence into heaven. In almost every supernatural event, the story is plagiarized from a more ancient culture, often non-jewish in origin. The claim that you used ealier that it was some type of longing or what ever is so laughable my side hurts. The story is not unique. It was stolen to be more familiar and attract more followers, sort of like the christian high-jacking of Dec. 25th, Halloween, and Easter. All pagan holidays stolen to appease recent pagan converts.
But back to the walking dead, are you saying that since only one gospel mentioned it, it might not be true?0 -
Irresistable force - Immovable object. We may finally get to the bottom of this... :laugh:0
-
Irresistable force - Immovable object. We may finally get to the bottom of this... :laugh:
Hulk vs. Thor? Yeah I'm looking forward to the Avengers movie too....
0 -
Adrian,
1. It is not fair to call Aristotle or Plato atheists. That most historians grant Jesus was a historical person is a million miles away from what any historian grants for the Greek and Roman myths. There is simply no comparison between the New Testament writings and those of the ancient myth-writers. I don’t know of any professional historian who makes such a case.
2. Not sure where this rant came from since it includes items that have not been part of this discussion. I’ll leave it to others to determine where I got my knowledge, etc. I can assure you that I’ve read and studied writings on all sides of this issue and therefore nothing you have written is surprising or “new” at all. I think the evidence is not in your favor and that Christianity has powerful evidence on its side.
3. Of course Josephus did not write everything about Jesus. He does testify to his existence, that people accepted as Messiah, etc. If you are looking for non-Christian writers who write everything included in the New Testament and have no bias against it, of course I don’t have any such references. What I do claim is that the basic outline of the life of Jesus is supported by sources outside the New Testament and that there are good reasons to take the New Testament seriously from a historical standpoint.
4. Your fourth point is a strange one. You want me to give you a historical source by a non-Christian that admits everything Christianity professes? How silly. That’s like asking me to give you an atheist writer who admits God exists!
5. No, I’m not saying the story might not be true of the “walking dead,” as you say. What I’m saying is that I can’t argue from a historical standpoint for that story since I lack the kind of documentary sources for that story that I have for the resurrection of Jesus. I do believe that story but I don’t think I can argue convincingly with someone like you on that one. I do think I have a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus since I have multiple lines of evidence that converge in support of it. Since you do not accept the divine inspiration of Scripture, I’m not going to argue as if you do. The other things you write in this paragraph are restatements of prior points I’ve already addressed (or that can be explained with similar observations).0 -
I believe that whatever gets you through the night, as long as it is not hurting anyone else, is cool. Personally, I follow a sort of twisted mish-mash of Catholicism I like to call Swanism - because I'm all humble and schtuff. I don't judge anyone for what they believe as long as they are not trying to impose those beliefs upon others - whether through legislation or subway evangelizin'.
I differ with the church on lotsa things (hence Swanism), but I find it comforting and enjoy the rituals and the community - for the most part.
I agree with Adrian's original thought that the more interesting question is what leads people to believe, if they infact do.0 -
I find this interesting as well, perhaps I'm more interested in what leads people to NOT believe.I agree with Adrian's original thought that the more interesting question is what leads people to believe, if they infact do.0 -
The vast majority of scientists are atheists or agnostics. It's very uncommon to see a devoutly religious person in the hard sciences.
Coincidence? Nope.
(Source: doing a Ph.D. and working with these people for the last 10 years of my life)0 -
Adrian,
1. It is not fair to call Aristotle or Plato atheists. That most historians grant Jesus was a historical person is a million miles away from what any historian grants for the Greek and Roman myths. There is simply no comparison between the New Testament writings and those of the ancient myth-writers. I don’t know of any professional historian who makes such a case.
2. Not sure where this rant came from since it includes items that have not been part of this discussion. I’ll leave it to others to determine where I got my knowledge, etc. I can assure you that I’ve read and studied writings on all sides of this issue and therefore nothing you have written is surprising or “new” at all. I think the evidence is not in your favor and that Christianity has powerful evidence on its side.
3. Of course Josephus did not write everything about Jesus. He does testify to his existence, that people accepted as Messiah, etc. If you are looking for non-Christian writers who write everything included in the New Testament and have no bias against it, of course I don’t have any such references. What I do claim is that the basic outline of the life of Jesus is supported by sources outside the New Testament and that there are good reasons to take the New Testament seriously from a historical standpoint.
4. Your fourth point is a strange one. You want me to give you a historical source by a non-Christian that admits everything Christianity professes? How silly. That’s like asking me to give you an atheist writer who admits God exists!
5. No, I’m not saying the story might not be true of the “walking dead,” as you say. What I’m saying is that I can’t argue from a historical standpoint for that story since I lack the kind of documentary sources for that story that I have for the resurrection of Jesus. I do believe that story but I don’t think I can argue convincingly with someone like you on that one. I do think I have a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus since I have multiple lines of evidence that converge in support of it. Since you do not accept the divine inspiration of Scripture, I’m not going to argue as if you do. The other things you write in this paragraph are restatements of prior points I’ve already addressed (or that can be explained with similar observations).
I don't have the time to go through all of this right now. But my point about the walking dead is this. Even if jews at the time and the romans were against Jesus, even if some didn't believe in his miracles. A infestation of walking dead on the streets of the city would be recorded on all sides and attributed to different things. They might have said it was demonic, or another gods miracles. But in an event that miraculous, historians of all faiths for miles around Jerusalem would record it....we have no such proof. And if one of these supernatural occurances is bogus, then all might be bogus. I lump it in with the parables of the old testament, The Garden, Jonah, Job.0 -
Let's try to debate without resorting to insulting jabs at eachother. Think we can do that?I thought a christian could appreciate that since they have been copying and pasting their morality from an ancient book for centuries.
Well...Christians have been "copying and pasting" their morality from an ancient book for centuries. It's true. Just the terms "copy and paste" weren't around centuries ago.
That's not an insult...that's just the truth.
That's literally what Thomas Jefferson did. He cut out pieces of the Bible that he liked and glued them all into a book to make his own Bible.
Being a Christian, I feel like the Bible is more for guidance than absolute rule. It was written by humans, and humans are subject to bias. Also, it was translated from Hebrew and when translating any language into another, there are going to be mistakes. I live my life by what I think is right because it's right, not because I'm afraid of what will happen to me if I do not.0 -
I find this interesting as well, perhaps I'm more interested in what leads people to NOT believe.I agree with Adrian's original thought that the more interesting question is what leads people to believe, if they infact do.
I had a friend who grew up in a religious household and she told me that she stopped believing that there was any god or deity because of the Holocaust. Hitler did what he did in the name of God, just as many member of the KKK do. Her reasoning is: if there is a fair, loving god, these kinds of things wouldn't be allowed to happen. That was just her view on it.
But another thing that I wanted to bring up that was brought up in both my Philosophy and Religion classes today: are actions either moral or immoral because god/a deity says so? If so, would it still be moral to kill people?
The other side, does a god/deity promote actions because they are moral? If so, the morality of the action came before the god/deity.0 -
So, your source is only the people you've been working with? So the "vast majority" of scientists who are atheists or agnostics are the vast majority of the ones you know?The vast majority of scientists are atheists or agnostics. It's very uncommon to see a devoutly religious person in the hard sciences.
Coincidence? Nope.
(Source: doing a Ph.D. and working with these people for the last 10 years of my life)0 -
So, your source is only the people you've been working with? So the "vast majority" of scientists who are atheists or agnostics are the vast majority of the ones you know?The vast majority of scientists are atheists or agnostics. It's very uncommon to see a devoutly religious person in the hard sciences.
Coincidence? Nope.
(Source: doing a Ph.D. and working with these people for the last 10 years of my life)
My anecdotal evidence combined with the study yes.
In all my years working in science, I've only met 3 people who claimed a religion. I've worked with hundreds of people in that time as well. So yes, my assertion is that most scientists are atheist or agnostic.0 -
I don't doubt that your experience has given you that anecdotal evidence. In all the years working with Catholic schools, churches, and being married to a theologian, I've met more scientists who are people of faith than I can count. I don't think that proves any real data, though. I know that religion and science can go hand in hand, and I know many scientists who believe the same. We had another thread in this group a while back on evolution that you might find interesting. I enjoy discussions like this!My anecdotal evidence combined with the study yes.
In all my years working in science, I've only met 3 people who claimed a religion. I've worked with hundreds of people in that time as well. So yes, my assertion is that most scientists are atheist or agnostic.0 -
I don't doubt that your experience has given you that anecdotal evidence. In all the years working with Catholic schools, churches, and being married to a theologian, I've met more scientists who are people of faith than I can count. I don't think that proves any real data, though. I know that religion and science can go hand in hand, and I know many scientists who believe the same. We had another thread in this group a while back on evolution that you might find interesting. I enjoy discussions like this!My anecdotal evidence combined with the study yes.
In all my years working in science, I've only met 3 people who claimed a religion. I've worked with hundreds of people in that time as well. So yes, my assertion is that most scientists are atheist or agnostic.
You really can't be religious and believe in things like creationism and be taken seriously in most branches of science now, particularly biology, ecology, and biochem. It just doesn't mesh.0 -
This is a very common philosophy question. As I see it, this is a false dichotomy. The reasoning, as you explained, is that (a) either things are moral/immoral because God “says so” and, consequently, God can just declare anything to be right or wrong or (b) things are moral/immoral and therefore God declares them to be such. In (b) God is subject to some other standard of goodness beyond himself while in (a) morality seems to become arbitrary since God can say anything he wants. This is a false dichotomy because there is a better, third option. God is supreme goodness and therefore what he says follows from who and what he is. God cannot declare just anything to be moral (e.g., “murdering the innocent is good”) since to do so would be to cease to be who he is. In other words, some moral commandments arise from the very nature of God and are therefore not arbitrary but they are not grounded in a standard other than God since God himself is supreme goodness. The error of the above reasoning is found in (a) when the argument assumes that what God says can be divorced from who God is.But another thing that I wanted to bring up that was brought up in both my Philosophy and Religion classes today: are actions either moral or immoral because god/a deity says so? If so, would it still be moral to kill people?
The other side, does a god/deity promote actions because they are moral? If so, the morality of the action came before the god/deity.
Great question. Where are you studying?0 -
I don't doubt that your experience has given you that anecdotal evidence. In all the years working with Catholic schools, churches, and being married to a theologian, I've met more scientists who are people of faith than I can count. I don't think that proves any real data, though. I know that religion and science can go hand in hand, and I know many scientists who believe the same. We had another thread in this group a while back on evolution that you might find interesting. I enjoy discussions like this!My anecdotal evidence combined with the study yes.
In all my years working in science, I've only met 3 people who claimed a religion. I've worked with hundreds of people in that time as well. So yes, my assertion is that most scientists are atheist or agnostic.
You really can't be religious and believe in things like creationism and be taken seriously in most branches of science now, particularly biology, ecology, and biochem. It just doesn't mesh.
Exactly.
Someone tried their best to mesh religion into the science we were studying in Astronomy last year, and failed miserably. At the risk of sounding callous towards religious people, it's pretty much a joke to even try.0 -
Adrian, since our responses are getting longer, I'll reply without quoting you.
1. I don’t know of anyone who claims that classical mythology is anything more than ancient stories embodying moral truths, etc. Even the ancients understood that (e.g., Plato, Epicurus, Epictetus, Aristotle).
Well, I see that the debate has come full circle. But seriously, back to my own point about people chosing to believe and critical thinking skills....here you go. This is not reality. It's a purposeful distortion of reality. To actually think ancient people didn't believe in their gods to be anything more than myths just to make ourselves feel better about our current religions is absolute proof of what this article was talking about. And unknowingly, the above statement supports what many atheists and agnostics here have been saying all along, whether it was ancient Greece or our modern times, the great critical thinkers of their time not only begin to question all of these myths, but often do not believe in them at all.0 -
Just because one person you know failed, doesn't mean it cannot be done, Kimmy. There are a great number of scientists who are also people of faith who can explain how the two can go hand in hand, just as there are a great number of theologians who will not try to dispute science. It takes someone knowledgeable in both disciplines to do a good job of it.Someone tried their best to mesh religion into the science we were studying in Astronomy last year, and failed miserably. At the risk of sounding callous towards religious people, it's pretty much a joke to even try.0 -
The ancients never had reasonable “historical” proof for the various stories about their gods and that is why those beliefs were abandoned in time and replaced, by and large, with Christian beliefs which had superior historical proof. The fact that serious historians today defend Christian historical claims while no one continues to defend those of the myths, proves my point. Concerning “critical thinkers,” one does not have to be an atheist or agnostic to be a careful and critical thinker. I think there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who are sloppy thinkers (as there are religious people, too). The quality of being a critical thinker does not mean a person has to choose a pessimistic outlook on the question of God.Well, I see that the debate has come full circle. But seriously, back to my own point about people chosing to believe and critical thinking skills....here you go. This is not reality. It's a purposeful distortion of reality. To actually think ancient people didn't believe in their gods to be anything more than myths just to make ourselves feel better about our current religions is absolute proof of what this article was talking about. And unknowingly, the above statement supports what many atheists and agnostics here have been saying all along, whether it was ancient Greece or our modern times, the great critical thinkers of their time not only begin to question all of these myths, but often do not believe in them at all.0 -
The ancients never had reasonable “historical” proof for the various stories about their gods and that is why those beliefs were abandoned in time and replaced, by and large, with Christian beliefs which had superior historical proof. The fact that serious historians today defend Christian historical claims while no one continues to defend those of the myths, proves my point. Concerning “critical thinkers,” one does not have to be an atheist or agnostic to be a careful and critical thinker. I think there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who are sloppy thinkers (as there are religious people, too). The quality of being a critical thinker does not mean a person has to choose a pessimistic outlook on the question of God.Well, I see that the debate has come full circle. But seriously, back to my own point about people chosing to believe and critical thinking skills....here you go. This is not reality. It's a purposeful distortion of reality. To actually think ancient people didn't believe in their gods to be anything more than myths just to make ourselves feel better about our current religions is absolute proof of what this article was talking about. And unknowingly, the above statement supports what many atheists and agnostics here have been saying all along, whether it was ancient Greece or our modern times, the great critical thinkers of their time not only begin to question all of these myths, but often do not believe in them at all.
Nonsense. First, that is neither what you said nor implied in your post. It an ubelievable statement that ancients didn't believe in their gods as real. Pure and simple fallacy.
Secondly, as if the ancient greeks, aztecs and Europeans decided....oh, look, they have all of this evidence of Jesus that trumps our religious evidence...let's convert! The very fact that you fail to mention the vast list of ways other than peaceful, intellectual conversion of the ancient times, like.....the sword, the arrow, the spear, the axe, torture, genocides, the conversion of the Roman Empire by it's emperor...just to name a few speaks volumes. It's not as if the Aztecs had a spiritual awakening and converted to christianity.
But as far as conversion rates go based on evidence, maybe that is why in all nations that have freedom of religion, the fastest growing group is atheists and agnostics.0 -
Just to throw this out there - a researcher where I work published this recently:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01586.x/pdf
ETA - it may not be available to the public - I can't tell. For reference, here's the abstract:Scientists Negotiate Boundaries Between Religion and Science
Analysis of interviews with 275 natural and social scientists at 21 elite U.S. research universities suggests that only a minority of scientists see religion and science as always in conflict. Scientists selectively employ different cultural strategies with regards to the religion-science relationship: redefining categories (the use of institutional resources from religion and from science), integration models (scientists strategically employ the views of major scientific actors to legitimate a more symbiotic relationship between science and religion), and intentional talk (scientists actively engage in discussions about the boundaries between science and religion). Such results challenge narrow conceptions of secularization theory and the sociology of science literature by describing ways science intersects with other knowledge categories. Most broadly the ways that institutions and ideologies shape one another through the agency of individual actors within those institutions is explored.0 -
It is not an unbelievable statement, it is a true statement and I mentioned several philosophers who explained their religious beliefs as personifications of either natural forces or a single divine source behind natural events. I think you are giving the ancients too little credit. Of course, it is also true that many people had a “crass” or simplistic understanding of the mythological stories. Christianity, from the very beginning, however, presented itself as a historical religion. Ancient Greek and Roman religion lacked this deep sense of the historical presence of God in events. This is such a standard insight into the “genius” of the Judeo-Christian religion that I’m rather surprised that we are spending so much time on it. What do you know of the ancient Greek conception of “history” in contrast to the Christian notion? What do you know of the influence of the Old Testament idea of creation on conceptions of history? Did you know that St. Augustine’s “City of God” (written in the 5th century) is generally considered to be the first “philosophy of history”? If so, you can see why I find it rather fascinating and a little confusing that you would claim to know what the ancient Greeks and/or Romans thoughts about their gods and goddesses in relationship to history.Nonsense. First, that is neither what you said nor implied in your post. It an ubelievable statement that ancients didn't believe in their gods as real. Pure and simple fallacy.
Secondly, as if the ancient greeks, aztecs and Europeans decided....oh, look, they have all of this evidence of Jesus that trumps our religious evidence...let's convert! The very fact that you fail to mention the vast list of ways other than peaceful, intellectual conversion of the ancient times, like.....the sword, the arrow, the spear, the axe, torture, genocides, the conversion of the Roman Empire by it's emperor...just to name a few speaks volumes. It's not as if the Aztecs had a spiritual awakening and converted to christianity.
But as far as conversion rates go based on evidence, maybe that is why in all nations that have freedom of religion, the fastest growing group is atheists and agnostics.
Christianity apparently became the majority religion in the Roman empire during the centuries that it was illegal to be a Christian. Christians had no political or military power in those times. Further, although it is true that some Christians have abused power (as have plenty of atheists), there are countless Christians who win others to their faith by their daily acts of love and faithfulness. I haven’t seen many atheist soup kitchens for the homeless in downtown Houston but I’ve been to and know of quite a number of them that are run by Christians. It is profoundly wrong to characterize Christians generally as people mistreating others as their way of sharing their faith.
Regarding the growth of atheists and agnostics, I think atheism and agnosticism (at least in large measure) are basically protest movements. Admittedly, Christians have failed too often to fully live their faith, giving atheists an excuse to attack it.0 -
It is not an unbelievable statement, it is a true statement and I mentioned several philosophers who explained their religious beliefs as personifications of either natural forces or a single divine source behind natural events. I think you are giving the ancients too little credit. Of course, it is also true that many people had a “crass” or simplistic understanding of the mythological stories. Christianity, from the very beginning, however, presented itself as a historical religion. Ancient Greek and Roman religion lacked this deep sense of the historical presence of God in events. This is such a standard insight into the “genius” of the Judeo-Christian religion that I’m rather surprised that we are spending so much time on it. What do you know of the ancient Greek conception of “history” in contrast to the Christian notion? What do you know of the influence of the Old Testament idea of creation on conceptions of history? Did you know that St. Augustine’s “City of God” (written in the 5th century) is generally considered to be the first “philosophy of history”? If so, you can see why I find it rather fascinating and a little confusing that you would claim to know what the ancient Greeks and/or Romans thoughts about their gods and goddesses in relationship to history.Nonsense. First, that is neither what you said nor implied in your post. It an ubelievable statement that ancients didn't believe in their gods as real. Pure and simple fallacy.
Secondly, as if the ancient greeks, aztecs and Europeans decided....oh, look, they have all of this evidence of Jesus that trumps our religious evidence...let's convert! The very fact that you fail to mention the vast list of ways other than peaceful, intellectual conversion of the ancient times, like.....the sword, the arrow, the spear, the axe, torture, genocides, the conversion of the Roman Empire by it's emperor...just to name a few speaks volumes. It's not as if the Aztecs had a spiritual awakening and converted to christianity.
But as far as conversion rates go based on evidence, maybe that is why in all nations that have freedom of religion, the fastest growing group is atheists and agnostics.
Christianity apparently became the majority religion in the Roman empire during the centuries that it was illegal to be a Christian. Christians had no political or military power in those times. Further, although it is true that some Christians have abused power (as have plenty of atheists), there are countless Christians who win others to their faith by their daily acts of love and faithfulness. I haven’t seen many atheist soup kitchens for the homeless in downtown Houston but I’ve been to and know of quite a number of them that are run by Christians. It is profoundly wrong to characterize Christians generally as people mistreating others as their way of sharing their faith.
Regarding the growth of atheists and agnostics, I think atheism and agnosticism (at least in large measure) are basically protest movements. Admittedly, Christians have failed too often to fully live their faith, giving atheists an excuse to attack it.
Once again, you seem to be proving the OPs original article to be very true. Anyone who owns a pair of eyes, can read, and can cross reference can compare the Gospels and see the inconsistencies in which you claim make me "cynical". You tout supreme wisdom in all areas of research, but it seems that no matter what book or history you read, you twist things in your favor that are so completely false that anyone with a reasonable amount of critical thinking skills are palm slapping their forehead.
Yes, you mentioned several philosophers who were ahead of their time.....but you said the ancients, as in, all of the ancients understood that their gods were false and just representations of nature which is utterly and comple garbage. Garbage. I am greek, I have studied a lot of greek history, and people do not sacrifce animals, fight wars, and erect temples to the wind and skies. They absolutely thought their gods were real. It was only towards the end of the classical greek civilization that people faith in their gods began to fade. To think that Mayans or Greeks or Aztecs or Vikings did not believe in their own pantheon of gods is such a revision of history I am beginnng to question everything you have ever written. No rational person who has studied anykind of history could make that argument.
Second, once again, you seem completely and utterly incapable of admitting the true nature of the christian rise to a dominant faith. I am more than willing to admit that Romans converted, the numbers who were forced by their emperor is debatable. But you just brushed away the rest of it. Judging from your profile pic, since you do not seem greek, jewish, middle eastern or italian, and seemed to descend from a northern Europe, it is statistically probable that your ancestors converted to christianity by thread of force. That is not the least bit an an exagertaion.
Third, as before you show your true colors once again by taking a conversation about ancient times and doing what you seem to do best, attack with cowardice the character of modern atheists by claiming that you have never seen an atheist soup kitchen in Houston. As what that has to do with this conversation, I'm not sure, but I suggest using google to find non-religious affiliated charities, their are many, especially when taking into account how few we are in the population compared to the christian population. Oh, and we a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the prison population as well.
Really, in large measure atheism and agnosticism are a protest. Yeah, against idiocy. While it is true that many, many non-believers are sickened by christian behavior, over and over again, the standard atheist vs. the standard christian, the atheist wins hands down on knowledge of the bible. We aren't only protesting the actions of the churches, like the modern day catholics, which is deplorable enough. We are protesting that out of the entire universe, filled with stars, black holes, astroids, and planets, that some supreme being decided the best way to introduce himself to the world would be by inseminating some young girl with his holy seed on a tiny planet, in Jerusalem, so his new born demigod son could sacrifice himself to alleivate the curse that all mankind inherited from two people eating a piece of fruit.
Oh, and he didn't do this for people on other continents.0 -
Here is my quote on this:Third, as before you show your true colors once again by taking a conversation about ancient times and doing what you seem to do best, attack with cowardice the character of modern atheists by claiming that you have never seen an atheist soup kitchen in Houston. As what that has to do with this conversation, I'm not sure
You were claiming that people have converted to Christianity by force. I'm giving you an example of how Christians have gotten people to convert by acts of love, not by force.Further, although it is true that some Christians have abused power (as have plenty of atheists), there are countless Christians who win others to their faith by their daily acts of love and faithfulness. I haven’t seen many atheist soup kitchens for the homeless in downtown Houston but I’ve been to and know of quite a number of them that are run by Christians. It is profoundly wrong to characterize Christians generally as people mistreating others as their way of sharing their faith.
I'll address the rest when I have time.0
This discussion has been closed.