Religion

[BeerBottle]

Oh, I tolerate the shit out of Christianity (I don't have much of a choice, seeing how it's jammed down my throat no matter where I go, but that's besides the point). Again, my problem is that you (and other Christians) have somehow come to a conclusion that the evidence supports Christianity. And... it doesn't.

I'm sorry you feel that way about Christianity. I don't know if you live in America (I don't) but if you do I can understand why you feel that way. I'm not a Christian, I'm a Muslim. Yes I know the Bible has a lot of sutff in it (as you referenced) that contradicts itself or has turned out not to be true. My religion lends me quite an easy get out which I hinted at earlier, that scriptures that contradict themselves have been altered (or we just don't understand them, or are taking them out of context). I think my arguement works better with the Quran as at least there is really only one version, and while it cannot be proven historically that there has only ever been one version, it is at least possible within the known facts (i.e. to my knowledge people haven't found Qurans with any significant differences in them, and people have found some very old Qurans)

By the by, if we're going to go the whole 'But so many people believed it was true... So it must be!'

Sorry if it came accross that I was suggesting this - if I did use this arguement I really shouldn't have since it obviously doesn't work.

I won't prove a negative, but the burden of proof seems to be on those claiming such a belief existed as it runs contrarily to the artifacts, the oral histories, the observed continued practices and more globally to the anthropological works and theories we currently have knowledge of.

The evidence is less than sparse, you must admit that. I don't think any of the types evidence you cite rule out prehistoric monothesism; making claims either way is really not warranted, so you must allow that the possibility exists. Did people like the colour green in prehistory? There's no evidence that they did but still I can't make the claim that they certainly didn't.

[The Great Hippo]

I'm sorry you feel that way about Christianity. I don't know if you live in America (I don't) but if you do I can understand why you feel that way. I'm not a Christian, I'm a Muslim.

Oops! My bad--stupid assumption. But, on the matter of the Quran--scriptures which contain 'all other scriptures besides this one are wrong' clauses only elevate the problem of evidence. Evidence that comes with the clause 'And all other evidence is irrelevant' is all ready betraying a pretty fundamental quality of analytical, rational inquiry.

I'm not saying anyone has to abandon their faith. All I ask of the religious is that they acknowledge that their belief is irrational. Irrational beliefs are not bad in of themselves; I'm terrified of bugs--what's rational about being held in horror by a flying cockroach? Love is pretty irrational--morality is pretty irrational (if I want the benefits of morality, can't I just 'act' moral and take advantage of other people's morality whenever I can avoid the consequences of doing so?). A little irrationality can be a very good thing.

The problem is when you get it in your head that your irrational beliefs have some basis in the rational world. Faith healers, for instance--or Creationists. Or ideas like, "Global warming can't be happening because God wouldn't let it". So on.

Let religion be a guiding stick for your irrational and moral mind, but don't let it cloud your vision when you're attempting to analyze the facts and figure out what's going on. It's only going to get in the way of being a productive, effective, functional human being.

The evidence is less than sparse, you must admit that. I don't think any of the types evidence you cite rule out prehistoric monothesism; making claims either way is really not warranted, so you must allow that the possibility exists. Did people like the colour green in prehistory? There's no evidence that they did but still I can't make the claim that they certainly didn't.

What little evidence exists does not point to monotheism. I, and I imagine quite a number of anthropologists, would be quite surprised to discover a prehistoric society that came up with an idea as sophicated as an all-powerful, all-knowing monotheistic deity.

[Terebrant]

I won't prove a negative, but the burden of proof seems to be on those claiming such a belief existed as it runs contrarily to the artifacts, the oral histories, the observed continued practices and more globally to the anthropological works and theories we currently have knowledge of.

The evidence is less than sparse, you must admit that. I don't think any of the types evidence you cite rule out prehistoric monothesism; making claims either way is really not warranted, so you must allow that the possibility exists. Did people like the colour green in prehistory? There's no evidence that they did but still I can't make the claim that they certainly didn't.

Not all possibilities have equal probabilities, and, if you maintain your previous points, how is it not an argument from ignorance ?

Your new question is of a different nature from the previous one and seems to imply that you disregarded that we have quite good models of how religions develop, including that monotheism appears only when there are contacts with henotheism or monolatry.

[MoghLiechty2]

But, on the matter of the Quran--scriptures which contain 'all other scriptures besides this one are wrong' clauses only elevate the problem of evidence. Evidence that comes with the clause 'And all other evidence is irrelevant' is all ready betraying a pretty fundamental quality of analytical, rational inquiry.

True, most scriptures don't really provide a basis, by themselves, for why you should believe them (to an extent, I could provide some examples of Biblical passages where the author attempts to establish his own credibility). If somebody told you that God appeared to them and gave them a book full of absolute truths, you would have no reason to believe him. BUT, if you determined through evidence that God actually did give him such a book, and you believe God is benevolent and truthful, you would and should then be inclined to accept everything in the book as true. Likewise, I don't accept everything in the Bible as true because the Bible says so, I do so because I determine beforehand that it's true through evidence.

I think BeerBottle might say something similar about the Quran, although his level of "accepting everything as true in the book" might be different.

I'm not saying anyone has to abandon their faith. All I ask of the religious is that they acknowledge that their belief is irrational. Irrational beliefs are not bad in of themselves; ... A little irrationality can be a very good thing.

Well, I'll at least speak for myself that I don't believe my beliefs are irrational. I still might be taking the word in the wrong sense, but what I mean by this is that I don't believe that my beliefs are contradictory to the evidence.

The problem is when you get it in your head that your irrational beliefs have some basis in the rational world. Faith healers, for instance--or Creationists. Or ideas like, "Global warming can't be happening because God wouldn't let it". So on.

You should start clarifying the word "Creationists." All Creationist simply means is that you think the universe was created by a supernatural ... something.

Let religion be a guiding stick for your irrational and moral mind, but don't let it cloud your vision when you're attempting to analyze the facts and figure out what's going on. It's only going to get in the way of being a productive, effective, functional human being.

Correct. The evidence should be examined on its own. If the evidence contradicts what your religious beliefs are, then one of them should be re-examined.

[oxoiron]

If somebody told you that God appeared to them and gave them a book full of absolute truths, you would have no reason to believe him. BUT, if you determined through evidence that God actually did give him such a book, and you believe God is benevolent and truthful, you would and should then be inclined to accept everything in the book as true.

Until the bolded part happens, the rest is irrelevant. Perhaps you determined it to be true, but I suspect that in this case, your standards for what qualifies as evidence won't stand up to rational inquiry. To paraphrase the Hippo, you can believe all the crazy stuff you want, but don't act like it's indisputable fact.

[MoghLiechty2]

If somebody told you that God appeared to them and gave them a book full of absolute truths, you would have no reason to believe him. BUT, if you determined through evidence that God actually did give him such a book, and you believe God is benevolent and truthful, you would and should then be inclined to accept everything in the book as true.

Until the bolded part happens, the rest is irrelevant. Perhaps you determined it to be true, but I suspect that in this case, your standards for what qualifies as evidence won't stand up to rational inquiry. To paraphrase the Hippo, you can believe all the crazy stuff you want, but don't act like it's indisputable fact.

I'll never act like anything I believe is indisputable fact. But I won't falsely admit that it's irrational.

If you think that belief in a religious text can only be brought about through poor standards of rational inquiry, then bring up a specific objection.

[The Great Hippo]

You should start clarifying the word "Creationists." All Creationist simply means is that you think the universe was created by a supernatural ... something.

Fair. I'm talking specifically about Young Earth Creationists, although there are quite a few more types of Creationists I'd take issue with.

If you think that belief in a religious text can only be brought about through poor standards of rational inquiry, then bring up a specific objection.

Well, to be fair, you're making a big claim here; you're saying that, through thorough rational inquiry and the study of evidence--not faith alone--you've come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the Bible is His Word.

Understand that, if your evidence is really solid, this would be a very remarkable thing. Ground-breaking. Earth-shattering. It would change everything. It would force all rationalists, materialists, and logically-minded folk to stop right in their tracks, go "Holy shit", and promptly run to their local church. There'd be a critical worldwide Bible shortage as every intellectual worth their salt flew to the bookstore to pick up the indisputable final word on The Way Things Really Are.

So I am very, very curious to hear about this evidence you've found. Because, goddamn, if you have found some, you should share it with the rest of the world. So--stop teasing us! Show us your evidence. Cite your sources. I stand sincerely ready to be convinced.

[roc314]

I'll never act like anything I believe is indisputable fact. But I won't falsely admit that it's irrational.

If you think that belief in a religious text can only be brought about through poor standards of rational inquiry, then bring up a specific objection.

It's not that belief in a religious text brought about through poor standards of rational inquiry, it's that it's not brought about by rational inquiry at all. Faith et al are not rational inquiry.

If you want specific things in the Bible I object to as rational, most of the story of Jesus (miracles and such), miracles elsewhere (e.g. splitting the Red Sea), the story of the creation, the story of Job, and Jesus's resurrection, for a few.

Edit: Bah, ninjas.

[MoghLiechty2]

It's not that belief in a religious text brought about through poor standards of rational inquiry, it's that it's not brought about by rational inquiry at all. Faith et al are not rational inquiry.

If you want specific things in the Bible I object to as rational, most of the story of Jesus (miracles and such), miracles elsewhere (e.g. splitting the Red Sea), the story of the creation, the story of Job, and Jesus's resurrection, for a few.

I can see the whole "faith isn't rational" thing, but there's more to it than that. See, my opinion is that faith has two main... manifestations, or definitions: First, faith is what allows you live out your life as if you actually do believe what you believe. Faith is what turns "I believe God wants me to love my neighbor" into "I'm going to help my neighbor" in the sense that even if you're not 100% sure that it's God's command, you're still going to put your actions where your beliefs are.

The other subset of faith would be the type that allows believing in miracles. Normally, it wouldn't be rational to think that miracles happen, because they defy the laws of every empirical evidence. But faith makes it possible to believe in miracles if you've already accepted the premise of the supernatural (possibly through rational means). Clearly, if you accept that God exists and is willing, then he is able to bend the laws of nature however he wants. However, faith in this sense isn't irrational, it just allows you to believe in something that you normally might object to without the premise of the supernatural.

Now, the faith would be irrational if the belief in supernatural was rationally flawed. Which is my point. There are boatloads of genuine rational inquiries into the premise of Christianity (which is all I can speak for). These include, and are not limited to: Philosophy of Religion, Biblical canonization, Study of Biblical Manuscripts (Questions such as did Moses write the Pentateuch, etc.), Linguistics, Archeology, History (extra-Bilbical accounts) and so on...

If you've used these quite rational inquiries to determine that God exists and has revealed his plan to mankind in the form of the Bible, and that the accounts of the Bible are accurate and religiously relevant, it woudn't be any stretch of the imagination to believe that Jesus turned water into wine, or was resurrected from the dead. In fact, it would only require a tiny leap of "faith" to wrap your head around the concept of God intervening in nature.

So, in that sense, could you clarify your objection to miracles? Also, I'm curious as to your opinion of the story of creation, since you brought it up as well.

[The Great Hippo]

The other subset of faith would be the type that allows believing in miracles. Normally, it wouldn't be rational to think that miracles happen, because they defy the laws of every empirical evidence. But faith makes it possible to believe in miracles if you've already accepted the premise of the supernatural (possibly through rational means). Clearly, if you accept that God exists and is willing, then he is able to bend the laws of nature however he wants. However, faith in this sense isn't irrational, it just allows you to believe in something that you normally might object to without the premise of the supernatural.

Now, the faith would be irrational if the belief in supernatural was rationally flawed. Which is my point. There are boatloads of genuine rational inquiries into the premise of Christianity (which is all I can speak for). These include, and are not limited to: Philosophy of Religion, Biblical canonization, Study of Biblical Manuscripts (Questions such as did Moses write the Pentateuch, etc.), Linguistics, Archeology, History (extra-Bilbical accounts) and so on...

One of the trickses Christian Apologetics use is to argue that a generic all-powerful God could exist; it's intellectually dishonest, but pretty easy thanks to concepts like God in the Gaps ("Life is too complex to be a product of anything but God." -- "Actually, we just discovered DNA which totally explains why life is so complex!" -- "Hm, well--then DNA is too complex to be a product of anything but God." -- so on, ad infinitum, forever and ever). Once you establish this point, the automatic assumption of the Christian Apologetic is that now that you've accepted a generic all-powerful God, you'll assume that this all-powerful God must be the Christian God.

Except... There's a huge difference between 'A Creator Being Could Possibly Exist, Maybe' and 'There Is No God But Allah And Muhammed Is His Prophet (Bitches!)'. The assertion are much different, and go flying up the crazy scale very quickly. On one hand we're talking about possible generic omnipresent forces that could be described in scientific terms (or maybe not? It's always very vague); on the other hand, we're talking about people flying, living in whales, turning water to wine, and doing magic.

Re-quoted, because it's pretty much your answer. "Okay, let's prove that God and the supernatural can exist, which is pretty easy using the God of Gaps technique--now, because we found some moldy old bones in a crypt over here and a reference to a Biblical city, that means that this supernatural generic God is the Christian one!" This, of course, ignores the fact that there might be just as much evidence to support other religions' scriptures (you admit yourself you can't speak for them--I assume you haven't studied them anywhere near as much as you've studied Christianity, so... you really have no clue how they compare, factually, do you?).

Even if you found a mountain of evidence that proved that every character and place in the Bible existed, that still wouldn't be enough. If we're going to accept the premise that magic happened, we need evidence that magic happened. Otherwise, you're just standing on a bunch of circumstantial evidence that anyone could find for any religion sufficiently steeped in human history.

[roc314]

I can see the whole "faith isn't rational" thing, but there's more to it than that. See, my opinion is that faith has two main... manifestations, or definitions: First, faith is what allows you live out your life as if you actually do believe what you believe. Faith is what turns "I believe God wants me to love my neighbor" into "I'm going to help my neighbor" in the sense that even if you're not 100% sure that it's God's command, you're still going to put your actions where your beliefs are.

The other subset of faith would be the type that allows believing in miracles. Normally, it wouldn't be rational to think that miracles happen, because they defy the laws of every empirical evidence. But faith makes it possible to believe in miracles if you've already accepted the premise of the supernatural (possibly through rational means). Clearly, if you accept that God exists and is willing, then he is able to bend the laws of nature however he wants. However, faith in this sense isn't irrational, it just allows you to believe in something that you normally might object to without the premise of the supernatural. Hence

What about the faith that there even is a god? That seems to be a pretty big thing to skip. I'm not saying there's any proof that there's no supreme deity in the universe, but there's no proof that one (or more) exists either (or for that matter, has anything to do with humanity). Hence why it requires faith to believe.

Now, the faith would be irrational if the belief in supernatural was rationally flawed. Which is my point. There are boatloads of genuine rational inquiries into the premise of Christianity (which is all I can speak for). These include, and are not limited to: Philosophy of Religion, Biblical canonization, Study of Biblical Manuscripts (Questions such as did Moses write the Pentateuch, etc.), Linguistics, Archeology, History (extra-Bilbical accounts) and so on...

How do any of these prove that Christianity is correct? At most, these would provide evidence that some of the people/stuff in the Bible really existed/happened. How do any of those prove that god exists, cares about humanity, created the earth, put humans on it, summoned people to be his prophets, sent us a savior, etc.?

I agree that those are all (well, maybe mostly) rational fields, but that does not mean what they are studying is rational. The scientific study of phobias is rational, but that doesn't imply that agoraphobia is rational.

If you've used these quite rational inquiries to determine that God exists and has revealed his plan to mankind in the form of the Bible, and that the accounts of the Bible are accurate and religiously relevant, it wouldn't be any stretch of the imagination to believe that Jesus turned water into wine, or was resurrected from the dead. In fact, it would only require a tiny leap of "faith" to wrap your head around the concept of God intervening in nature.

Er, yes it would. Even if you can prove that some aspects of Christianity are correct (for example, say you have proof that Jesus actually existed), that does not mean that all the supernatural stuff is true (Jesus existing does not imply Jesus is the son of god).

Also, that leap of faith is irrational; the size of it is irrelevant. Unless you have some evidence or proof for why you should make that leap of faith, it's not a rational decision to make it. Occam's Razor and all that.

So, in that sense, could clarify your objection to miracles? Also, I'm curious as to your opinion of the story of creation, since you brought it up as well.

There's no ironclad proof in the supernatural, which is required for those miracles. Without that basis, any belief in miracles is inherently irrational (again, not that that's inherently bad, but you can't claim it to be based on reason).

Belief in the creation is irrational in that there's no rational reason to believe in it (without proof that religion is right in what it's teaching). Occam's Razor applies here as well.

[MoghLiechty2]

What about the faith that there even is a god? That seems to be a pretty big thing to skip.

That would fall directly under "philosophy of religion." If you start out without knowing whether God exists, and then ask the question of whether God exists, it would take faith either way you go, right? But it doesn't mean that you can't rationally arrive at either conclusion.

How do any of these prove that Christianity is correct? At most, these would provide evidence that some of the people/stuff in the Bible really existed/happened. How do any of those prove that god exists, cares about humanity, created the earth, put humans on it, summoned people to be his prophets, sent us a savior, etc.?

The various evidence for things that happened in the Bible have varying significance, but perhaps the most significant would be Jesus' resurrection. If that were found to be historically accurate, it would be very significant.

I agree that those are all (well, maybe mostly) rational fields, but that does not mean what they are studying is rational. The scientific study of phobias is rational, but that doesn't imply that agoraphobia is rational.

Haha, well, if you see Christianity as a disease. But actual Christians would call what they believe "truth."

Er, yes it would. Even if you can prove that some aspects of Christianity are correct (for example, say you have proof that Jesus actually existed), that does not mean that all the supernatural stuff is true (Jesus existing does not imply Jesus is the son of god).

Yes, but if it were true that Jesus said all these things and also true that people followed him for it, this is rather significant, because it leaves only 3 options for who Jesus was (to quote C.S. Lewis): A liar, a lunatic, or a Lord.

There's no ironclad proof in the supernatural, which is required for those miracles. Without that basis, any belief in miracles is inherently irrational (again, not that that's inherently bad, but you can't claim it to be based on reason).

Then you would agree that it's more productive to discuss the rationality of the supernatural, rather than the side topic of miracles. Is supernaturalism, as a philosophy, irrational?

Belief in the creation is irrational in that there's no rational reason to believe in it (without proof that religion is right in what it's teaching). Occam's Razor applies here as well.

Depends. If you're talking about creation of the species, an evoutionist might see Occam's Razor in their favor. But when you start asking about the origin of the universe, it seems like Occam's Razor is out the window for non-supernaturalists. How do you in particular account for the beginning of the universe, and why does it have a lesser burden of proof than a supernatural being?

[The Great Hippo]

That would fall directly under "philosophy of religion." If you start out without knowing whether God exists, and then ask the question of whether God exists, it would take faith either way you go, right? But it doesn't mean that you can't rationally arrive at either conclusion.

Again, God in the Gaps. Rationally, there is no way to bring ourselves to a moral, omnipotent, omniscient, personal Creator; we have to make a few massive assumptions to get there. Going 'This phenomenon is unexplained; God is as good of an explanation as any' is not a sensible or rational argument. Take the whole 'We don't know what happened before the big bang' thing that you constantly see being trotted out.

An atheist might say we don't know what came before the big bang; a Christian might respond with: "Ah-ha! It must have been God!"--to which the atheist would respond: Why? Why is God the default explanation? Why not some sort of time loop where we create the universe ourselves? Why not a circular universe that has always existed, contracting and expanding forever on into eternity? Why does it absolutely have to be God? Why should this completely arbitrary, random, unproven explanation be treated as a rational one, when really it's just religion's version of "Wizard did it!"?

The various evidence for things that happened in the Bible have varying significance, but perhaps the most significant would be Jesus' resurrection. If that were found to be historically accurate, it would be very significant.

That would be evidence of 'magic'. That would be evidence of the supernatural. That would be evidence of the very foundations of science being absolutely, positively wrong. That would change everything.

[roc314]

The various evidence for things that happened in the Bible have varying significance, but perhaps the most significant would be Jesus' resurrection. If that were found to be historically accurate, it would be very significant.

(Emphasis mine.)

There needs to be proof of this. Sure, if it was proven that Jesus came back from the dead, it would provide a lot of support for Christianity, but I've never seen sufficient evidence that this happened.

Yes, but if it were true that Jesus said all these things and also true that people followed him for it, this is rather significant, because it leaves only 3 options for who Jesus was (to quote C.S. Lewis): A liar, a lunatic, or a Lord.

Jesus existing does not imply that he said/did all those things that are written about in the New Testament.

One problem with C. S. Lewis's argument is that it's a false dilemma. It leaves out the possibility that the gospels written about him decades later were false (intentionally or unintentionally), the possibility that those writings were falsified later, long after he was dead, the possibility that his disciples misinterpreted what he said/did (Monty Python's Life of Brian has a humorous take on this possibility), or the possibility that a large section of what he said was metaphorical, and not literal.

Another problem with Lewis's argument is the loaded language. "Jesus is a liar, lunatic, or lord. Well, you wouldn't say he's a liar or a lunatic, that's just mean. Jesus is such a nice guy, how could you dare say he's a liar or lunatic? He's obviously lord, as no one's heartless enough to suggest that's he's insane or dishonest."

Then you would agree that it's more productive to discuss the rationality of the supernatural, rather than the side topic of miracles. Is supernaturalism, as a philosophy, irrational?

I honestly don't know too much about supernaturalism, but I was under the impression that it was purely hypothetical, that there was no proof for its base premises.

Depends. If you're talking about creation of the species, an evoutionist might see Occam's Razor in their favor. But when you start asking about the origin of the universe, it seems like Occam's Razor is out the window for non-supernaturalists. How do you in particular account for the beginning of the universe, and why does it have a lesser burden of proof than a supernatural being?

The argument I most often hear for why some sort of creator is needed is that the universe couldn't come into existence without one. In that, case, what created god? What created meta-god? What created meta-meta-god?...

If you accept that something doesn't need to be created to exist (which you would have to to resolve the above problem), then the universe could come to exist without god. Adding in god is a needless level of complexity, which is why Occam's Razor applies.

[oxoiron]

Yes, but if it were true that Jesus said all these things and also true that people followed him for it, this is rather significant, because it leaves only 3 options for who Jesus was (to quote C.S. Lewis): A liar, a lunatic, or a Lord.

If you determined that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, would it still be rather significant? As a quick exercise, read your quote aloud, but replace the word 'Jesus' with any other historical figure who claimed godhood and gathered a tight-knit group of followers during his/her lifetime (e.g. David Koresh).

[MoghLiechty2]

Again, God in the Gaps. Rationally, there is no way to bring ourselves to a moral, omnipotent, omniscient, personal Creator; we have to make a few massive assumptions to get there.

You're still ignoring a lot of common discussions that make the evidence in support of a God not so irrational, such as the question of consciousness, question of free will, question of morality, etc. But yes, a moral, omnipotent, omniscient, personal God is only one type of possible God although, it could be argued, the most likely sort.

An atheist might say we don't know what came before the big bang; a Christian might respond with: "Ah-ha! It must have been God!"--to which the atheist would respond: Why? Why is God the default explanation? Why not some sort of time loop where we create the universe ourselves? Why not a circular universe that has always existed, contracting and expanding forever on into eternity? Why does it absolutely have to be God?

It doesn't. Not anymore than it has to be any one of those particular non-supernatural (but equally irrational: what evidence is there for a time loop? when have we ever seen any form of time eternallity in our empirical studies?) explanations. It's just one possible explanation.

The various evidence for things that happened in the Bible have varying significance, but perhaps the most significant would be Jesus' resurrection. If that were found to be historically accurate, it would be very significant.

That would be evidence of 'magic'. That would be evidence of the supernatural. That would be evidence of the very foundations of science being absolutely, positively wrong. That would change everything.

Science is different than history. Just because you can't reproduce the fall of the Berlin wall doesn't mean it didn't happen. History saying with a certain level of doubt that something supernatural happened wouldn't shake any foundation of science, because science describes things that can be reproduced, and you could never reproduce a one-time historical event. Correct?

I honestly don't know too much about supernaturalism, but I was under the impression that it was purely hypothetical, that there was no proof for its base premises.

My agnostic / borderline-atheist Philosophy of Religion professor would say otherwise, except for the proof part. (There's no proof for or against) It's just that both sides are rational options, each with full sets of logical arguments.

In that, case, what created god? What created meta-god? What created meta-meta-god?...

If you accept that something doesn't need to be created to exist (which you would have to to resolve the above problem), then the universe could come to exist without god. Adding in god is a needless level of complexity, which is why Occam's Razor applies.

Except that we know that the universe is distinctly causual. Universes need causes, because they are inside of time, but God, if he existed, would not be. (This discussion is actually a case in point for one of the many rational arguments with two sides that occurs in a balanced debate between supernaturalism and naturalism.)

[The Great Hippo]

You're still ignoring a lot of common discussions that make the evidence in support of a God not so irrational, such as the question of consciousness, question of free will, question of morality, etc. But yes, a moral, omnipotent, omniscient, personal God is only one type of possible God although, it could be argued, the most likely sort.

I'm ignoring them because they're all based on the same concept--again, again, again--God in the Gaps. "We have no explanation for our consciousness; GOD must be the answer!" -- "We have no explanation for morality; GOD must be the answer!" -- "We have no explanation for free will; GOD must be the answer!" -- these are not rational solutions. These are cries of 'The Wizard did it!'. There's no rational chain of thought--just an arbitrary proposition that satisfies the conditions while remaining an untestable abstract. In other words, an answer of no empirical value. That isn't how evidence-based findings work.

Yes, the atheist who makes an alternate explanation for what came before the big bang theory--without providing evidence for that explanation--is engaging in the same wishy-washy rhetorical masturbation as you are. That's not the point; neither of you are providing testable hypothesis, neither of you are meeting the requirements of empiricism. It's just BSing.

Science is different than history. Just because you can't reproduce the fall of the Berlin wall doesn't mean it didn't happen. History saying with a certain level of doubt that something supernatural happened wouldn't shake any foundation of science, because science describes things that can be reproduced, and you could never reproduce a one-time historical event. Correct?

Right. So religion's take on this was that there was a time when supernatural things happened, but that time passed before we invented any type of sophisticated recording device. That's... very convenient for the supernaturalist. It also renders the supernatural into an 'untestable abstract', which--again--is useless in terms of evidence.

[Maurog]

Except that we know that the universe is distinctly causual. Universes need causes, because they are inside of time, but God, if he existed, would not be. (This discussion is actually a case in point for one of the many rational arguments with two sides that occurs in a balanced debate between supernaturalism and naturalism.)

This is only the case if time started before the universe was, which I would very much like to see any evidence for. If the universe existed before time in some form, it existed forever, period.

[MoghLiechty2]

I'm ignoring them because they're all based on the same concept--again, again, again--God in the Gaps. "We have no explanation for our consciousness; GOD must be the answer!" -- "We have no explanation for morality; GOD must be the answer!" -- "We have no explanation for free will; GOD must be the answer!" -- these are not rational solutions. These are cries of 'The Wizard did it!'. There's no rational chain of thought--just an arbitrary proposition that satisfies the conditions while remaining an untestable abstract. In other words, an answer of no empirical value. That isn't how evidence-based findings work.

There are conclusions that can be reached based on an unbiased examination of the evidence that, if they are true, are much more likely to be true given Theism than Naturalism. For instance, it's possible to examine the Mind-Body Problem without ever asking the question of whether God exists. However, if you determine Interactionist Dualism to be true during this examination, then Theism becomes more likely. Examine the Free will problem, and you might become a Free Will Libertarian, which makes Theism more likely. Examine the Moral Argument and you might determine yourself to be a Moral Absolutist, which makes Theism more likely.

Right. So religion's take on this was that there was a time when supernatural things happened, but that time passed before we invented any type of sophisticated recording device. That's... very convenient for the supernaturalist. It also renders the supernatural into an 'untestable abstract', which--again--is useless in terms of evidence.

There are things that have evidence that cannot be tested. Like I said, it's the difference between history and science. It's still possible to examine the historical evidence for or against the case of Jesus being resurrected, and the fact that we can't test this historical event scientifically is irrelevant.

[roc314]

There are conclusions that can be reached based on an unbiased examination of the evidence that, if they are true, are much more likely to be true given Theism than Naturalism. For instance, it's possible to examine the Mind-Body Problem without ever asking the question of whether God exists. However, if you determine Interactionist Dualism to be true during this examination, then Theism becomes more likely. Examine the Free will problem, and you might become a Free Will Libertarian, which makes Theism more likely. Examine the Moral Argument and you might determine yourself to be a Moral Absolutist, which makes Theism more likely.

1, theism being more likely based on other assumptions does not imply it is true. Sure, if those are all true, there's certainly a relatively greater chance that theism is correct, but it doesn't guarantee anything.

2, it relies on those premises. If they aren't true, you still get nowhere. Without a foundation for those (and one that doesn't rely on circular logic, no "Because god exists, we have moral absolutism, because we have moral absolutism, god is more likely to exist"), all you are doing is shifting the need for evidence back a level.

3, what if there is no one correct answers to questions like that (as I'm inclined to believe)? You may be a moral absolutist in the most rational way possible, but that doesn't mean that my moral relativism is inherently wrong, just like my moral relativism doesn't mean your moral absolutism is wrong. Why does god's existence stem from our personal beliefs? I really don't think that god is more or less likely to exist based upon my personal beliefs on a few subjects, especially when so many disagree.

[The Great Hippo]

Yeah, uh... to further what roc314 said, I think you're laboring under a radically different definition of 'evidence', here. What you're presenting are possibilities based on affirmations you've made; you're making affirmations that satisfy some philosophical problems but aren't testable, then when those particular affirmations consequentially make the God-affirmation more likely, you call your initial affirmations 'evidence for God'. I'd say your evidence-based case for God is a house of cards, but it doesn't even qualify as that.

There are things that have evidence that cannot be tested. Like I said, it's the difference between history and science. It's still possible to examine the historical evidence for or against the case of Jesus being resurrected, and the fact that we can't test this historical event scientifically is irrelevant.

Okay, but keep in mind that there is a massive gap between the terms 'evidence' and 'historical evidence'--or 'fact' and 'historical fact'. Everything we know about history is held hostage by the whims of our predecessors; a scrap of tobacco in the chest cavity of a Pharaoh is enough to abolish a thousand years of thought. So, if that's where you're going with this, when you say 'There is evidence for miracles', you really should be saying 'There is historical evidence for miracles'--which, uh, there still kinda isn't, by the way. But my point is that historical evidence is always circumstantial. And pretty much useless for the purposes of proving the existence of God.

[MoghLiechty2]

1, theism being more likely based on other assumptions does not imply it is true. Sure, if those are all true, there's certainly a relatively greater chance that theism is correct, but it doesn't guarantee anything.

Certainly not. And it's not God of the Gaps either.

2, it relies on those premises. If they aren't true, you still get nowhere. Without a foundation for those (and one that doesn't rely on circular logic, no "Because god exists, we have moral absolutism, because we have moral absolutism, god is more likely to exist"), all you are doing is shifting the need for evidence back a level.

Moral absolutism... maybe? I think it's definitely possible to arrive at the conclusion of moral absolutes absent from a discussion of a moral law-giver.
But the mind-body problem and the consciousness problem definitely don't rely on the "God exists->assertion->God exists" circle. Like I said, both of these debates can be framed entirely apart from the issue of God's existence.

3, what if there is no one correct answers to questions like that (as I'm inclined to believe)? You may be a moral absolutist in the most rational way possible, but that doesn't mean that my moral relativism is inherently wrong, just like my moral relativism doesn't mean your moral absolutism is wrong. Why does god's existence stem from our personal beliefs? I really don't think that god is more or less likely to exist based upon my personal beliefs on a few subjects, especially when so many disagree.

Definitely.

I think you're laboring under a radically different definition of 'evidence', here. What you're presenting are possibilities based on affirmations you've made; you're making affirmations that satisfy some philosophical problems but aren't testable, then when those particular affirmations consequentially make the God-affirmation more likely, you call your initial affirmations 'evidence for God'. I'd say your evidence-based case for God is a house of cards, but it doesn't even qualify as that.

Since when did "evidence" solely refer to data testable with a scientific experiment? Logical and philosophical evidence are equally valid rational inquiries. That's not to say that some of these particular problems can't necessarily turn up real testable evidence in favor of, for example, Dualism. Deep-brain stimulation, the problem of brain-wave locality in the study of consciousness... I would expound on these, but I'm just providing examples.

You really should be saying 'There is historical evidence for miracles'--which, uh, there still kinda isn't, by the way

Well, there may or may not be evidence for Jesus' resurrection... Well, there is evidence, rather, but there's also evidence against it, both of which need to be examined. But history is NOT my forte, so I can't discuss this reasonably.

EDIT:
Missed this:

Understand that, if your evidence is really solid, this would be a very remarkable thing. Ground-breaking. Earth-shattering. It would change everything. It would force all rationalists, materialists, and logically-minded folk to stop right in their tracks, go "Holy shit", and promptly run to their local church. There'd be a critical worldwide Bible shortage as every intellectual worth their salt flew to the bookstore to pick up the indisputable final word on The Way Things Really Are.

So I am very, very curious to hear about this evidence you've found. Because, goddamn, if you have found some, you should share it with the rest of the world. So--stop teasing us! Show us your evidence. Cite your sources. I stand sincerely ready to be convinced.

There is clearly evidence for and against every aspect of Religious studies. Bringing up a bit of evidence for my side won't cause Dawkins to fall on his knees, it would only strengthen my argument. So... show you my evidence? I dunno, pick a topic...

[The Great Hippo]

Well, there may or may not be evidence for Jesus' resurrection... Well, there is evidence, rather, but there's also evidence against it, both of which need to be examined. But history is NOT my forte, so I can't discuss this reasonably.

Citation desperately needed. I have never in my entire life heard of any convincing evidence for Jesus' resurrection beyond what you find stated in the Bible.

As for the whole evidence thing--I think we're just quibbling over the definition of evidence. It seems pretty clear to me that when you say you came to Christian faith based on evidence, you did so based on circumstantial evidence that confirmed things you wanted to believe. The point I was trying to make here is that someone could come over and say 'I believe the Hindu pantheon made the Universe' and supply just as much of this type of evidence. To make a compelling case, you need to supply evidence that God is not just 'possible' (anything's possible), but likely. That would bring Dawkins to his knees.

[Bluggo]

About the whole "is religion irrational" issue, I think a part of the problem lies in the two different possible interpretations of the term "irrational".

Religious beliefs, it seems to me, are mostly unsupported by rational modes of inquiry - the theological "proofs" are very interesting, but they rely on metaphysical assumptions which are in no way obvious.
Moreover, the empirical evidence does not appear to be strong enough to justify religious belief - it is not *incompatible* with it, but there would be more likely explanations available.

However, they are not irrational in the sense that they have been rationally confuted.
The whole "God of the Gaps" argument is, I think, a red herring: scientific discoveries do not, in any way, "push back" God - they just help explain what his usual modus operandi is.
If anything, the Universe as we know it now, with its subtle laws and complexity and ridiculously huge measures, seems to me more worthy of admiration than the old, drab "crystal-spheres-moved-by-angels" system.
Seriously, why should the fact that stars are huge atomic furnaces make them any less beautiful, or make their Creator less deserving of praise?

Anyhow, as others observed, there are plenty of possible statements which are neither supported nor contradicted by the current evidence.

So, why should I believe in religion? I think St. Augustine said it best - "credo quia absurdus", i.e., "I believe because it is freaking insane".
And, as another very wise man once said, sometimes you have to

Spoiler:

KICK REASON TO THE CURB AND SURPASS THE IMPOSSIBLE!

I will "hope against all hope" that there is a capital-M Meaning, and possibly an afterlife, because it is my privilege of human to do so.
Even if such a thing was not to exist, I would still consider nobler to waste my life looking for it than to give, and take the world as nothing more than it is.
If the material world is part of something bigger, then it is awesome; but if it is all that exists, then it seems sad and little and kind of pathetic to me.

As to why I am Catholic rather than Reformed or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or whatever, that's just because I grew up in that tradition.
I kind of like it (even if sometimes a few of the more "conservative" sectors of my religion kind of annoy me a little ), and I would be as much likely to be wrong if I converted to something else as if I stayed where I am; moreover, I am confident that all the details will not matter that much in the long run - so what if I may be wrong about some of the characteristics of God, or about in which way He intervened over Earth? Sooner or later, if things go the way I hope, I will have Himself explaining me these things first-hand.

[Phill]

As for the whole evidence thing--I think we're just quibbling over the definition of evidence. It seems pretty clear to me that when you say you came to Christian faith based on evidence, you did so based on circumstantial evidence that confirmed things you wanted to believe. The point I was trying to make here is that someone could come over and say 'I believe the Hindu pantheon made the Universe' and supply just as much of this type of evidence. To make a compelling case, you need to supply evidence that God is not just 'possible' (anything's possible), but likely. That would bring Dawkins to his knees.

I don't think you can fairly say that the evidence for the Hindu pantheon is as strong as the evidence for Christianity. I actually think the evidence for Christianity far outstrips any other religion.

I have never in my entire life heard of any convincing evidence for Jesus' resurrection beyond what you find stated in the Bible.

We had this discussion a few pages back, but basically my contention is that you cannot dismiss the Bible as easily as all that. In my experience, most atheists seem to dismiss the Bible a priori, which is a shame because there is no reason to.

In my opinion, the best explanation for the facts is that the Bible is true. Any other explanation, for example that the disciples were lying, Jesus was lying, even that there wasn't a Jesus in the first place - a lot of these kind of theories crumble when you look into them in more detail.

[Habz]

Hmm it is a broad topics. But I think one needs to be aware that Human is not perfect and sometimes we
have situations that we can't control. E.g. Natural Disasters. Who can control when do we have Earth quakes?
or Tsunami?

We can't so there should be have a higher force in the world that have this kind of control and it is not human...

I'm afraid the topic is a bit more complex than that. Laws of nature control the tsunamis, earthquakes, everything. The question rather being, is/was there some sentient being who set those laws of nature, or are we just winners in the multiversal lottery and got the suitable conditions for our kind of life to evolve by chance alone.

[BeerBottle]

As to why I am Catholic rather than Reformed or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or whatever, that's just because I grew up in that tradition.
I kind of like it (even if sometimes a few of the more "conservative" sectors of my religion kind of annoy me a little ), and I would be as much likely to be wrong if I converted to something else as if I stayed where I am; moreover, I am confident that all the details will not matter that much in the long run - so what if I may be wrong about some of the characteristics of God, or about in which way He intervened over Earth? Sooner or later, if things go the way I hope, I will have Himself explaining me these things first-hand.

Absolutely spot on. I really believe divisions between religions are both artificial and inconsequential.

Furthermore, the Jews assert, "The Christians have no valid ground for their beliefs," while the Christians assert, "The Jews have no valid ground for their beliefs" - and both quote the divine writ! Thus have always spoken those who were devoid of knowledge; but it is God who will judge between them on Resurrection Day with regard to all on which they were wont to differ.

[roc314]

I keep seeing a lot of claims that a specific religion/religious event(s) has a lot of evidence for it. Where's the evidence for it? Where is the historical/archaeological evidence? Where is the evidence that not only did these people exist, but that all the supernatural claims are true?

Historical evidence that the people existed in the proper time frame is necessary, but not sufficient to be evidence a religion is correct. To use an analogy, archaeological evidence suggests that Troy might've been a real city, and that there might have really been a huge battle outside of it. However, this does not mean that Achilles was dipped into the River Styx as a babe or that Odysseus ran into sirens. There has to be historical evidence for those to have happened, but the historical evidence does not imply that those events actually did happen.

Phill: If certain theories about a religion crumble when you look into them, then let's look into them.

The whole "God of the Gaps" argument is, I think, a red herring: scientific discoveries do not, in any way, "push back" God - they just help explain what his usual modus operandi is.
If anything, the Universe as we know it now, with its subtle laws and complexity and ridiculously huge measures, seems to me more worthy of admiration than the old, drab "crystal-spheres-moved-by-angels" system.
Seriously, why should the fact that stars are huge atomic furnaces make them any less beautiful, or make their Creator less deserving of praise?

I agree that modern science says nothing that would disprove the existence of a god, but I don't think we can conclude that those laws lead to the existence of a deity.

The God in the Gap argument is that some theists will point to gaps in scientific knowledge as proof of god. When some of those gaps are filled (as often happens, what with advancing scientific discoveries and such), they then point to the gap that still remains as proof of god. The point of bringing it up is that it is not proof. Science isn't going to answer every last little thing. Saying scientific knowledge is incomplete implies god is kindof missing the point.

[Phill]

I keep seeing a lot of claims that a specific religion/religious event(s) has a lot of evidence for it. Where's the evidence for it? Where is the historical/archaeological evidence? Where is the evidence that not only did these people exist, but that all the supernatural claims are true?

Not sure whether you're talking specifically to me, but my thinking goes something along these lines. In the case of the Bible, we do have historical records (i.e. the gospels) of what is alleged to have happened. Let's leave aside the question of whether what we read in today's Bible is accurate to what the original writers actually wrote - I think there's sufficient evidence to believe there is, but let's just assume for now that the Bible and gospels we have today is accurate enough to get a good idea of what happened and what the writers intended.

Now, in my opinion you have three viable options when looking at the Bible, the gospels in particular (after all, Christianity really hinges on the gospels):

1. You can claim that it was falsified. This is probably the most common accusation against the Bible - that Jesus didn't actually exist / existed but not as the gospel writers recorded him. In other words, this Jesus character was pretty much made up for the most part by human imagination.
2. You can claim that the disciples were mistaken. In other words, Jesus did exist, but he managed to convince his disciples of things that he wasn't by illusion, deception, that kind of thing.
3. You can claim that the Bible is true.

(Reading over it that sounds like C.S. Lewis' 'mad, bad or God' argument. I'm not trying to restrict the options to those three, but those seem the most common in my experience, and probably the most viable)

#1: Were the gospels falsified? I'd say the historical / circumstantial evidence says otherwise. For example, the apostles mostly died pretty horrible deaths. If anyone would have known Christianity was a fake, they would have done. And yet, if it was a fake, they took it to the grave with them - being tortured for good measure. Doesn't ring true for me.

#2: Were the gospels writers / apostles mistaken? Again, I'd say the same evidence says no. But not for the reasons you might think. If you look back at the Old Testament, at the prophecies of the Messiah, the Jews of the day were expecting someone who would liberate them from the Romans. They got it completely wrong - the gospels continually give examples of Jesus rebuking his disciples for not seeing the bigger picture. Even in Acts 1 - after Jesus had died and risen - the disciples still didn't quite see it, asking whether Jesus was going to return the kingdom to Israel. So, the picture we have is of a group of people gradually coming to understand who Jesus is - and yet the earlier stories of Jesus are just as much in character as the later ones. The Messiah figure of the OT was a lot more complex than the Jews at the time realised; I can't see how the gospel writers could have just made one up or massaged a figure to meet it, given what their expectations were.

In both of these matters I've condensed what you could write several books about into about two sentences, but that's my thinking in a nutshell

I agree that modern science says nothing that would disprove the existence of a god, but I don't think we can conclude that those laws lead to the existence of a deity.

I agree. I think Dawkins is correct when he puts down the "God of the gaps" style creationists. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean that it's "God". And even if it did, it wouldn't point to any specific God. Where I disagree with Dawkins is that evolution necessarily leads to atheism. Although it might have done in his case, I really don't think you can make that assertion. But I suppose that's a whole different topic!

[Hackfleischkannibale]

2. You can claim that the disciples were mistaken. In other words, Jesus did exist, but he managed to convince his disciples of things that he wasn't by illusion, deception, that kind of thing.

You miss a subtle but important variation of this one:

#2: Were the gospels writers / apostles mistaken? Again, I'd say the same evidence says no. But not for the reasons you might think. If you look back at the Old Testament, at the prophecies of the Messiah, the Jews of the day were expecting someone who would liberate them from the Romans. They got it completely wrong - the gospels continually give examples of Jesus rebuking his disciples for not seeing the bigger picture. Even in Acts 1 - after Jesus had died and risen - the disciples still didn't quite see it, asking whether Jesus was going to return the kingdom to Israel. So, the picture we have is of a group of people gradually coming to understand who Jesus is - and yet the earlier stories of Jesus are just as much in character as the later ones. The Messiah figure of the OT was a lot more complex than the Jews at the time realized; I can't see how the gospel writers could have just made one up or massaged a figure to meet it, given what their expectations were.

There could be one more mistaken person: Jesus. He might have convinced his disciples of what he thought was the truth, even though it wasn't. I have the following hypothesis: Having read the bible of those days, he believed he was the son of god and had a greater vision than the Jews of that time (as Douglas Adams put it: "how great it would be to be nice to people for a change") which he concluded in part from prophecies made in the book (it's a clever idea to have a book that makes both predictions and gets updated), but twisted them to fit his own idea - but still, he wasn't the true son of a god. One actually doesn't need a miracle for a resurrection given the medicinal standard of those ages, so people were surely amazed about this and thus wrote it down.

This isn't well-researched, of course, it's just my short application of Occam's Razor to Jesus.

[The Great Hippo]

What roc said about God in the Gaps. This isn't an atheist trick; it's a Christian Apologetics one.

Phill: So either they were all lying, they were all making a horrible mistake, or that they were all 100% correct. My question: Why is only one of these options possible? Why not all three?

They probably lied a little (both to other people and to themselves). They probably made mistakes. And the things in the gospels are probably based on things that actually happened (or they heard about happening). As for the whole 'retrospective Jesus' point--uh, you do know that the gospels were heavily editted, sorted, and selected based on their consistency and persuasiveness, right? That there were plenty of gospels that didn't 'make the cut'? And, in fact, many of them were destroyed? I'm sure if I wrote down six hundred different manuscripts detailing tomorrow's possible events, waited till tomorrow, then destroyed all copies except the one that came closest, I'd look pretty awesome too.

Finally:

Moreover, the empirical evidence does not appear to be strong enough to justify religious belief - it is not *incompatible* with it, but there would be more likely explanations available.

That's all I'm saying when I define religion as irrational; that there are far more reasonable, feasible options on the table. It's fine to believe in something that the evidence doesn't support as long as your belief isn't doing damage to anyone. It's the whole 'But the evidence supports the existence of God!' notion that drives me batty. It really, really doesn't--and there are Christians who want to modify the concept of scientific inquiry so that it does.

[oxoiron]

It's the whole 'But the evidence supports the existence of God!' notion that drives me batty. It really, really doesn't--and there are Christians who want to modify the concept of scientific inquiry so that it does.

God bless you for saying that.[/irony]
I get so very tired of people trotting out cherry-picked anecdotes and scripture passages which 'prove' they are right. I always refer them to Scepticism Inc.^* Belief in the supernatural is by definition based on faith, because there is no evidence for its existence.

^*Best synopsis ever.

Narrated by a supermarket trolley, this novel is a satire on the lunacies of organized religion.

[MoghLiechty2]

Moreover, the empirical evidence does not appear to be strong enough to justify religious belief - it is not *incompatible* with it, but there would be more likely explanations available.

Yes, yes, empirical evidence, while useful to the question in other forms of rational inquiry, by definition can't solve the question of God's existence, because God is not testable. Atheists seem to use this as an "AHA!" argument against Theists, but that's really absurd. I'm really curious though, how people would say that the naturalistic explanation for consciousness in particular is more "likely" than the supernatural one.

Religious beliefs, it seems to me, are mostly unsupported by rational modes of inquiry - the theological "proofs" are very interesting, but they rely on metaphysical assumptions which are in no way obvious.

Do you have a good example of this? (Flawed theological proofs)

(even if sometimes a few of the more "conservative" sectors of my religion kind of annoy me a little )

I'll try not to then, but:

and I would be as much likely to be wrong if I converted to something else as if I stayed where I am; moreover, I am confident that all the details will not matter that much in the long run - so what if I may be wrong about some of the characteristics of God, or about in which way He intervened over Earth? Sooner or later, if things go the way I hope, I will have Himself explaining me these things first-hand.

Unless of course, some part of the religion you profess claims that the details do matter. That would be significant wouldn't it? (I don't really want to get into the whole postmodernism debate here, I just want to hear what you think.)

As for the whole 'retrospective Jesus' point--uh, you do know that the gospels were heavily editted, sorted, and selected based on their consistency and persuasiveness, right? That there were plenty of gospels that didn't 'make the cut'? And, in fact, many of them were destroyed?

The fact that they were sorted and selected for consistency should not be surprising, because inconsistent texts would be false. Of course, if the inconsistent texts were a much larger portion of the texts than the consistent texts, this would be scandalous. However... well, they're not.

[The Great Hippo]

The fact that they were sorted and selected for consistency should not be surprising, because inconsistent texts would be false. Of course, if the inconsistent texts were a much larger portion of the texts than the consistent texts, this would be scandalous. However... well, they're not.

By 'consistent', I meant 'consistent with the specific message we are selling'--not providing internal consistency to the narrative itself. In other words, texts which implied that Jesus was not the son of God were directly expelled or edited to make it more clear that he was.

Yes, yes, empirical evidence, while useful to the question in other forms of rational inquiry, by definition can't solve the question of God's existence, because God is not testable. Atheists seem to use this as an "AHA!" argument against Theists, but that's really absurd.

Most atheists I know don't use this as an "AHA!" argument so much as a "Listen, what you believe isn't based on empirical evidence, please stop acting like it is" argument. Because, let me tell you, a lot of Christians do that. And that was the implication I was getting when you were claiming you came to Christianity by evidence, rather than faith.

[MoghLiechty2]

By 'consistent', I meant 'consistent with the specific message we are selling'--not providing internal consistency to the narrative itself. In other words, texts which implied that Jesus was not the son of God were directly expelled or edited to make it more clear that he was.

What texts, or kind of texts are we talking about? Jesus himself claimed to be the son of God, a generally accepted hisorical fact (him claiming it, that is). This is recorded in the gospels (first 4 books of the New Testament), and the rest of the New Testament is a record of the disciples and Paul (Acts), Paul's letters, and a couple revelations. Most of them merely discuss the implications of Jesus being the Son of God and his message, rather than provide evidence for it. The evidence for it would have been apparent to Jewish scholars of the time, and later by early Chrstians, in the form of Old Testament prophecies as well as Jesus' miracles (if they happened).

So, what sort of texts were "thrown out" and by whom?
Also, any arguments on the consciousness thing? (Why a naturalist explanation is better based on the evidence.)

[The Great Hippo]

As always, Rotten.com is a delightful repository of information on the subject of religious scripture (especially this subject). The link doesn't lead to anything offensive, by the way--it's rotten.com's library, which is a delightful (albeit horribly opinionated) slice of information on just about every subject you can imagine. I provide this link in particular because it compiles a lot of information on the subject of revisions, excised portions of scripture, edited versions of scripture, etc. Click anywhere else on the page at your own risk (in case you're unaware, rotten.com specializes in horrific and often traumatizing images).

Here's another good link (also a safe one!) to another article that deals with the idea of initial scripture for good measure. I realize these aren't really 'historical' articles (the person who wrote these doesn't even cite any of their sources); if you want information with more authoritative citations, I can eventually provide. It'll just take me a long while to dig some out, and I don't want to go through the trouble unless it's something you're really interested in investigating and considering.

Also, any arguments on the consciousness thing? (Why a naturalist explanation is better based on the evidence.)

Sorry, not my field. I don't see how it matters, anyway; if you're claiming it as another point in God's corner, my response is--again, and again, and again, and again--God in the Gaps. Just because we don't understand how something works is never evidence for God (to say otherwise is to imply that once we understand it, God no longer exists; I really don't think that theologians would like to reduce God every time we figure out something new).

Jesus himself claimed to be the son of God, a generally accepted hisorical fact (him claiming it, that is).

I'm... not very sure of that.

[MoghLiechty2]

As always, Rotten.com is a delightful repository of information on the subject of religious scripture (especially this subject). The link doesn't lead to anything offensive, by the way--it's rotten.com's library, which is a delightful (albeit horribly opinionated) slice of information on just about every subject you can imagine. I provide this link in particular because it compiles a lot of information on the subject of revisions, excised portions of scripture, edited versions of scripture, etc.

This first link is disappointing, as it really didn't tell me anything I (as a non-expert) didn't even know. It simply affirms what you would expect from any ancient document that had to have 1000's of scribes meticulously attempt to accurately transcribe it into surviving copies. I'm not particularly surprised at the "300,000" discrpancies in the New Testament (which probably counts a discrepancy multiple times for single passages if there are multiple manuscripts providing the discrepancy) as in any good Bible you will find little footnotes that say "In some manuscripts: <word>"... In particular, the "Son of Man" vs "Son of God" thing is quite unimportant, as they are identical in meaning. (My Bible reads 'Man' and footnotes 'God'). And I could've told you off the top of my head that John 7:53 - 8:11 probably/possibly doesn't belong in the Bible (my Bible heavily commentates on this. Just because the earliest manuscripts that we have don't have it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be there, or that it wasn't in the original writing), which is why I never use it for any important, relevant theological discussion.

The rest of the article ties this with the shady nature of the Roman Catholic Church in dealing with doctrine. I don't deny the early Roman Catholic Church's shameless control of religious doctrine and its use of false or twisted doctrine for political gain. One of Luther's objections during the Reformation was that the average man was not allowed to decide for himself on doctrinal issues, but instead had to defer such thinking to "qualified" clergymen. But this doesn't change the fact that all the manuscripts we need to construct a reliable and consistent version of the original writings exist.

Here's another good link (also a safe one!) to another article that deals with the idea of initial scripture for good measure. I realize these aren't really 'historical' articles (the person who wrote these doesn't even cite any of their sources); if you want information with more authoritative citations, I can eventually provide. It'll just take me a long while to dig some out, and I don't want to go through the trouble unless it's something you're really interested in investigating and considering.

Trust me, a full scale discussion of Biblical canonization and the early church's doctrine is not something either you or I want to get into. (A couple lengthy discussions on a couple things mentioned in the articles: What 1 Clement was, why it isn't canon (a question that's not directly addressed, but rather becomes obvious in the discussion), and how this early church writing was able to distinguish between reliable and unreliable writings: HERE. What the gospel of Thomas was, arguments for a later date of writing, how knowing these things throws away any real reason why it should've been considered canon, as well as interesting implications from a coherence standpoint of how Thomas references the 4 canonical gospels: HERE) This sort of thing is on my to-do list of things to become much more knowledgable about.

In response to this article, my objection is similar to the first. The article plays more upon hypothetical semi-conspiracies in the early church, related with a supposed struggle to invent a coherent doctrine, something a lot easier to argue if you make the initial assumption that they actually had to invent things because Jesus never did the authoratative things the gospels say they do. Which is generally my problem with the sort of arguments expressed in your link. The context of their arguments is an a priori assumption that Christianity is just another false religion, rather than assuming the actual possibility of miracles, or Jesus' resurrection, or Jesus' Godhood, or any other thing that might take a little bit of faith to consider accepting.

Sorry, not my field. I don't see how it matters, anyway; if you're claiming it as another point in God's corner, my response is--again, and again, and again, and again--God in the Gaps. Just because we don't understand how something works is never evidence for God (to say otherwise is to imply that once we understand it, God no longer exists; I really don't think that theologians would like to reduce God every time we figure out something new).

I would argue that consciousness is something quite, quite different. That is, consciousness in terms of "private experience" and "qualia." Once again, this question can be framed entirely without asking the question of God's existence. However, the option that seems the most likely (that of the existence of non-physical mental states) heavily favors Theism over Naturalism as an explanation. The debate isn't about finding an explanation for qualia, so much as debating whether a physical explanation is possible at all, through the extensive philosophical use of thought experiments and logic. But whatever... I'll stop demanding explanations if it'll make it so I don't have to read "God in the Gaps" again. I'm simply saying that these topics are quite balanced debates with equally feasible solutions, some of which quite reasonably point to the existence of a creator.

[Phill]

So either they were all lying, they were all making a horrible mistake, or that they were all 100% correct. My question: Why is only one of these options possible? Why not all three?

It could have been a combination of lying and mistaken identity. But I don't think that's very likely, it just doesn't fit with what happened and what they did afterwards.

As for the whole 'retrospective Jesus' point--uh, you do know that the gospels were heavily editted, sorted, and selected based on their consistency and persuasiveness, right? That there were plenty of gospels that didn't 'make the cut'? And, in fact, many of them were destroyed? I'm sure if I wrote down six hundred different manuscripts detailing tomorrow's possible events, waited till tomorrow, then destroyed all copies except the one that came closest, I'd look pretty awesome too.

Although MoghLiechty2 has already dealt with this, I'd just like to add that the New Testament canon just didn't happen in the way that you describe. There's a lot of consistency in the Bible manuscripts (i.e. apart from the ending to Mark's gospel and the addition to John's gospel there's not much different). There are thousands of textual variations, but less than 1% are significant. I'm reading an article (don't think this is available unless you register) which says that there are four kinds of variants. 1: Spelling and nonsense errors - easy to spot; 2. minor changes, such as synonyms. An example is, in Greek you can say "the Barnabas", and some manuscripts have the article and some don't. 3. changes which are meaningful and not viable, i.e. changes which would have significance but only occur in a small percentage of manuscripts. 4. Changes which are both meaningful and viable. An example is Romans 5:1, where some manuscripts read "let us have peace" and others read "we have peace". But no essential doctrine is affected by any of these kind of variants.

As for the number of gospels and books, I think it's incredibly unfair to say that there were a lot of gospels that didn't "make the cut". Not that there are gnostic gospels and the like, but just that these were never seen by the church to be canonical. The decision making process wasn't a group of men with beards sitting around in a room glancing through manuscripts and putting them on the "Bible" or "Not Bible" pile. The fact is, many of the New Testament books were regarded as scripture and taught in churches from pretty early on (for example, Ignatius of Antioch echoed the words of John's gospel writing in around 110AD). Justin Martyr wrote about the gospels (apparently the four) being read and exposited in Christian services of worship in around the middle of the second century.

Anyway, I think ML has said pretty much everything I wanted to say so I won't labour the point!:)

[Bluggo]

Yes, yes, empirical evidence, while useful to the question in other forms of rational inquiry, by definition can't solve the question of God's existence, because God is not testable. Atheists seem to use this as an "AHA!" argument against Theists, but that's really absurd. I'm really curious though, how people would say that the naturalistic explanation for consciousness in particular is more "likely" than the supernatural one.

I agree, this is not an argument in favor of atheism - I was just trying to get this point out of the way.
In effect, "likely" was not a particularly appropriate term, as I have no idea about how to attribute probabilities to metaphysical theories, but the naturalistic explanation for consciousness is definitely simpler than the supernatural one.
I am still putting my money on the supernatural explanation, anyway.

Do you have a good example of this? (Flawed theological proofs)

I was not trying to say that theological proofs are flawed, just that they rely on philosophical assumptions that are in no way uncontroversial.
I actually think that some of them are of great interest, but they are not likely to convince anyone of the existence of God - there are just too many non-obvious preconditions that can be attacked instead. I can attempt to make some examples later, if required.

(even if sometimes a few of the more "conservative" sectors of my religion kind of annoy me a little )

I'll try not to then, but:

I was not talking about you at all - sorry if I gave this impression: I was not using the word "conservative" in its political sense, and I do not have anything at all against you.
I was mostly thinking of things like the whole "no contraception whatsoever, not even to prevent HIV, because it's not natural" nonsense, the misogyny, or the reprehensible way in which the "pedophile priests" scandal has been managed by the hierarchy.

Unless of course, some part of the religion you profess claims that the details do matter. That would be significant wouldn't it? (I don't really want to get into the whole postmodernism debate here, I just want to hear what you think.)

Well, I think that people will be judged for their actions and their motives rather than for their beliefs.
I am not denying the value of faith: hopefully, a devout Christian should have more motives than a random person to try to lead a good life, and of course asking for forgiveness is simpler if you know that there is someone who can grant it.

But I do not think that God is going to punish a honest person just because, be it for lack of evidence, honest mistake, personal history or whatever - he or she decided not to believe in Him.
According to my beliefs and the way I interpret the Bible, as well as to what is written in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, unbelievers can and will be saved.

I am not going postmodernist and saying that there is no truth, although I would argue that while on Earth it is pretty much impossible to be 100% certain of having found it; but if God was the kind of being who is willing to save me, but would abandon my sister to an eternity of suffering just because she is atheist (disregarding the fact, by the way, that she is a much kinder person than I am) then I would have a giant "FUCK YOU" sign to prepare for Judgment Day.

[The Great Hippo]

Once again, this question can be framed entirely without asking the question of God's existence. However, the option that seems the most likely (that of the existence of non-physical mental states) heavily favors Theism over Naturalism as an explanation.

Okay, and if you want to ask that question outside of a theistic framework--go for it in another thread. But you keep saying that because it can be asked outside of a theistic framework, it's immune to the God in the Gaps fallacy; and yet you are asking it in a theistic framework--you're using it to arrive at the conclusion you want--the God-affirmation. The God in the Gaps fallacy isn't just going "Wizard Did It!"; it's also about making non-testable affirmations that satisfy certain conditions and simultaneously move us closer to the God-affirmation ("God exists"). It's pretty much the entire basis of modern Christian Apologeticism. I keep going "God in the Gaps" because that's the direction you keep going in. "Naturalism fails to explain this, it must be supernatural--i.e., God could exist!" is a nonstatement. Naturalism may one day come up with a suitable explanation; supernaturalism will always rely on "Wizard did it!" up until the day that naturalism tells it otherwise.

Anyway, I all ready accept that God is (a very, very unlikely) possibility. What I'm saying you have to do is provide evidence that God is the most likely possibility. That's a pretty big feat, I'll agree, but it's what's required for evidence-based belief rather than faith-based belief.

I was mostly thinking of things like the whole "no contraception whatsoever, not even to prevent HIV, because it's not natural" nonsense, the misogyny, or the reprehensible way in which the "pedophile priests" scandal has been managed by the hierarchy.

Not to derail the thread, but yeah--this is what happens when Christians conflate Christian ideology with scientific fact. This is why I'm saying: Don't do that.

Not that you are, just backing up that this is horrible shit--and pointing out that it's a natural consequence to thinking that there's plenty of evidence for God (aka, conflating materialism with spiritualism).

And I could've told you off the top of my head that John 7:53 - 8:11 probably/possibly doesn't belong in the Bible (my Bible heavily commentates on this. Just because the earliest manuscripts that we have don't have it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be there, or that it wasn't in the original writing), which is why I never use it for any important, relevant theological discussion.

Okay. Now we're into the authenticity of historical documentation.

You're acknowledging that, yes, the scriptures as written probably have mistakes, and at least one of those mistakes possibly involves the insertion of a story that may or may not have been there all ready. And if you read the article and agree that it's stuff you all ready knew--then you all ready knew that the original documentation no longer exists, and what we have are fragments of copies of copies.

Is it not a leap of faith to assume that, outside of 'God-Magic^tm', chances are fair that the scripture you're reading is full of inserts, changes, modifications, and so on? We have very little to compare these documents to, and as someone who is deep into history I can tell you this happens constantly. The fact is that we usually don't realize this has been going on until we stumble across (quite rarely) variant or older copies that clarify all the edits that the initial copy contained. This is pretty common with anything written before the advent of the printing press (and it still happens even after the printing press).

That's all I'm asserting, by the way; that believing in the scriptures--believing they are the Word of God--requires faith, and is not based on empirical evidence. Funny aside--most of history is based on faith. As you pointed out before, a lot of this stuff is not scientifically verifiable. We believe it happened until someone shows us it didn't (tobacco in the chest cavity of a Pharaoh destroying a thousand years of Egyptian thought, etc). Religion is slightly different, because even if someone discovered absolute proof that the scriptures were all false (they stumbled on a cave containing all the original scriptures in their true form, and found that none of them said Jesus was the son of God--just his prophet--leading us to realize that the early church manufactured the idea), you'd still probably go on keeping the faith.

And that's fine. Just acknowledge that it's faith-based, not evidence-based¹. The two are very different things, and should be kept far the hell apart.

¹Evidence-based as in empirical evidence. I'm not really monumentally concerned with the historical evidence thing. Because, again, history is about faith. And I'm speaking as someone who absolutely loves history.

Edit: Quick addendum--there are two types of historical evidence (oversimplifying, but bare with me). 'Soft evidence' and 'hard evidence'. Hard evidence is something like--the example I keep using--discovering a scrap of tobacco in the chest cavity of a Pharaoh. Documentation, however, is always soft evidence, especially when it's fragmentary non-original copies. Even when it is original pristine un-editted first-source material, though, the idea that 12 guys saw a man walking on water must be weighed against the idea that a hundred million or so didn't--in short, anecdotal evidence is also always 'soft evidence' in historical terms (and non-evidence in scientific, empirical terms). Keep this in mind when I say that belief in God and the scriptures is not 'evidence-based'--there might be soft evidence, but soft evidence always comes down to a matter of faith. Everything we know about the Greeks (aside from a few archeological findings) is built on a house of cards and could come crashing down in the face of one piece of hard evidence.

Edit-Edit: Sorry about the messy post, on my way out the door for the weekend.