The End of Christianity

[Seasanctuary]

Opening a general discussion thread for Loftus' latest anthology The End of Christianity.

Anyone else read some/all of it? I picked it up mainly for Carrier's chapter on moral philosophy, but have been leafing through some of the other chapters as well. So far I'm thinking Keith Parsons' chapter on Hell and Ken Pulliam's chapter on the atonement are the most on-point and measured criticisms of Christian belief. I would be happy to go into detail on any chapter people want to discuss.

I know Loftus has a colorful history here, but please let's stick to what's in this particular volume.

[seanD]

I don't understand why a skeptic would think that attacks against Christian theology is a strong argument. Either Christianity is true or it's not true. If it's true, then attacks against theology doesn't prove this one way or the other, it just shows that either the skeptic objects to the theology or is just wrong in their interpretation of the theology. On the other hand, if Christianity is not true, then attacking the theology is irrelevant. And I would think that the atheist would determine the latter by attacking Christian history and fact.

[Xru]

I don't understand why a skeptic would think that attacks against Christian theology is a strong argument. Either Christianity is true or it's not true. If it's true, then attacks against theology doesn't prove this one way or the other, it just shows that either the skeptic objects to the theology or is just wrong in their interpretation of the theology. On the other hand, if Christianity is not true, then attacking the theology is irrelevant. And I would think that the atheist would determine the latter by attacking Christian history and fact.

After reading your post, I wonder to, eh.
Maybe he needs the money.

After studying the summaries of this lunatic and his friends I have no interest in discussing this fringe.

[Seasanctuary]

I don't understand why a skeptic would think that attacks against Christian theology is a strong argument. Either Christianity is true or it's not true. If it's true, then attacks against theology doesn't prove this one way or the other, it just shows that either the skeptic objects to the theology or is just wrong in their interpretation of the theology. On the other hand, if Christianity is not true, then attacking the theology is irrelevant. And I would think that the atheist would determine the latter by attacking Christian history and fact.

It could be the case that:

a) Christianity is false, but...
b) empirical evidence cannot show it is false, yet...
c) conceptual incoherence in essential doctrines can show that it is false.

[lilpixieofterror]

Opening a general discussion thread for Loftus' latest anthology The End of Christianity.

Anyone else read some/all of it? I picked it up mainly for Carrier's chapter on moral philosophy, but have been leafing through some of the other chapters as well. So far I'm thinking Keith Parsons' chapter on Hell and Ken Pulliam's chapter on the atonement are the most on-point and measured criticisms of Christian belief. I would be happy to go into detail on any chapter people want to discuss.

I know Loftus has a colorful history here, but please let's stick to what's in this particular volume.

Reading though some of your link, I am finding much of it to be rather silly. Such as the first point, which is pretty much saying, "Christians disagree so therefore Christianity is wrong!" How does that follow? Where does the Bible state that Christians are going to walk in lock step or that Christians must agree on ever doctrine? This seems to me to be more of a taunt, not an actual argument. The second one is pretty much an assertion, with I really do not see backed up (in fact, it's a response to JPH, in which JPH already respond to it and Richard Carrier hasn't seemed to responded back with). The third summery doesn't really go into much detail, but that chapter is coming from the same person that often misunderstands Christians and these people and simply ends up making a fool of himself. Really sea, I don't see anything here that really is much of an argument beyond a few taunts, assertions, and rants. Based upon the summery given on your link, I really cannot accept this as anything worthy of in depth reading and appears to be simply more rehashing of the same tired arguments that have already been dealt with before.

[lilpixieofterror]

It could be the case that:

a) Christianity is false, but...
b) empirical evidence cannot show it is false, yet...
c) conceptual incoherence in essential doctrines can show that it is false.

Based upon the links given, I would have to argue that most of those people don't understand those essential doctrines or pretend that alternative views (which would invalidate their arguments) exist. I see nothing new, in that outline, that hasn't been debated and refuted before. However, I will take you on a few of those points, if you so desire.

[Jedidiah]

It is really hard to take Loftus seriously after he has demonstrated so clearly that (in spite of having been a "real" Christian, and an apologist) that he has very little understanding of what it means to be a Christian, and equally little understanding of any Theology.

[Leonhard]

Actually, and this will probably cause lilpixieofterror to duck some credibility points from my account, I've got this book on a list of books for reading that I'm ordering home. Mostly to look up what Richard Carrier's most recent version of his arguments happen to be. I can't say why he hasn't spent time responding to JP. I remember looking up his blog from time to time to see if he had. He's still in my rss feed, though he updates his blog very infrequently. Its probably because he's finishing his books on historical methods and new testament scholarship.

The book, returning to the subject, seems a mixed bag, like most multiple article collections tend to be. Most of what Richard Carrier's written is usually worth reading, I don't like Price, don't know what I think about Loftus, but Keith Parson's article about the meaningless of Hell seems like an interesting read. If only for the fact that I've devoured mostly books and articles by apologists defending Hell. Personally I've always tended more towards either an annihilationist position (mainly due to Glenn Peoples), or a weak form of universalism where the possibility of salvation of the damned exists even if not all (or even many) would take up the offer. The article about how Christianity has changed over the years might be interesting if its well referenced. The problem I find with claiming certain things about history, is that its usually always possible to get a second opinion somewhere and I don't find myself well equipped to actually evaluate either side, so I'd take it with a grain of salt of course.

On the note of history, there was an interesting debate in the comment section of Richard Carrier's article Flynn's Pile of Boners between Carrier and Humphrey from Quodlibeta (as well as other commenters) regarding whether there is evidence of waterwheels in medieval Europe prior to 1000AD. It ended pretty much with Carrier answering his critics and Humphrey making a promise that he'd answer Carrier some day, which unfortunately hasn't come so far.

I picked it up mainly for Carrier's chapter on moral philosophy,

I doubt he lays it out in more detail than he does in Sense and Goodness Without God, he usually tells people to go to that book, but its sometimes nice to get a refresher on an authors views in a different format.

[Mountain Man]

It could be the case that:

a) Christianity is false, but...
b) empirical evidence cannot show it is false, yet...
c) conceptual incoherence in essential doctrines can show that it is false.

I've found that such arguments are invariably based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine itself.

[Seasanctuary]

I doubt he lays it out in more detail than he does in Sense and Goodness Without God, he usually tells people to go to that book, but its sometimes nice to get a refresher on an authors views in a different format.

Can't say, since I haven't read that. A quick overview of what's in the anthology chapter:

* The only imperatives which have any real 'claim' on a person's obedience are ones which line up with what that person most wants. There's no point in discussing other kinds of imperatives, whether they're labeled 'moral' or not.
* Psychology is a science which can investigate what people want. Other sciences can investigate the effectiveness of means to ends. This means science can in theory determine whether "Leonhard ought to φ" is true, by checking your psychology and objective means/ends facts.
* Because of our shared biology, we all really want the same things and so there's a universal human morality. It may seem like you and I want different things, but if I were in your shoes (same life experiences and such), I would want what you want...which shows we want the same things after all.

* Since there isn't any good evidence Christian religious claims are true, there isn't good evidence any Christian moral claims are true which rely on those religious claims to establish means/ends facts. (And if Christianity isn't true, people's false beliefs about means/ends facts are keeping them from discovering true morality.)

[shunyadragon]

Opening a general discussion thread for Loftus' latest anthology The End of Christianity.

Anyone else read some/all of it? I picked it up mainly for Carrier's chapter on moral philosophy, but have been leafing through some of the other chapters as well. So far I'm thinking Keith Parsons' chapter on Hell and Ken Pulliam's chapter on the atonement are the most on-point and measured criticisms of Christian belief. I would be happy to go into detail on any chapter people want to discuss.

I know Loftus has a colorful history here, but please let's stick to what's in this particular volume.

I agree that the truth of christian claims, including the many many varieties, is highly improbable, but considering the nature of human foibles, I doubt Christianity will end any time soon.

[Mountain Man]

* Since there isn't any good evidence Christian religious claims are true...

This is a rather big statement since it seems to imply that there actually is evidence to support Christian beliefs, but the skeptic has managed to convince himself that it's not "good enough". The obvious point of discussion, then, is whether or not the skeptic's objections are reasonable and justified.

[Carrikature]

Opening a general discussion thread for Loftus' latest anthology The End of Christianity.

Anyone else read some/all of it? I picked it up mainly for Carrier's chapter on moral philosophy, but have been leafing through some of the other chapters as well. So far I'm thinking Keith Parsons' chapter on Hell and Ken Pulliam's chapter on the atonement are the most on-point and measured criticisms of Christian belief. I would be happy to go into detail on any chapter people want to discuss.

I know Loftus has a colorful history here, but please let's stick to what's in this particular volume.

The chapter on Hell could be interesting, but I find most discussions on that topic to be primarily extrapolation. I've never understood people's fascination with it, but I'm sure that's due to my own viewpoint. I'm not that interested in Heaven either, for that matter...

I'd be interested in the chapter on atonement too. It's my vague impression that while penal substitutionary atonement is considered orthodox, there are more and more people rejecting that particular doctrine. I'm not sure how accurate my impression is, though.

[Soyeong]

* The only imperatives which have any real 'claim' on a person's obedience are ones which line up with what that person most wants. There's no point in discussing other kinds of imperatives, whether they're labeled 'moral' or not.

What about obedience to one's conscience? Conscious is never going to tell someone that it is right to murder regardless of whether they want most to murder someone. That is unless you're saying that they don't really want most to murder someone, but to do what most lines up with their conscious, which kind of defeats the point of the claim.

[Leonhard]

Can't say, since I haven't read that. A quick overview of what's in the anthology chapter:

* The only imperatives which have any real 'claim' on a person's obedience are ones which line up with what that person most wants. There's no point in discussing other kinds of imperatives, whether they're labeled 'moral' or not.
* Psychology is a science which can investigate what people want. Other sciences can investigate the effectiveness of means to ends. This means science can in theory determine whether "Leonhard ought to φ" is true, by checking your psychology and objective means/ends facts.
* Because of our shared biology, we all really want the same things and so there's a universal human morality. It may seem like you and I want different things, but if I were in your shoes (same life experiences and such), I would want what you want...which shows we want the same things after all.

* Since there isn't any good evidence Christian religious claims are true, there isn't good evidence any Christian moral claims are true which rely on those religious claims to establish means/ends facts. (And if Christianity isn't true, people's false beliefs about means/ends facts are keeping them from discovering true morality.)

Sounds pretty much like his chapter in Sense and Goodness. On that note there was an interesting exchange between Carrier and Alonzo Fyfe who is another naturalist who champions the model of Desirism. Carrier held that under certain consideration their two models were equivalent, and Fyfe -I think- took the position that there were differences. The links (get them here) to the various disputes between the two have been collected by Luke Muehlhauser at Common Sense Atheism (great website btw).

What about obedience to one's conscience? Conscious is never going to tell someone that it is right to murder regardless of whether they want most to murder someone. That is unless you're saying that they don't really want most to murder someone, but to do what most lines up with their conscious, which kind of defeats the point of the claim.

I'm not sure I agree that a person conscience couldn't move him to murder someone. In the Christian perspective all people are sinful, and there's no an aspect of a persons nature that isn't free of corruption (to various degrees), so ones conscience might not get things right all the time. From a naturalists perspective it seems plausible that there would exist many abnormal cases, relative to the norm of what we'd identify as a people's conscience. In fact a lot of murderers (I meet one in person) seem to consider themselves to have done the right thing to do.

However even then, I think a better answer to your questions lies in the resolution of conflicting desires (or goals, intentions, needs, etc). I might have been betrayed by someone to such a degree that one feels nothing but destructive rage towards that person. A part of me wants to bash his skull in and remove that big fat smug grin from his face. Another part of me knows that if we do that several things would happen... one I would end up destroying another person, and it would make feel terrible and I have to live with the knowledge of what I did for the rest of my life, secondly it would probably cause me to go to prison where my freedoms to get the things I want is taken away from me, as well as being a thoroughly awful place to be. I have a desire to end up in the future where I've defeated your inner demons, and either made peace with the person or somehow gotten satisfaction non-violently (maybe by exposing his tax fraud), and where I'm not in prison. In most people, most of the time, I think those desires are stronger than the desire to chrush and destroy. This is just a cartoon sketch of course, I'm not saying it works exactly like this, but the Carrier's goal theory would treat it sorta like this. And I'm not saying that before each choice we do we sit down and do a systematic ethical calculation about what the best course might be in terms of choices, in fact in most cases we probably go by gut reactions and intuition. A medical counsel who are planning how best to treat patients, and fight disease might have much more time and man power to figure out what they as doctors want for patients (including what patients want of doctors) and figure out how best to achieve that with the finite resources at hand.

Of course I'm not sure how one would talk sensibly about why people do what they do, if they aren't motivated somehow. If a person has no reason, drive, instinct, want, lust, desires, goals or intention towards a certain action, then how would the person end up doing it (other than perhaps as an arbitrary happening)? If you have goals, then we can work out how best to get you the things you want.

If you ask me why you should want to want the things that you want. I'll just be coy and say because 'you want to'. ;P