MAJOR derail from Screwball Thread

[ApologiaPhoenix]

OK, well this is probably a pretty quick subject (and tomorrow I'm PCS'ing, so I'll be traveling for the next few days).

Why don't you tell me why you think natural law is a proof of god?

Simple. The Natural Law implies that some things are good in themselves, including some actions, which would mean that we are to treat some things a certain way because they are good in themselves. Their goodness however is based on their receiving goodness as they are not the source of their goodness. Thus, I posit there is an ultimate source of goodness whose being is goodness and this everyone knows to be God.

[bridgeforsale]

See we agree about something.

Of course, the flip side is species that do harm their own young (like Komodo Dragons), the young usually have a way to save themselves.

the problem is it's more difficult to apply natural selection to intelligent beings (namely homo sapiens).

[Challenger Grim]

the problem is it's more difficult to apply natural selection to intelligent beings (namely homo sapiens).

Yeah... hence
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=314

[bridgeforsale]

Simple. The Natural Law implies that some things are good in themselves, including some actions, which would mean that we are to treat some things a certain way because they are good in themselves. Their goodness however is based on their receiving goodness as they are not the source of their goodness. Thus, I posit there is an ultimate source of goodness whose being is goodness and this everyone knows to be God.

I think survival instinct and group think is much easier to prove than something as abstract as the argument you're trying to make (C.S. Lewis tries to make this argument in Mere Christianity, but I wasn't persuaded by his reasoning one bit to be honest).

Humans are not intuitively or naturally good (or bad). As the Third Reich illustrated, man will almost always follow the pack (and there's been plenty of studies by psychologists on group think confirming this). Group think results in defective decision making, and humans have a tendency to display unquestioned belief in the morality of the group (leading members of the group to ignore their pre-existing set of moral principals).

I think sciences like social evolution do a much better job of explaining the development of morality compared to abstract sciences like theology or metaphysics. I tend to agree more with empiricism (and John Locke, who believed the human mind begins as a blank slate, though ironically Locke was a theist), and the basic premise of Freud's Oedipus Complex (that family dynamics largely shape our personality and moral development, in other words we're largely a product of our environment .... although biology and genetics also play a role).

[bridgeforsale]

Another note on morality, it's lack of uniformity makes it impossible to ascribe to a single source (in a way that proving it, or even making a case that it's a logically reasonable assumption, would require).

The bible makes claims that simply do not correlate with science. For instance it infers that mere observation of the world (and the greater cosmos) makes the existence of god apparent. However, while this may have been true for our ancient predecessors, it is not true today. Indeed scientific observation of the physical universe makes the exact opposite apparent (and the idea of a transcendent god far fetched).

As Voltaire said (I'm paraphrasing from memory) if there weren't a god, man would have to invent one anyway (Voltaire himself was a deist). In fact Voltaire is a great example of the intellectual development of rationalist thinkers. Voltaire believed much as Paul did (as expressed in I believe in the first chapter of Romans). He felt it was perfectly evident there exists an eternal, supreme, and intelligent being.

However, Voltaire was nearly the last generation of rationalist thinkers to think this way (the list also includes his deist contemporaries, such as US founding fathers like: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Alexander Hamilton). Later generations of scientists rejected his view, because they had more information.

Today we understand human psychology to the extent that we know to a reasonable certainty that our moral outlook is neither completely (or even mostly) pre-programmed, nor is it imputed by an extrinsic source. We also understand the universe didn't require an intelligent designer. We know matter and energy never disappear (and cannot be created from nothing). We know singularities form from something (i.e. black holes are formed from the death of stars). They don't appear out of nowhere.

[VenomX]

Great, you're taking the word of a sensationalist biblical scholar (Thiede), against the rest of the scholarly community (who still dates the papyri at around 200 AD).

The link you used to "debunk" me is from Wikipedia. Do you really think that what's on Wikipedia represents the scholarly community at large? Wikipedia =/= Reliable Source. That's why colleges do not accept references to it.

The problem is the history doesn't lead to a conclusion that there were hundreds of eye witnesses.

Do you really think that asserting something is the same as providing evidence for it?

Why did apologists like Justin Martyr face so many critics (and why did he have to deal with charges the Jesus narrative stole fragments from earlier Hellenic myths).

Actually, Martyr was attempting to argue in favor of the parallels. He wanted to show that it was irrational to persecute Christians for their beliefs, which were similar to other religious systems of the time.

Moreover, if there really were hundreds of people who witnessed a resurrected god-man then why are historical records utterly silent on the matter (beyond a few references by historians who only make mention of Jesus from the perspective of his followers, and there's not a single scrap of corroborating evidence supporting the resurrection ..... period!).

The historical records are only silent on the matter because you refuse to accept the New Testament as historical proof. Additionally, we might add the Gnostic gospels and the writings of the Church Fathers, but I suppose you'll discount them for the same mysterious reasons as you discount the New Testament.

Imagine how we would react today if we discovered a man, who claimed to be a god, healed countless people (where doctors confirmed the healings, not Benny Hin slapping idiots on the head, or 65 alleged miracle healings out of the 5 million or so who have visited Lourdes France) and resurrected from death after being dead for three days. Now imagine how much more profound this would have been in the ancient world (an environment already highly charged with religiosity).

Haven't you been schooled on this before? Haven't numerous posters already told you that this culture wasn't "highly charged with religiosity"? Fact is, this culture did not automatically ascribe everything they heard to the gods.

It's strains common sense to imagine such a profound event would have only received about two paragraphs worth of mention in all existing historical sources outside of its own founding text.

Actually, it doesn't strain any common sense. It only strains Western common sense, but you obviously have no grasp of ANE culture. The eruption of Mt. Vesuvius would also have been a profound event, based on the number of lives it claimed and the number of cities it buried. Guess how many mentions in the ancient literature? That's right: ONE SINGLE MENTION. And that only in passing.

So don't pretend you know what would have activated the pens of ancient scribes and set them writing. You clearly don't have a clue.

[bridgeforsale]

The link you used to "debunk" me is from Wikipedia. Do you really think that what's on Wikipedia represents the scholarly community at large? Wikipedia =/= Reliable Source. That's why colleges do not accept references to it.

Thiede's theories are not generally accepted in the scholarly community (in fact they're generally rejected).

Thiede wrote his so called "reappraisal" of P64 in 1995, while others (such as Charlesworth, Robinson, Comfort, Barrett, and Roberts) have done more recent research (and these scholars are considerably more credible than Thiede). If I were you I wouldn't give much credence to Thiede (he seems like a guy looking to make a buck from fantastic and untrue claims about biblical manuscripts & he gets poor peer review).

I personally don't view Thiede as a credible source. If you would like to that's certainly your prerogative.

Do you really think that asserting something is the same as providing evidence for it?

Actually, Martyr was attempting to argue in favor of the parallels. He wanted to show that it was irrational to persecute Christians for their beliefs, which were similar to other religious systems of the time.

that is true in other sections of his First Apology, but not in chap LIV (Origin of heathen mythology). But I won't just assert it ..... here's a link (read it for yourself):

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.liv.html

Martyr is trying to rebut the notion that the Jesus narrative (or at least its supernatural elements) borrowed from elements of earlier mythological themes (like the many life-death-rebirth gods and virgin birth motifs of Hellenic mythology). He asserted these pagan myths were some sort of pre-cognitive diabolical mockery of Jesus (even though they predated Jesus by centuries in some cases).

The argument is kind of bizarre to be honest (at least IMHO)

The historical records are only silent on the matter because you refuse to accept the New Testament as historical proof. Additionally, we might add the Gnostic gospels and the writings of the Church Fathers, but I suppose you'll discount them for the same mysterious reasons as you discount the New Testament.

the same problem exists with the letters of the apostolic fathers as exists with other material (in fact even worse, with the spurious letters from Ignatius and some of the other problems). But the biggest problem is it's drawn from the same fountain of myths as the gospels themselves. Nevertheless (when I was a believer), I always felt the best proof for Christianity was its documentary evidence (so I certainly empathize with your approach here).

My view is that there was a historical Jesus (as I've said repeatedly) and there may have been a Jesus cult even before Paul's conversion. There's different theories (for instance one that postulates Jesus was an apocalyptic doomsday prophet like John the Baptist, and there was an expectation that he would come back during the apostles lifetimes, a prophecy that failed); although I'm not a big fan of speculation.

Haven't you been schooled on this before? Haven't numerous posters already told you that this culture wasn't "highly charged with religiosity"? Fact is, this culture did not automatically ascribe everything they heard to the gods.

Actually, it doesn't strain any common sense. It only strains Western common sense, but you obviously have no grasp of ANE culture. The eruption of Mt. Vesuvius would also have been a profound event, based on the number of lives it claimed and the number of cities it buried. Guess how many mentions in the ancient literature? That's right: ONE SINGLE MENTION. And that only in passing.

So don't pretend you know what would have activated the pens of ancient scribes and set them writing. You clearly don't have a clue.

They were far more superstitious and prone to bizarre rituals compared to westerners today and most other societies in history. I've read enough Greek mythology to know you're not honestly presenting the facts here. Furthermore, with regard to ancient Jewish culture, they were a dogmatic and theocratic society.

If you want to believe these ancient people were akin to enlightenment Englishmen go right ahead?

[bridgeforsale]

No, you frinkin' jackass. The Pharisees were nosy busybodies that ruled NO ONE. The Sadducees were the ruling class, and they mostly IGNORED the little people.

weren't the pharisees opposed to the sadduces in some respects (the latter didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead, as did the Pharisees, and they also rejected the idea of an afterlife because they only believed the Torah was the inspired word of god). Wasn't it the oral traditions (that interpreted the laws of Moses) of the pharisees Jesus frequently violated (such as healing the blind man on the sabbath). Didn't the pharisees along with the chief priests conspire with Pilate to crucify Jesus? In other words notwithstanding the technical aristocratic status of the sadduces, weren't the pharisees effectively the enforcers of the law in second temple Palestine?

I might not be the expert here .... but I'm pretty sure I'm right.

[Darth Ovious]

The link you used to "debunk" me is from Wikipedia. Do you really think that what's on Wikipedia represents the scholarly community at large? Wikipedia =/= Reliable Source. That's why colleges do not accept references to it.



Do you really think that asserting something is the same as providing evidence for it?



Actually, Martyr was attempting to argue in favor of the parallels. He wanted to show that it was irrational to persecute Christians for their beliefs, which were similar to other religious systems of the time.



The historical records are only silent on the matter because you refuse to accept the New Testament as historical proof. Additionally, we might add the Gnostic gospels and the writings of the Church Fathers, but I suppose you'll discount them for the same mysterious reasons as you discount the New Testament.



Haven't you been schooled on this before? Haven't numerous posters already told you that this culture wasn't "highly charged with religiosity"? Fact is, this culture did not automatically ascribe everything they heard to the gods.



Actually, it doesn't strain any common sense. It only strains Western common sense, but you obviously have no grasp of ANE culture. The eruption of Mt. Vesuvius would also have been a profound event, based on the number of lives it claimed and the number of cities it buried. Guess how many mentions in the ancient literature? That's right: ONE SINGLE MENTION. And that only in passing.

So don't pretend you know what would have activated the pens of ancient scribes and set them writing. You clearly don't have a clue.

Not only that but he doesn't realize that only 1% of all historical documents from that era actually survived. So the fact that we have thousands of New Testament fragments just goes to show how lucky we are. The original number actually written would have been 100 times more than what we have today.

[Darwin's Dog]

It's not so much religion as a society's guiding principles upon which their morality is based. In the case of atheism, unfortunately, there can be no logical basis for objective morality, so any purely atheistic formulation inevitably leads to problematic circumstances as a result of its subjectivism. On the other hand, Christianity (for example) can make a claim to an objective morality, that of their God's, which is clearly superior.

Hi there Mut

Eh, that's kind of right.However, I do not believe in objective morality, and the best example I can think of is cannibalism:If, while famished, I found a human corpse, I'd rather eat it than die.I know it's really disgusting, but that's how I see it-you're welcome to disagree.

I'm about as agnostic on god as I am about a flying teapot, to put it like Russell.

However, there is some relevance, because atheism doesn't claim to be anything. We claim to be neither good or bad, we simply don't believe one thing (theism). Atheists have ranged from men like Thomas Edison to tyrants like Stalin. Nevertheless is it logical to say a disbelief in something informed either their genius or their evil? Of course not. Inversely, religion does claim to be something, it claims to be good (and against evil).

It depends upon how you view disbelief.To me, disbelief is not nothing, it is a vacuum, a vacuum that breeds in people with power who are also quite eager to have an agenda to destroy certain religious groups a hatred against aforesaid groups(and faith in general).Similarly, faith but breeds in powerful people (who resemble the aforementioned people who use atheism as an agenda) the hatred for other faiths.Both things are actually quite similar if you view them that way.

In short, in and of itself theism can but merely affirm the existence of a god who actively takes part in human affairs.The existence of such a deity has nothing to do with violence in the name of religion if you address theism as a whole instead of one specific religion.Christianity does actively encourage killing non-believers in the bible, so I don't know how you'd view that.However, theism itself does not breed violence, specific forms of it do.So I believe you're confusing the two.

I quite agree with you there. The problem arises from human society abhorring a vacuum.

If we don't take evolution as prescriptive principle, then what is the prescriptive principle the society is ruled by?

'We don't need one' some might say but that is folly. As Chesterton said, "the mother of all dilemmas is progress" (or something). Take the cracked article "6 insane laws we'll need in the future" (sorry, can't link per rules, go look it up) which points out current research and inventions that could royally upset society in the future. (say... designer babies)

Therefore, society is upset by some invention, discovery, etc. The question then becomes, "how does society readjust itself to this development?" That's where the prescriptive principle of a society comes in. They're like emergency protocols, they tell us what we should do in situations that haven't been planned for.

So then, when the world changes (like, AI finally takes over), which principle do you want everything to be built upon?

In my honest opinion, the only principle to be adhered to is that any moral code, any guiding principle, should be plastic, and if need be it should be changed swiftly, for convictions held for too long may prove disastrous.

That said, altruism, and of course, patience and a lack of recklessness are good qualities for most of the time.I did say "most" because a principle of morality may fail in a particular situation however universal otherwise it may be.

[bridgeforsale]

Not only that but he doesn't realize that only 1% of all historical documents from that era actually survived. So the fact that we have thousands of New Testament fragments just goes to show how lucky we are. The original number actually written would have been 100 times more than what we have today.

Lucky? I thought god ensures the integrity of scripture (and that the church i.e. collective of all Christians ... will never fall into error)?

That's the thing, god's inconsistency. In the old testament he illustrated his power in grandiose ways. Now he can barely ensure his word is transmitted to his people (and there's all sorts of confusion in the transmission). At every turn it just doesn't make sense?

[Darwin's Dog]

The very point of miracles like in the OT is that they do not occur predictably.

That seems a cop-out to me, but you wanted to know why parts of the NT was lost along the ages so...

[Darth Ovious]

Lucky? I thought god ensures the integrity of scripture (and that the church i.e. collective of all Christians ... will never fall into error)?

I don't ascribe to the God wrote the New Testament personally theory. Also I don't subscribe to the Bible being 100% infalliable theory either.

That's the thing, god's inconsistency. In the old testament he illustrated his power in grandiose ways. Now he can barely ensure his word is transmitted to his people (and there's all sorts of confusion in the transmission). At every turn it just doesn't make sense?

Already been refuted.

Can you please show me the millions of worldwide miracles that God was credited to have done in the old testament on a daily basis?

You gave me a list before, but considering it wasn't exactly large and the time frame for that list was over the course of 4000 years or so and even then most of the miracles were witnessed on a personal basis and not a worldwide basis then your statement of "In the testament he illustrated his power in grandiose ways" doesn't fit.

[Challenger Grim]

In my honest opinion, the only principle to be adhered to is that any moral code, any guiding principle, should be plastic, and if need be it should be changed swiftly, for convictions held for too long may prove disastrous.

That said, altruism, and of course, patience and a lack of recklessness are good qualities for most of the time.I did say "most" because a principle of morality may fail in a particular situation however universal otherwise it may be.

And you don't suppose that 'new' convictions might prove more disastrous? (older convictions at least have the benefit of being tested)

Exhibit A: Eugenics.

Or as Jonah Goldberg pointed out:

A society that was certain, certain beyond all certainty, that putting its citizens in death camps was wrong, would never put people in death camps. Such things are only possible when you're open to new ideas.

[Challenger Grim]

Already been refuted.

Can you please show me the millions of worldwide miracles that God was credited to have done in the old testament on a daily basis?

You gave me a list before, but considering it wasn't exactly large and the time frame for that list was over the course of 4000 years or so and even then most of the miracles were witnessed on a personal basis and not a worldwide basis then your statement of "In the testament he illustrated his power in grandiose ways" doesn't fit.

It seems clearer and clearer to me that poodle didn't "refute" the Bible in his studies so much as fight a strawman of it.