Other stories similar to jesus' story preceded the new testament. Heracles was born half human half god, did "labors" of good, was killed, and resurrected to be a god. Horus is another man god story. Many of the births centered around the winter solstice.
So jesus story isn't original, it's just another rendition of a man-god story that was carried down through the ages.

Discuss.....

A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

My biggest problem with this is the same one that I have with the Jesus seminar. The currently accepted scholastic view of the origins of Christianity are that they are oriental, near east. It was a culture that loathed syncretism, and was stictly monotheist. The idea (especially as espoused by Erhman) that a group of Jews from that area would create a mythology based on a Greek worldview is a touch misinformed. It is an easy thing to say from this vast time distance, very tough to picture from the contemporary picture. A bit of chronological snobbery, really.

You are assuming that those elements of mythology and "Greek worldview" originated with the "group of Jews from that area" who formed the core of the "Jesus movement" (not my favorite phrase, but the most apt I can think of after such little sleep).

The core of "Jesusism" IMO consists of the sayings and teachings attributed to him. That's it. Everything else from then until now is an add-on, and thus, again IMO, subject to very human influences. So, no, the "group of Jews" did not create the mythology. The different "layers" were added on later--by Jewish followers who needed to defend themselves against other Jews by placing Jesus' life within Jewish scriptural context, anti-Semitic Greeks who needed to both remove Jesus from that Jewish context and reconcile Jesus with the tenets of Platonism, etc, etc, etc. Maybe I am misreading your comment, but it seems that saying the original "group of Jews" created "the mythology" ignores the several centuries of theological (and sometimes political) debate that initially defined Catholic/Christian doctrine, and the subsequent centuries of debate that have refined it.

I'm never surprised when people from millenia ago turn out to have made a mistake.

We don't know what year Christ may have been born, so how can we accurately know it's been 2011 years?

It's just a cultural way of keeping a calendar. Not everyone even uses it. And it's changed numerous times.

I am in no way disputing that there were followers of Christ, referred to in historic writings as Christians. The theory I've read is that it's a mistranslation of "nice people". I've read that who we refer to as Jesus Christ may have been an apocalyptic preacher named Yeshua Ben Yosef. One thing I know based simply on having a brain is that at the very least the dude was not blonde with blue eyes and a button nose.

So we don't know when he was born, when he died, what his name was or what he looked like. But everyone's so sure he exists and thinks we should base our lives on him. Sorry. Not for me.

We have far more information about Jesus (Hebrew Yeshua ben Yosef just means Jesus, Son of Joseph, nothing all that surprising there) than about virtually any other person of antiquity. The New Testament includes 27 documents written by people who either had direct contact with Jesus or were contemporaries of those who did. If you apply the normal standards of historical investigation to the New Testament documents they pass with flying colors. If the evidence and reasons for believing in Jesus were as shallow and inconsequential as you suggest in your brief comments, it is ludicrous to imagine billions of people giving their lives to follow him. I dare say more books have been written about Jesus than anyone else so the data must be far more significant than the largely unknown character you describe.

Without corroborating objective evidence, you can't really use christian writings as "proof" of the existence of Jesus, and the use of citations that come from christian apologists is not very useful either. The idea that "more books have been written about jesus" also serves as "proof" is equally weak. Over 100 million copies of "Lord of the Rings" have been sold--that doesn't prove the existence of Hobbits.

The need for christian writers to "prove" the existence of Jesus by exaggerating and even inventing historical "evidence" seems particularly insecure for a religion that has inspired "billions of people giving their lives to follow".

It doesn't really make any difference, does it?

I see the question as essentially being of two parts. The first is "was there an actual person, whatever his nature, named Jesus who lived and preached in Galilee and Judea approx 2000 years? Like I said, I find it interesting that there is so little actual historical evidence. There is little or nothing in the way of records, government accounts, physical evidence, etc. There are no eyewitness accounts. You don't identify your 27 "sources", but I suspect I have read most of them, and all are hearsay, and arguments can be made that some have been altered and others only restate current thinking and historical interpretation of the time they were written.

I still find it an interesting paradox that there is so little physical substance of someone who has played such a pivotal role in modern history. (Again, I do not mean this in any disrespectful way). I have never discounted the idea that that may have been on purpose, if you believe in a "divine scheme".

To me, and I would think for most christians, the search for the "historical Jesus" is an interesting academic exercise, especially for those who enjoy digging for facts and historical analysis.

You made what I think is the most powerful and simple argument--probably the only one that needs to be made. Just like we "prove" the existence of things like black holes and subatomic particles by what happens around them, the fact that--whatever happened in that part of the world 2000 years ago--a message emerged that resonated then and now with a vast number of people is pretty powerful evidence that there was someone to initiate that message. I don't think a movement like that, occurring as it did in such a compressed period of time, it something that can just happen spontaneously.

So, regardless of what I considered to be almost nonexistent historical evidence, I am coming down on the side of, yes, there was a physical entity, charismatic leader, whatever you want to call him who did live at that time and whose teachings provided the earliest foundation of what eventually evolved into christianity.

Now the second question: was this Jesus who lived 2000 years ago, the Jesus Christ as defined by christian doctrine. That's the part I can't go with. I don't have time to go into detail, but when I look at the evolution of Jesus Christ, I think the historical evidence clearly shows that: A) the actual Jesus bears little or no resemblance to Jesus the Christ and that the "creation" of Jesus the Christ was an essentially man-made affair, influenced by social, philosophical, and political factors that came into play as the original teachings of Jesus spread outside of the Jewish communities for which they were originally intended and into Greek, Roman, and eventually pagan cultures.

These are just opinions, of course, and one can, for the sake of argument, dispute them on their merits (or lack thereof). Someone who is a Christian can also just dismiss them out of hand--there's nothing to say that everything that has occurred isn't part of god's overall plan.

I don't write these things to try to undermine anyone's faith, nor to attack or denigrate (although I understand that some comments might be taken that way). I respect each individual's personal beliefs (emphasis on the "personal").

I think there is some significance in pointing out or arguing in favor of what I see are the "human" origins of religion, and this (finally) goes back to the original topic statement. I do think that most religions reflect human concepts rather than "divine" ones. I think that man creates god in man's image and likeness, not the other way around. I do think that many of the elements of the Jesus narrative use symbolism and themes that have been common to man and man's religions throughout recorded history. A person of "faith" might look at these common ideas as "proof" of god's influence since the beginning of time. People like me see them as evidence of archetypes that are an inherent part of humanity and so they manifest themselves in repeating themes across different era, cultures, and religions.

The main importance of this to me is to destroy the concept of "one true faith", the idea that there is only ONE acceptable type of religious belief, or that one religion is inherently superior and thus deserves to be given precedence over all others. That the beliefs of one particular sect should be used as the legal or moral standard that all other must follow and that adherence to one particular sect should be a de facto requirement for, say, holding public office.

So you are comparing a million copies of the most recent best seller in 2011 to the vast collection of authors over the past 2,000 years who wrote about Jesus? I don't think that's comparable.

And there is a lot of historical evidence for Jesus. But you want to discount all the Christians who wrote about Jesus? That's ridiculous. That's like saying that you would like to learn about Buddaism but you want to discount all those Buddists that wrote about their religion.

There is sufficient evidence to believe in Jesus available. All one has to do is look. But if you don't want to see it or believe it, nothing can be said or written that will be sufficient.

1. Your first sentence is simply a non sequitur. If Jesus had a human father that would no more require that Jesus is "nothing more than a mortal man" than the fact that he had a human mother requires that he is "nothing more than a mortal man." I believe Jesus did not have a human father but your logic here simply is not convincing. What makes it impossible that God could unite himself to a human nature ("Incarnation") that is produced through normal human procreation? I see nothing that makes this impossible.

The same could be said about Heracles and Mitra. Why couldn't it have happened with them?

If you want to make a case that Heracles and Mitra is a factual historical case and draw some theological implications from it, I’m happy to consider those. I don’t know anyone who tries to make that case, however. I know plenty who make that case for Christianity. The sources are very different that refer to these events.

2. The birth of Jesus is not what separates Christianity from other religions. Muslims, for instance, admit the virgin birth of Jesus but deny his death on the cross. Regarding the Catholic mass, the center of the mass is the Last Supper of Jesus and sacramental participation in the sacrifice of Jesus. The focus is simply not on the birth of Jesus.

I'd like to see proof about Muslims admitting "virgin" birth of jesus. And the catholic mass is consistently proclaiming the virgin birth and even prays to Mary. Ever see statues of her in a catholic church with candles around it? I'm not saying that the last supper isn't an important part of the mass, but if you attend, you will most certainly hear in most responses about Mary's virginity, immaculate conception, and jesus divinity from it.

On Muslims and the virgin birth, see Surah 19 (Koran) and/or do a google search on, “Do Muslims believe in the virgin birth?” You will find plenty to support my claim.

3. You keep referring to "two Apostles" not mentioning the birth of Jesus (presumably you are referring to the two Gospels that do not mention the birth of Jesus). First, one of those Gospels was not written by an Apostle (Mark). The other one (John) is apparently written to supplement Matthew, Mark and Luke and therefore very rarely repeats the same things they present. I get the feeling you lack the basic familiarity with the New Testament that is required to adequately evaluate your claims.

I'm sorry, I understood an apostle as a messenger. So I will recant and say "gospels of 2 people who followed jesus". Regardless, 2 gospels don't denote this important fact. Without the virgin birth, jesus then was nothing but an ordinary man.

I go to a Catholic Church every week and work every day in a Catholic environment. It is simply not true that Mary is present in virtually every response, etc. The Creed mentions, among many things, that we believe that Jesus was “conceived of the virgin Mary,” and we also have a shared confession sometimes at the beginning of the mass that includes a request to Mary and all the saints to pray to God for us. That’s about it in a normal mass. The rest of the service is filled with references to Jesus. I’m certainly not wanting to minimize the Catholic love for Mary but the structure and contents of the mass are simply not built around Mary or the virgin birth.

4. By raising kids without sharing your religious faith you are teaching them an attitude towards religion. You are telling them that your religion means so little to you that you don't even want to share it with them. If I have something wonderful that I want my kids to share and experience, I make it available to them.

subjective. I see religion as a way people are coerced into following a set of rules by a being who has no evidence of existing. You can have morals without religion. It's just not the morals that the religious like.

Again, you keep repeating the claim that if Jesus was not born of a virgin he is nothing but an ordinary man. First, I of course believe in the virgin birth. Second, the uniqueness of Jesus is not exclusively founded on his virgin birth. The New Testament builds the uniqueness of Jesus on a variety of other bases (e.g., his unique relationship to God, his relationship to King David, his ability to do miracles, his authoritative teaching, his incredible knowledge without having formal training, his resurrection and ascension, his fulfilling the words of the prophets). To give exclusive importance to the virgin birth as if that is the only grounds of his importance is simply contrary to the Bible and is an arbitrary standard that the Christian faith has never claimed.

5. The Holy Spirit works through human instruments. What you are suggesting is a very unChristian approach; what you are describing is more like Gnosticism. Christians believe that God is known and revealed through his creation. This is one of the central reasons that we believe God became "incarnate" in Jesus. God draws near to humans within the creation rather than in spite of it.

Wait. So when a person says they were touched by the holy spirit, it was actually a human that did it? Interesting. I guess all the people that say it are full of crap then.

Your reply here is “subjective.” Morals have traditionally been tied to religious frameworks. If you have studied moral philosophy you know that those who devote their lives to trying to establish a basis of morality without appeal to a religious foundation have a very hard time doing so. You have the classic hedonist positions (morality is really just the pursuit of pleasure) and the division between those who argue for maximizing sensual pleasure and those who argue for maximizing more “cultured pleasures”; you have those who argue for moderation and those who argue for getting all you can as soon as possible; you have those who argue that morality is nothing more than a “cloak” for expressions of feeling (“Emotivism”); you have those who argue that morality should factor in the good of the larger community (Utilitarianism); among those there are some who argue that you factor up the greatest good based on quantitative analysis (Jeremy Bentham) over against those who argue for a qualitative analysis (J. S. Mill); on the other hand you have a whole group who argue that ethics/morality should not be based on an analysis of “ends” or goals at all. Instead, there are some moral principles that arise from intuition and consistency (application of the law of non-contradiction) and should not consider “effects” at all (Immanual Kant, deontological ethics). This only scratches the surface. Surely you know about the huge debates over cultural relativism. The most basic question that is constantly posed in college ethics classes is the famous “naturalistic fallacy”: How can you derive an “ought” from an “is”? In other words, where does ethics come from? Ethics cannot be based purely on empirical considerations since those give us only factual knowledge not a basis for moral duty. If moral duty arises from within, where do the universal demands of morality come from? If you say there are no universal moral demands, then you lose the right to criticize someone else’s morality and you also have to admit that you cannot have a “morality” in any objective sense of the word. You may say that you personally “feel” like one thing is good but you cannot say it is “good” for everyone. That sounds more like subjectivism than morality to me. By the way, I think I have lots of reasons to believe what I teach my kids is true.

6. Yes, conversions take place when people are convinced. That must mean that a lot of people have found Christianity convincing through the centuries. Again, you make an illogical leap by implying the Holy Spirit acts without means or instruments.

You do notice that Atheism is rising, especially amongst the younger generation. I attribute that to kids now being much smarter than to just listen to stories and are logically figuring out that the bible is really a great story book.

When people say they are “touched by the Holy Spirit” they probably mean a lot of things. Some of these may be valid and others not. My only point was that God works through created means or instruments in order to reveal himself. For example, a person may be guided by the Holy Spirit “through” words from Scripture, “thoughts” infused into their mind, “words” spoken through friends, a “song” they hear, a nature scene they see, or whatever. God’s presence and guidance will be mediated through some created thing that is used to carry some meaning from God to a person. This is somewhat similar to what we are doing now. My “spirit” or mind is sharing itself with you through the symbols on this screen. The symbols are the means by which a spiritual/immaterial activity is taking place: thoughts are being transferred between minds through the medium of words/signs.

7. Concerning things taught in school, you miss my point. I was simply pointing out that just because something is taught doesn't mean it is wrong. I would argue that religious faith is a vital force for developing virtue and moral goodness in human communities and that it provides an organizing framework for interpreting one's existence and meaning in the world. Schools don't necessarily teach this (although many have and do throughout our history) but they do presuppose a framework for understanding things that is expressed in the other specific disciplines tha are taught in school.

It depends on how you view that faith. Do you think Islamic faith being taught to Muslims is moral enough to teach to christian children?

My experience of young atheists is not that they are “smarter.” Most of those I deal with don’t even have a basic knowledge of what they are rejecting. I also think the perceived and actual inconsistencies of organized religion contribute to this as well. If there were more holy people living consistently with what they claimed to believe, I think atheism would largely disappear. I would recommend two interesting books related to these claims. First, Paul Vitz’s, book, “The Faith of the Fatherless,” and Alister McGrath’s book, “The Twilight of Atheism.” The first is by a psychologist that teaches at NYU. He uses the method of psychology to conclude there is a large amount of clinical and historical data to support the conclusion that atheism is largely the effect of family developmental disfunction. McGrath’s (and Oxford professor, theologian and philosopher, specialist in philosophy of science) book gives an enlightening description of the rise of atheism since the Enlightenment and seeks to identify its primary causes and what its historical effects are. Both are very good.

8. Many things signify Jesus was the Son of God. One is that he predicted he would die and rise again from the dead. Those who saw him alive after his death died affirming it was true. Christianity is a historical effect of that claim. I believe it is true. To say that this is the only reason to believe Jesus is the Son of God, however, would be a radical understatement. If you ask a man or woman who loves his/her spouse, tell me in one setence why you trust your spouse, he/she would probably find it difficult to answer. An informed Christian will also find it difficult to offer a brief answer. I'm convinced Jesus is the Son of God because I believe the entire Old Testament prepares for his coming (and yes, there are many prophecies suggesting many things about Jesus). I can't read Isaiah 53, for instance, without seeing Jesus predicted in every line. I'm convinced Jesus is the Son of God because his teachings resonate with me. I find his words, actions, authority, and love convincing and compelling. I find my life profoundly enriched in every way by the beliefs and guidance of Christianity. I could go on and on but obviously none of this is convincing to you without having shared the same experiences. Like the person who has not loved a wonderful husband or wife finds it difficult to understand what such a love is like, so it is, I'm afraid, that those who lack the experience of the beauty of Christianity will only misunderstand.

Many scriptures in the old testament describe just how a king would act with his kingdom. In fact the majority of morals actually came from within clans and families, then as they grew and had leaders, those leaders dictated what is right to do. It's the same today with families. What you believe is what your kids learn to be moral, but it may not be the same for another family that has the same religion. I can't think of any religion that stands behind killing just to killing, stealing just to steal so those basics are set. But you don't need religion to figure that one out. Morals are subjective at best even within religous factions.

I am not a Muslim and I do think that Islam has an inferior set of moral values when compared to Christianity.

Without corroborating objective evidence, you can't really use christian writings as "proof" of the existence of Jesus, and the use of citations that come from christian apologists is not very useful either. The idea that "more books have been written about jesus" also serves as "proof" is equally weak. Over 100 million copies of "Lord of the Rings" have been sold--that doesn't prove the existence of Hobbits.

I don’t know anyone who takes the Lord of the Rings to be a historical account; plenty take the biblical sources to be historical. Your first sentence is not convincing. You are saying that we can only consider as historically valuable sources that are entirely neutral or are opposed to something. Why can’t someone who believes in Jesus and saw his life serve as a good witness to him? Why do I have look for someone who saw Jesus but didn’t believe in him in order to have a “good” source? That just doesn’t sound right. Of course, there are ancient historical references to Jesus outside the Bible and apart from those who believed in Jesus. There are the two famous texts in Josephus’ histories (1st century Jewish source). There are early Roman references to the Christians and their belief in “the Christ” who died by crucifixion in Jerusalem (Pliny, Herodotus). There are also some references to Jesus in the Jewish Talmud (oral traditions recorded around AD 200). There are also many secondary corroborations (e.g., Josephus mentions various people who are also part of the biblical story-line, John the Baptist, James, Pilate, etc.).

The need for christian writers to "prove" the existence of Jesus by exaggerating and even inventing historical "evidence" seems particularly insecure for a religion that has inspired "billions of people giving their lives to follow".

Who invented historical “evidence”? I’m not sure what you have in mind in your second paragraph.

It doesn't really make any difference, does it?

I think this issue makes all the difference in the world. If Jesus is the incarnate God, his life, death and resurrection take on infinite value. If Jesus was just a man or an invented figure, there are an awful lot of deceived people. I think the issue is of enormous importance. Either Jesus is worth everything or he is worth very little. I don’t see much room for a middle position.

I see the question as essentially being of two parts. The first is "was there an actual person, whatever his nature, named Jesus who lived and preached in Galilee and Judea approx 2000 years? Like I said, I find it interesting that there is so little actual historical evidence. There is little or nothing in the way of records, government accounts, physical evidence, etc. There are no eyewitness accounts. You don't identify your 27 "sources", but I suspect I have read most of them, and all are hearsay, and arguments can be made that some have been altered and others only restate current thinking and historical interpretation of the time they were written.

I again disagree that there is “little historical evidence.” We have enough to keep full-time historians and scholars of all sorts busy for a lifetime. We have a mountain of literature before the time of Jesus, the New Testament documents, hundreds of texts in the few centuries after Jesus, tons of archaeological data that aid in reconstructing the first-century world, the foundations, structures and art of churches, houses, catacombs, etc. There is more data of various sorts than one individual can assimilate in a lifetime. If you set your standard of what constitutes “evidence” as a moving target, always tossing aside the data that we do have in search of something else, of course you will be dissatisfied. For those who are inclined to sympathetically look at the evidence, there is a ton to consider.

You made what I think is the most powerful and simple argument--probably the only one that needs to be made. Just like we "prove" the existence of things like black holes and subatomic particles by what happens around them, the fact that--whatever happened in that part of the world 2000 years ago--a message emerged that resonated then and now with a vast number of people is pretty powerful evidence that there was someone to initiate that message. I don't think a movement like that, occurring as it did in such a compressed period of time, it something that can just happen spontaneously.

I appreciate your comments about Christianity as the historical effect of something profound that happened in the first century. I agree that this is a powerful argument. What I don’t understand is why you choose to be historically agnostic about what caused this effect. You agree it was something powerful but then you choose to reject the biblical account of that cause. Why not take the New Testament accounts as reliable witnesses to something of monumental significance? Just because what we find is unusual and astonishing doesn’t mean it has to be rejected. We already know that we are looking for something that is unusual. Furthermore, I don’t see any reason to question the integrity of the biblical writers; if anything, they give every evidence of being sincere and trustworthy. (I recommend a chapter in Robert Stein’s book, “The Synoptic Problem,” entitled something like, “The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.” He presents a series of arguments from within the Gospels that provide a solid basis for concluding that the Gospel writers worked very hard to present a sound memory of Jesus in their writings.)

I think there is some significance in pointing out or arguing in favor of what I see are the "human" origins of religion, and this (finally) goes back to the original topic statement. I do think that most religions reflect human concepts rather than "divine" ones. I think that man creates god in man's image and likeness, not the other way around. I do think that many of the elements of the Jesus narrative use symbolism and themes that have been common to man and man's religions throughout recorded history. A person of "faith" might look at these common ideas as "proof" of god's influence since the beginning of time. People like me see them as evidence of archetypes that are an inherent part of humanity and so they manifest themselves in repeating themes across different era, cultures, and religions.

On “archetypes,” I agree that there are themes or archetypes that seem to transcend culture and historical contexts. This is highly interesting and I think points to a common human nature that we all share along with certain internal drives, hopes, fears, etc. I would suggest, however, that admitting universal archetypes does not imply that the significance of Jesus is relativized or undermined. It is Christian belief that what we all long for on a very deep level is “answered” or addressed in the person, life and death of Jesus. In other words, in Jesus the universal longings of human beings find a concrete, historical answer. Human beings are, on one level, beings who transcend space and time in our interior longings. We are also beings of time and space, however. God, we believe, brings both together in a moment in time and provides supreme guidance and direction in Jesus. I can respect your sympathies on these points but I don’t think they require the conclusions you draw.

Thank you for your openness to discussion and consideration of these points!

Hercules and Horus are mythical stories. The story of Jesus Christ is not.

Aliens is a fictional movie. Lord Xenu the space titan is real!

Assertions with no evidence are meaningless.

I'm not convinced that Jesus Christ is a real person who existed. The only evidence comes from the bible. I've read up on this a bit, anyone who'd like to provide some i'd appreciate it. But i'll tell you now don't waste time with Josephus.

Agreed. There are plenty of sources saying Jesus was a real dude... and he may have been... but there are also SEVEN whole books and EIGHT wildly famous movies about some orphan with a scar on his forehead that can do magic. So clearly, he must be real- otherwise why would we have all the awesome stories about how cool he is?

Okay let's discuss the "virgin birth" to help dispell the so called prophecy from the old testament. IMO, without the virgin birth, jesus was no more than just a man preaching about some magical being. Now if it could be proven that the actual birth happened, well I might change my mind.
Realistically I can't think of anyone who would believe that with the exception of IVF, that a female today could be impregnated without sex. Somehow christians believe that this story of jesus supercedes other man-god stories because of some prophecy.
First off let's find the scripture to prove it. I'll leave that up to christians to post.
I'll give you a hint: it's in Isiah.

Seems like you're more interested in playing games than actually debating. If you know the scripture enough to give a hint, why are you posing the question?

Agreed. There are plenty of sources saying Jesus was a real dude... and he may have been... but there are also SEVEN whole books and EIGHT wildly famous movies about some orphan with a scar on his forehead that can do magic. So clearly, he must be real- otherwise why would we have all the awesome stories about how cool he is?

Come on, now. Does anyone believe Harry Potter is real? Um, no.

We tell kids Santa Claus is real. And they believe it. Lol, for christians, jesus and god is the adult santa claus.

Seriously. How long to children believe there is a Santa Claus? 8-9 years, tops for most?

As far as arguments for or against you all are light years ahead of my thought process.

But if we are talking mythology... don't know if anyone has mentioned the story of Danae and the Shower of Gold yet? Danae was shut in a tower and wasn't allowed out basically. Zeus saw her and fell in love with her, but instead of impregnating her traditionally, he basically had sex with her "in a shower of gold" Danae gave birth to a son, Perseus.

Everyone was surprised when Danae suddenly had a son-- for no one was in the tower with her, at all. So basically, they thought she had a virgin birth.

And of course, Danae's son was prophesied to kill Danae's father someday, so dear old Daddy put them in some sort of chest or something, and sent them away by sea.

Just thought it was an interesting story to throw out there.

Seriously. How long to children believe there is a Santa Claus? 8-9 years, tops for most?

How long did it take me to leave the Christian faith? About 17 years, when I learned so much about Christianity and science that I couldn't see any possible way that it a) is real, and b) matters in the slightest.

I have no problems with people having faith. Seriously, I don't mind. I'm agnostic though, so I agree- he might be out there- but I very seriously, highly doubt it. And if he is, the books about him paint him to be a pretty vain jerk. And before you ask, yes, I've read the bible. I've read it twice, I went to church every Sunday in my youth, I was even president of First Priorities (my school's church group). I went to Lutheridge (http://www.llmi.net/) every summer as a kid (church camp), so I do know a bit about Christianity.

You might want to look into the Dead Sea Scrolls. At least one book of the OT is present (Isaiah, as it happens, the book most frequently cited as containing prophetic Christian material), 100% consistent with current versions, and about 150 years prior to Christ. For what it is worth.

That's nice. But it ain't the bible that so many christians cherish as their book of choice to follow.

Well, actually all Christians that I know of have Isaiah in the Old Testament. The point is that we have physical evidence that Isaiah existed centuries before the time of Jesus and Isaiah’s prophecies of Jesus are some of the most amazing and cherished among Christians. The “Dead Sea Scrolls” refers to thousands of manuscripts or portions of them that we discovered in the mid-20th century. They are the remains of a library belonging to a first-century Jewish sect that lived in the deserts by the Dead Sea. Much of what was found there was copies of Old Testament books of the Bible.

I'm going to address a few of your specifics here, as I am a legitimate actual scientist. I am a psychological researcher who abides by the scientific method, and so sound scientific reasoning is something that, yes, I have a great deal of faith in. That does not undermine it's legitimacy. Scientific research, combined with my faith in it's methods and results add to my assertions. You have faith alone, no scientific support. Point one for science.

Scientology is a self-help movement that thrives because of its secretiveness and claims of success. My guess is that it will die off when it ceases to be a fad among the Hollywood types.

I sure hope so. Many religions come and go, and few have enjoyed the fellowship of Christianity, but that does not mean that Christianity is the one true religion. That's a logical fallacy. Just because many agree, doesn't make it so. Many people believe that if you shave your hair, it will grow back thicker and darker. That is patently false. Thanks to physics, it puts across the perception of being thicker and darker, but it is not actually so. I would be happy to elaborate, but that is a discussion for another time.

Concerning Jesus, I’m not sure how you produce a resurrection of yourself after a Roman crucifixion.

Neither am I. I'm also not inclined to take the word of a book published long ago without any historical support aside from it's own text and other canonized texts as fact. How do I know that he was actually a)real, b)crucified, and c)risen?

First, you live your life each day by “faith” in countless ways. Even your trust in science is largely based on faith

Agreed. But it's not faith alone. It's faith and the results that come from experimentation.

unless you are a professional scientist who has experimentally “proven” every conclusion you accept

I am a professional scientist, but I must say that I am disappointed in any professional scientists you have met if they ever use the word "prove." We do not, and cannot prove anything for exactly the reasons you've outlined-the faith in our methods of measurement may be misplaced. We cannot be sure our methods are reliable and valid, and so we do not prove. We show, we provide support, but we never prove. Science is an iterative process which results in supporting literature which leads us to ultimately provide an assertion. One which can be revoked when new evidence suggests we are wrong. This is why the "an egg is good for you, an egg is bad for you" debate rages on. We cannot prove, only show.

This is why I am agnostic, not an atheist. In my mind, absolutism is folly in either direction. I am more inclined to believe the preponderance of evidence which suggests that there is no god, but a scientist to the core, I refuse to outright state that it is impossible. Improbable, yes. Impossible, no.

If you realize that human life is largely an exercise in faith and if you believe in God, miracles are quite possible.

That's one heck of an assumption of fact. And no, I don't. So sadly, I guess a miracle will never materialize for me. Oh well.

If you came to believe in God you might find the evidence quite attractive.

I did once. It was the attraction of science and logic which led me away from it. I wanted to believe so badly, I wanted it to be true. Ultimately, my logic prevailed- and I am much happier for it.

You lump all claims of miracle into the same category but you would not do that for science. There have been plenty of failures of science as well as hoaxes in the name of science. That doesn’t destroy your general confidence in it, however. I believe God can do miracles. I look at claims of miracles to weed out the good from the bad. Your “theory” doesn’t allow you to take this objective approach.

Here you seem to be making the incorrect assumption that I am an atheist. Indeed, I am not. As I have stated throughout my argument, I am agnostic. Therefore, I acknowledge that there may be a god. Truly, I do believe it is possible. I just highly doubt it because of the lack of proof. And no, the failures of science do not diminish my faith in the scientific method. If anything, it strengthens it. For something to be falsifiable, for something to be testable, that means we can answer some questions. Philosophy, religion, psychoanalysis (the early Freudian stuff)- all those are experiments for the mind, not truly testable theories. In the search of truth, if we had no failures, I would have no trust in the findings. Null results are valuable in their own right, because they show us that one path is closed, but we can test all the other paths too. Religion does not allow for such awesomeness.

Please do not take this as a personal attack on your religion. Religion does a good many things for a good many people. It also does ill. So long as you act responsibly with your religion, and do not do harm to people who believe differently than you, then I have no quarrels with your beliefs.

This is the perfect example of the elitist attitude that Christians have.

Care to explain your opinion?

I'm going to address a few of your specifics here, as I am a legitimate actual scientist. I am a psychological researcher who abides by the scientific method, and so sound scientific reasoning is something that, yes, I have a great deal of faith in. That does not undermine it's legitimacy. Scientific research, combined with my faith in it's methods and results add to my assertions. You have faith alone, no scientific support. Point one for science.

Scientology is a self-help movement that thrives because of its secretiveness and claims of success. My guess is that it will die off when it ceases to be a fad among the Hollywood types.

I sure hope so. Many religions come and go, and few have enjoyed the fellowship of Christianity, but that does not mean that Christianity is the one true religion. That's a logical fallacy. Just because many agree, doesn't make it so. Many people believe that if you shave your hair, it will grow back thicker and darker. That is patently false. Thanks to physics, it puts across the perception of being thicker and darker, but it is not actually so. I would be happy to elaborate, but that is a discussion for another time.

Concerning Jesus, I’m not sure how you produce a resurrection of yourself after a Roman crucifixion.

Neither am I. I'm also not inclined to take the word of a book published long ago without any historical support aside from it's own text and other canonized texts as fact. How do I know that he was actually a)real, b)crucified, and c)risen?

First, you live your life each day by “faith” in countless ways. Even your trust in science is largely based on faith

Agreed. But it's not faith alone. It's faith and the results that come from experimentation.

unless you are a professional scientist who has experimentally “proven” every conclusion you accept

I am a professional scientist, but I must say that I am disappointed in any professional scientists you have met if they ever use the word "prove." We do not, and cannot prove anything for exactly the reasons you've outlined-the faith in our methods of measurement may be misplaced. We cannot be sure our methods are reliable and valid, and so we do not prove. We show, we provide support, but we never prove. Science is an iterative process which results in supporting literature which leads us to ultimately provide an assertion. One which can be revoked when new evidence suggests we are wrong. This is why the "an egg is good for you, an egg is bad for you" debate rages on. We cannot prove, only show.

This is why I am agnostic, not an atheist. In my mind, absolutism is folly in either direction. I am more inclined to believe the preponderance of evidence which suggests that there is no god, but a scientist to the core, I refuse to outright state that it is impossible. Improbable, yes. Impossible, no.

If you realize that human life is largely an exercise in faith and if you believe in God, miracles are quite possible.

That's one heck of an assumption of fact. And no, I don't. So sadly, I guess a miracle will never materialize for me. Oh well.

If you came to believe in God you might find the evidence quite attractive.

I did once. It was the attraction of science and logic which led me away from it. I wanted to believe so badly, I wanted it to be true. Ultimately, my logic prevailed- and I am much happier for it.

You lump all claims of miracle into the same category but you would not do that for science. There have been plenty of failures of science as well as hoaxes in the name of science. That doesn’t destroy your general confidence in it, however. I believe God can do miracles. I look at claims of miracles to weed out the good from the bad. Your “theory” doesn’t allow you to take this objective approach.

Here you seem to be making the incorrect assumption that I am an atheist. Indeed, I am not. As I have stated throughout my argument, I am agnostic. Therefore, I acknowledge that there may be a god. Truly, I do believe it is possible. I just highly doubt it because of the lack of proof. And no, the failures of science do not diminish my faith in the scientific method. If anything, it strengthens it. For something to be falsifiable, for something to be testable, that means we can answer some questions. Philosophy, religion, psychoanalysis (the early Freudian stuff)- all those are experiments for the mind, not truly testable theories. In the search of truth, if we had no failures, I would have no trust in the findings. Null results are valuable in their own right, because they show us that one path is closed, but we can test all the other paths too. Religion does not allow for such awesomeness.

Please do not take this as a personal attack on your religion. Religion does a good many things for a good many people. It also does ill. So long as you act responsibly with your religion, and do not do harm to people who believe differently than you, then I have no quarrels with your beliefs.

Thank you for your comments. Here are a few replies.

1. I never made the argument that Christianity is the only true religion because it has endured and many people like it. There may be other things that lead me to the conclusion that Christianity is, as we like to say, the “fullness of God’s revealed truth” in this world. As a Catholic, I certainly acknowledge that other religions have various “truths”; indeed, all people are able to access many things that are true by examining the world of their experience as well as their own interior conscious lives.

2.I know Jesus actually existed, was crucified and rose again using the standard criteria of historical investigation. If you ask how we know any event of the past really happened we would go through the normal ways that a valid memory of the past survives into the present. Very few serious historians that I know of find it credible to question the fact of Jesus and his death. Some argue that the resurrection is a “trans-historical” event since, if it happened, it could not be investigated using the normal criteria of historical research. On the other hand, I think the historical sources argue solidly for the conclusion that the “footprints” of the resurrection are deeply imprinted on history. Christianity is a historical effect of the claim of the resurrection. I recommend N. T. Wright’s book, “The Resurrection of the Son of God.” It is a very thorough discussion of the resurrection from a critical-historical perspective.

3.Christian faith also involves “experimentation.” It is largely of a different sort that the empirical/hard sciences since we are dealing with a world-view/framework choice. The better analogy for religious faith is interpersonal human experience since we are dealing with a kind of life-commitment, something science does not require of those who experiment. We may be able to draw general conclusions about the structures of human experience with respect to religious experience by cross-cultural and cross-historical analysis but we certainly can’t treat religious faith like we can the behavior of a molecule.

4.I appreciate your admission that “science does not prove.” I’m sure we could quibble about terminology and semantics but I think I see your point. I do disagree with your claim that the evidence supports the conclusion there is no God. If you begin to find an answer to that question with a Procrustean “grid,” of course you will not find God. For instance, if you will only accept a “quantitative” solution to a problem, you will obviously dismiss qualitative features of reality (as in the current mind-body debate in respect to “qualia”). If one begins to explore the question of God with an openness to a positive answer, I think there are profound reasons to believe in God.

5.Regarding your autobiographical description of your experience, there are plenty of others who went a very different path. I’ve made it a habit to read after people on different sides of this question and I find it increasingly obvious that it is not the scientific “evidence” that ultimately directs a person to a conclusion on God but a more fundamental, more metaphysical (in the classical philosophical sense) set of considerations.

6.Concerning the “testability” of religious claims and those of science, I do think religious claims are testable. In fact, history has a pretty large “trash dump” of tried and failed religions. The test will largely be one of coherence and explanatory power. Since religious systems are comprehensive of everything (at least the “great” ones), you cannot stand outside the system in order to judge its truth-value. You have to judge the religious system by its power to explain from within. My main point in my earlier remarks was that science operates based on a huge set of assumptions that cannot be demonstrated from within science. These include (as already indicated), the law of non-contradiction, logical laws (validity of inductive and deductive logic), validity of sense experience, the validity of thought when applied to material reality, etc. The scientist assumes these are valid and then proceeds to test and experiment and theorize. Christian faith claims that these more basic structures of reason that transcend empirical demonstration are expressions/evidences of a “Mind” that ultimately grounds all “knowing.” If you reject such a Mind, you are left to establish the validity of logic (if you choose to explore that question) solely from within the subjective individual mind (since you paradigmatically exclude a transcendent ground). The history of modern philosophy, beginning with Descartes, suggests this is a dead-end street. Once you admit the problem of establishing a certain link between subjectivity and objectivity and must do without a transcendent ground, it is philosophically impossible to “prove”, for instance, that the world of sense experience is anything more than an elaborate dream or experiment in a vat somewhere. Science largely ignores the whole matter and proceeds as if the foundations of human knowledge are certain but the more basic questions are left ignored in the background. If the certainty that we experience in our use of logical structures is a kind of “sharing” in a supreme Mind and if the “knowability” of the world by the human mind is an expression of the fact that it is ordered by a Mind that willed its existence, we have established an ultimate basis of confidence in our mental processes, sense experience, etc. You see, at the end of the day, a person must make an existential choice about whether reality is ultimately rational or if we are lost in subjectivity and have nothing upon which to ground the ineluctable certainty that we experience when we encounter reality.