Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Book Plunge: Why Christianity Is Not True: Chapter 1

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Book Plunge: Why Christianity Is Not True: Chapter 1

    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 here.

    Pye is in the U.K. so people here are probably not as familiar with Nicky Gumbel. 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.*

    One problem I have with this first chapter is so much is said as if Pye wants to do everything he can to avoid offending someone. That could be noble at times, but here, it just got tiresome. I kept wanting us to skip ahead to the meat of the discussion.*

    So let's go through and look at some highlights.

    "At the mention of the word ‘evidence’ the reader might want to say “But surely religious belief isn’t based on evidence - it’s all about faith isn’t it?” " I can sincerely hope that this book will not go down that route of the same modern misconception of what faith is. I want to hope it, but I have seen it happen so many times I am quite certain I will be wrong. We will see when we get to that chapter.

    Pye also does say that even religious experience counts as evidence. I agree, though it is not a piece that I normally use. He does also have some brief statements about the Inquisition and the pedophile priest scandal. On the Inquisition, I look forward to seeing if there are any references as*sources that talk about hundreds of thousands of people dying in history during the time are simply false.*

    From here, we also get a bit on the question of if we should be asking if Christianity works. I agree with Pye that this is not the key question. I am not even sure by what we would mean by saying Chrisitanity works. Is Christianity supposed to always make you happy or something like that?*

    Pye also says he is using Christian as a noun. He lists the following beliefs a Christian will have.*

    There is one God - eternal, all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing.
     God’s nature is triune. This is sometimes expressed as The doctrine of the Trinity or
    “three persons in one God”. These are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
     There exists a spirit world - angels and demons - that was created by God. This
    includes the devil (also known as Satan or Lucifer).
     The universe was created by God.
     Mankind is sinful and sin deserves punishment.
     The man Jesus, in his life on earth some 2000 years ago, was God manifest in the
    flesh - fully God and fully man.
     Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary, and was the Messiah.
     Jesus was crucified to death but was resurrected “on the third day”.
     As a result of Jesus’ resurrection, sin and death have been defeated.
     Although there is some controversy amongst Christians about the nature of salvation,
    most Christians would say that salvation is a gift offered by God that an individual
    can receive - or reject.
     When a person becomes a Christian he/she has therefore been saved by Jesus.
     As a Christian a person is a new creation, filled with the Holy Spirit and expressing
    God’s love in and to the world.
     Jesus shall return to earth - this is known as The Second Coming.
     There shall be a final judgement of all people.
     People who are saved are destined for eternity in heaven.
     Those who are not saved are not destined for heaven - and, according to many
    Christians, are destined for hell.
     The Bible is the authoritative word of God.
     On occasions God intervenes in the natural world through miracles - including
    miracles of healing - often in response to prayers by Christians.
    Some 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

  • #2
    So does he deal with arguements?
    The Kalam, The trillema, Pascals wager, the numerpus fulfilled prophecies, and the like?
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by TheWall View Post
      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....

      Comment


      • #4
        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.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • #5
          Although it happens out of sight, corpses rot. The myth that there are exceptions to this rule has a greater hold on Christians than Christians have on reality. It’s not their fault exactly because the myth is potent and attractive. It works and persists in the same way that a virus works. It’s not so much that a person IS a Christian but that he HAS Christianity; he is infected by it and glad of his infection because the infection alters the way he thinks.

          It is curable.
          “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
          “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
          “not all there” - you know who you are

          Comment


          • #6
            But sir he has been dead for four days the smell will be awful.

            Lazurus come forth.
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
              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.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #8
                Ah. Remember when the scientific revolution came and we all learned that corpses rot and dead people stay dead?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Nick, I admire your fortitude. I'd take issue with some of what he lists as Christian belief.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by psstein View Post
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                      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.

                      “But surely religious belief isn’t based on evidence - it’s all about faith isn’t it?” " I can sincerely hope that this book will not go down that route of the same modern misconception of what faith is. I want to hope it, but I have seen it happen so many times I am quite certain I will be wrong.
                      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.
                      I agree. The only one that stands out as flaky is "As a result of Jesus’ resurrection, sin and death have been defeated." which implies theories of the atonement that aren't accepted among modern evangelicals.

                      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.
                      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Chapter 2!

                        The link can be found here.

                        ----

                        How do skeptics respond to miraculous healings? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

                        I count Nabeel Qureshi as a friend. My wife and I prayed for him every day when we found out he had stomach cancer of the most advanced kind. There were several people praying for Nabeel all over the world.*

                        Despite this, Nabeel died.

                        So yes, I am familiar with people talking about faith healing. I do believe that it can happen, but it's not a necessity. God does things for His own reasons. It is my duty to trust when I don't know those reasons.

                        In this chapter, David Pye looks at miraculous healings. I find this an odd place to go to so early on. I do believe there is good evidence that miracles have happened and do happen, but generally, it's not the best starting point. If you're a hardened skeptic, you will find a way to explain everything in that lens. If you are a Christian, you are far more prone to see the miraculous.*

                        So let's go through David Pye's chapter.

                        At the start, he does list several conditions people are said to be healed from, but then we get to a problematic statement.

                        "But what about conditions like Alzheimer's disease? Huntington's chorea? Cerebral palsy? Why are people diagnosed with these conditions never healed?"

                        How does Pye know this?

                        To begin with, if you don't believe miraculous healing is possible, then of course, miraculous healings of these have never taken place, but alas, we are arguing in a circle at that point. For Pye to know this, he would have to have exhaustive knowledge of all the Earth past and present. Even if the claim was true, that would not rule out that it could happen. There could hypothetically never have been a miracle in Earth's history, and yet miraculous healing could still be possible.*

                        In all this chapter, there is never any interaction with the best sources on this. Of course, such a work could have been written before their release, but it would be nice to see more miracle claims looked at. Only one is really examined. There is no interaction with a work like Craig Keener's*Miracles. Keener in this work traveled all over the world collecting accounts of miraculous healing, some with medical documentation.

                        Pye prefers to speak of surprising or astonishing healings. He does say that these happen in other religions and happen in hypnosis. I believe we are getting into the whole "Why do miracles happen in other religions?" I do not know why that would be a problem for me.*

                        You see, if a miraculous healing takes place, then miracles are possible and the position of atheism is in serious trouble. As a Christian, I can think of any number of reasons. Perhaps it is a demonic interaction taking place. Perhaps God is extending some grace outside of Christianity to bring someone to Christianity. We don't know. For the former, there is even a Biblical precedent. One could look to the beast being healed in Revelation 13 for an example. Of course, I read Revelation differently than most Christians, but the idea of a healing from a dark source is still there.

                        He goes on to say that

                        "If Christianity were true we might expect miraculous healings to occur only through Christian healers. Or we might expect Christian healings to be far more impressive than* healings in other contexts - for example, there being conditions which only Christian healers, but no-one else, are able to heal. I am not aware of any definitive investigation of comparative success at healing in different religions but my strong impression is that all have about the same success rate. Christianity doesn’t stand out as noticeably superior (nor does any other religion)."

                        I find this again quite odd. He is not aware of any definitive investigation, but he wishes to make a universal statement on a "strong impression." How is this done? If I say I have a strong impression that many skeptics don't come to Christianity because they want to continue living in sin, would anyone really accept this?

                        He also quotes from John Dominic Crossan on Wikipedia about healing shrines. Absent is any data directly from the shrines themselves. Someone like Keener actually did the hard work on that level.*

                        He then tells a story about a man healed from a chronic skin disease. Then, he describes a similar story with someone healed under hypnosis. I do not see how this is meant to be a rebuttal. God could do through miraculous means what could be done through natural means. In understanding miracles, there are first-class and second-class miracle. First class are things that cannot happen by any means we know of. Jesus rising from the dead would be one. For a second, consider Israel crossing the Jordan to enter the Promised Land. The waters stop so they can pass. That in itself is not a miracle. The waters had stopped before and probably have since then. What is a miracle is that it happened when it happened. Keener lists several times in his book where something was healed because of a prayer in the name of Jesus specifically.*

                        The next section is about exorcism. Pye does think something happens, but it is certainly not the expulsion of a demon. I invite Pye to really look at such accounts of demonic possession, such as the ones with super strength and such. Note also exorcism was common in the ancient world and it wasn't just Christians doing it, but Jesus was the one deemed the most successful and it is widely agreed among New Testament scholars today that Jesus had a reputation as both a healer and an exorcist.*

                        It's worth pointing out that Pye regularly speaks of the natural and the supernatural. I will not speak of the supernatural save when he does. I do not really like the term supernatural as it is way too vague. My thoughts on that can be found here.*

                        Pye does list many realities of life about suffering. The problem is while these may seem foreign to a Western audience, to the audience Jesus spoke to and Christianity rose up in, while the science would not be there, the reality would be well known. Suffering is real. Many of these people encountered death on a regular basis. Pye thinks Buddhism is more real in admitting these realities up front. Chrisitanity does too though. It has no reason to deny them. This was the world Jesus lived in. The problem for us is our modern Western world treats suffering like an exception. People in many countries today risk their lives if they walk to church. We consider it suffering if we don't get a parking spot near the church on Sunday morning.*

                        There is something on church politics and how that some people don't talk about healing lest they be seen as immature and such. My wife and I are both part of Celebrate Recovery at our church. That leads me to think that this is not really valid. In a group like this, people are encouraged to come and let their guard down. In turn, through this, I have come to know this group of people much better than others. I think the church could learn a lot here.

                        Finally, Pye has something on the disabled. Readers of this blog know that my wife and I both have Aspergers. That awareness is near and dear to my heart. I rejoice at seeing Autism coming into the mainstream through such shows as*The Good Doctor.*

                        Pye says here

                        "So, here we have two viewpoints, two approaches, with regard to disabled people - and the results of both approaches can be evaluated.
                        On the one hand many Christians have said that disabled people can and should be healed of their disabilities. But, in practice, such healing doesn’t happen.

                        And on the other hand you have a primarily secular initiative which sees disabled people as full people who have full human rights and who deserve respect, acceptance and*opportunities just as much as non-disabled people. And this sort of outlook has changed society for the better (and continues to do so) giving disabled people a better chance of fulfilling lives.

                        Which position is better? One that promises much but delivers little (and may even cause harm)? Or one that is more modest but has, nonetheless, delivered significant changes for the better?"

                        I find this to be a radical dichotomy. There is nothing wrong with praying for someone to be healed who has a seriously debilitating disability. (At the same time, I have no wish to be healed of Aspergers. Others would, but not I.) That does not mean that they are any less human. If someone thinks so, this thinking does not come from Jesus.*

                        Yet I have to ask, where does the secularist position come from? Disabled are full people who deserve full human rights? I agree, but upon what are these rights grounded? What makes a human so valuable? Are we not all the result of a cosmic accident? Why should any of us "deserve" anything? It looks to me like a morality floating in air.

                        This does not mean that I am not thankful that Pye takes the position that he does with the disabled, but I wonder how he could ground it. I think too often skeptics have taken the morality that comes from Christianity, assumed that it is just something everyone really knows, takes it for granted, and then acts like it fits in right at home with their worldview.*

                        When we return to this book, we'll look at chapter 3 on evangelism and eternity.

                        In Christ,
                        Nick Peters

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          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.

                          I agree. The only one that stands out as flaky is "As a result of Jesus’ resurrection, sin and death have been defeated." which implies theories of the atonement that aren't accepted among modern evangelicals.
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                            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?
                            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              None of them are based on cosmology in the scientific sense.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                              14 responses
                              75 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                              6 responses
                              61 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                              1 response
                              23 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                              7 responses
                              54 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Working...
                              X