Book Plunge: Why Christianity Is Not True: Chapter 1

[Apologiaphoenix]

Does Christianity stand the test?

The link can be found here.

-----

What do I think of David Pye's self-published book? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Justin Brierley asked around recently to see if anyone would be interested in engaging with a skeptic who wrote a book called*Why Christianity Is Not True. If you know me from my work on here, you know I jump at the chance to read something like this. I got in touch with David Pye who was glad to share his work with me. It is free for all to read and can be found hereSome minor points here, I would disagree with. I think we can make an emphasis that Christianity is all about heaven instead of the resurrection, and I would prefer to speak of the return of Christ instead of the second coming. I prefer to call the Bible, Scripture, instead of saying the Word of God since I tend to reserve that for Jesus. Still, this is a good list.*

I also agree with Pye about possible problems with the idea of Christianity being described as a relationship with Jesus Christ. This is language I do not use. I also agree with him that Christianity is not just about what happens after one dies, but how one lives their life here and now and what God is doing here and now.

Pye also says that he is writing to just show Christianity is false. He is not writing to show any other position is true. This is fair enough and I have no problem with it.

However, we have a huge problem when we get to a point where he says, "I have no expertise in either history or mythology and therefore make no attempt to evaluate whether the Resurrection of Jesus is a historical event." If the resurrection is the defining event in history that shows Christianity is true, then one cannot really show it is not true without dealing with this topic. I do not know how Pye thinks he will be able to demonstrate that Christianity is not true without giving a better explanation for the rise of the early church than the one that rests in the resurrection of Jesus being true.*

I also agree with Pye that truth must be our goal. I do not hold to any relativism in truth such as if you feel it, it must be true, or to any idea of true for you but not for me. As a Christian, I am making a claim about the way reality is. I fully accept that.*

I also think Pye has made a wise stance saying we are not concerned with proof but with evidence. Very few claims can be proven 100% true with absolute certainty. What we have to ask is where does the preponderance of evidence lead us.

Pye also has a listing of what the chapters will cover. The seventh is on the existence of God. Pye says we can wonder why that topic comes so late. He doe say theism does not prove Christianity. I agree. Theism is necessary, but it is not sufficient.*

Finally, he gives a little bit about himself. Pye says he came to be a Christian at 23 and abandoned it three and a half years later. Reasons are not given yet for his abandonment or even his coming to Christianity. There is also some disappointment in that he says that he will cite Wikipedia articles. At least he tells when they were referenced, but readers know my stance on Wikipedia and it being a horrible source for any claim remotely controversial.*

When we return to this book, we will be looking at the chapter on miraculous healing.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

[TheWall]

So does he deal with arguements?
The Kalam, The trillema, Pascals wager, the numerpus fulfilled prophecies, and the like?

[Apologiaphoenix]

So does he deal with arguements?
The Kalam, The trillema, Pascals wager, the numerpus fulfilled prophecies, and the like?

You might want to wait until I get to that chapter....

[37818]

Chapter 7 - Does God exist? is concerned with this important question. However, for reasons discussed below, this chapter isn't really central to the book.

What does that tell us?

Unless it can be definitively shown that there is no God. The resurrection claim has not been refuted. Denied, sure. But mere denials do not refute anything. And Christianity stands and falls on the resurrection of Christ.

[firstfloor]

[TheWall]

But sir he has been dead for four days the smell will be awful.

Lazurus come forth.

[One Bad Pig]

Although it happens out of sight, corpses rot.

Although this may come as a shock to you, people knew that 2,000 years ago, too. There's even plenty of doubt recorded in the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. Much more tidy, if you're making things up, to start with a received prophecy and skip straight to ready recollection and acceptance of the same post-event.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Ah. Remember when the scientific revolution came and we all learned that corpses rot and dead people stay dead?

[psstein]

Nick, I admire your fortitude. I'd take issue with some of what he lists as Christian belief.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Nick, I admire your fortitude. I'd take issue with some of what he lists as Christian belief.

I'm actually emailing him some now.

[Starlight]

In the U.K., he runs a course called Alpha. This is a sort of introductory course for new Christians to Christianity and for those willing to explore it. I do not know much beyond that.

It's not too bad. A lot of churches here run it as an evangelism tool for existing church members to come to and invite their interested friends to in a pressure-free informal setting, for a night a week over a dozen or so weeks. Each night a 20min or so video runs of Nicky Gumbel talking about some basic topic, and then people split into small groups to have some food and chat about it. A lot of experienced Christians enjoy the format because it gives them a chance to chat with other Christians about their own thoughts or doubts and talk over issues that have been on their own minds.

Seems to me as many Christians share this 'misconception' as non-Christians do. And that in turn suggests that non-Christians are being accurate rather than inaccurate about what the Christians around them believe.

BTW, I would suggest the correct translation of the greek pistis is "faithfulness" not "faith" as can be seen by comparison of the word's use in other ancient documents such as Josephus and the LXX. The whole post-1600AD notion of salvation through "faith" is thus inherently stemming from a mistranslation - Paul's actually advocating salvation through faithful obedience to Jesus' teachings.

Still, this is a good list.

Pye also does say that even religious experience counts as evidence. I agree, though it is not a piece that I normally use.

I would personally regard it as the only evidence. Since I think all the typical philosophical arguments are ridiculous, that leaves personal subjective experiences. Those can be convincing to the individual who's experienced them, but I agree they don't tend to make good arguments to convince others.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Chapter 2!

The link can be found herehere

[Apologiaphoenix]

It's not too bad. A lot of churches here run it as an evangelism tool for existing church members to come to and invite their interested friends to in a pressure-free informal setting, for a night a week over a dozen or so weeks. Each night a 20min or so video runs of Nicky Gumbel talking about some basic topic, and then people split into small groups to have some food and chat about it. A lot of experienced Christians enjoy the format because it gives them a chance to chat with other Christians about their own thoughts or doubts and talk over issues that have been on their own minds.

If it's as described, I have no problem with that. Such a thing is needed.

Seems to me as many Christians share this 'misconception' as non-Christians do. And that in turn suggests that non-Christians are being accurate rather than inaccurate about what the Christians around them believe.

BTW, I would suggest the correct translation of the greek pistis is "faithfulness" not "faith" as can be seen by comparison of the word's use in other ancient documents such as Josephus and the LXX. The whole post-1600AD notion of salvation through "faith" is thus inherently stemming from a mistranslation - Paul's actually advocating salvation through faithful obedience to Jesus' teachings.

A good resource on this is Matthew Bates's Salvation By Allegiance Alone. I prefer to speak of a saving faith that results in true works.

Could be more so than you think. I could happily take many aspects of Christus Victor and put them with mine.

I would personally regard it as the only evidence. Since I think all the typical philosophical arguments are ridiculous, that leaves personal subjective experiences. Those can be convincing to the individual who's experienced them, but I agree they don't tend to make good arguments to convince others.

I prefer the Thomistic arguments for theistic arguments.

[KingsGambit]

I prefer the Thomistic arguments for theistic arguments.

I remember Bill Craig saying one of them was based on at outdated cosmology, do you know what he's referring to?

[Apologiaphoenix]

None of them are based on cosmology in the scientific sense.