I started to leave this post as a comment on ratamacue0‘s recent post, What Started My Questioning? but decided to post it instead. Fellow blogger (and friend) unkleE left this comment as part of a conversation that he and ratamacue0 were having:
…most non-believers seem not to recognise that there isn’t one consistent portrait of God in the Bible – it changes through both Testaments – and then to choose the worst picture (which is often the earliest one) to critique. But if the claimed revelation of God is progressive, it would surely be fairer to choose a later picture.
I think most non-believers do recognize the difference; it’s just hard to forget that first impression given in the OT.
And really, how progressive is the picture the Bible paints? The NT points out that God doesn’t change, so those harsh characteristics he possessed in the OT are still being claimed by NT writers. The NT also repeats some things like “vengenance is mine, I will repay.” And it tells us not to fear those who can destroy the body, but he who can destroy both body and soul. The NT also gives us the doctrine of Hell, regardless of what that might mean.
I think some of the NT writers, like Paul and the author of Hebrews, are arguing that the method of salvation and the specific requirements God has for people are changing, and in that way the message becomes more progressive. More emphasis is placed on the mind and not just physical acts, for instance. But as to who God is, I don’t think that image really progresses from OT to NT. The same God that killed Uzzah for trying to steady the ark, condemns anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus, even though it’s hard to blame many of the Jews for saying Jesus was a blasphemer, considering the teachings in the Old Law.
Such a God is irrational. Many Christians seem to agree, which is why they don’t believe in parts of the OT. But since the NT still claims the same irrational God, I see no reason to believe in him at all. And to me, that seems much more consistent than trying to hold onto parts of the mythology, while rejecting the unsavory parts. If that god were real, and he wanted people to know about him, I think he’d keep the one source of information about him pure. Since that obviously didn’t happen with the Bible, why continue to hold to it at all? Why not put faith in a god who isn’t concerned with petty dogmas, one who simply set things in motion for us? One that may inspire people from time to time, but is largely content to let us live our lives without interference? To me, that seems to fit the evidence far better… and while I don’t have any actual belief in such a deity, I can see why some would. Why mesh it with Christianity, when it seems so superfluous?
Finding Truth 
I think the events and letters of the NT are far more historically accurate than the OT. Where I stop at is the fallacies of the OT. If we can’t trust it to be in/errant, an actual letter from god to his people, then why are we to swallow the message it brings?
LikeLike
Hi Matt, the idea that Jesus’ main message was about our need for a saviour is a truncation of his message by modern western evangelicalism, as you can find by reading most NT scholars. Even those who don’t believe in Jesus (say Bart Ehrman or Maurice Casey) agree that Jesus was on about something much bigger than that.
Can I ask you why you think “if the OT cannot be trusted, my faith in the NT is destroyed”? You obviously know they aren’t all one book, but 66, so why should the accuracy of what Luke wrote be affected by whether Jonah is inerrant history? I really can’t see that.
LikeLike
Courtesy of NeuroNotes:
LikeLike
How much of the Jesus story is concocted, using OT “prophecies,” Unk? If they’re full of holes, what does that make the gospels?
LikeLike
Hol
ey.LikeLiked by 1 person
Re the YouTube link: Excellent little comedy bit!
LikeLike
I know this question is for Matt, but I thought I’d weigh in as well.
There are many, many different religions in our world, and many of them have religious texts that they revere. Atheists and Christians typically agree that the non-Christian texts aren’t actually divinely inspired. So considering all the competition that’s already out there, I find it hard to believe that if the Christian god were real he would allow false messages into his anthology.
Furthermore, the OT is interwoven quite heavily into the NT: Romans 5 draws parallels between Adam and Christ, in Matthew Jesus refers to Daniel, Jesus refers to Jonah in Matthew and Luke, Matthew teaches Old Law observance, Galatians and Hebrews say the Old Law is no longer under effect but still support its importance. There are many other examples we could point to. If the OT’s history is inaccurate in places, and if its portrayal of God is sometimes (maybe oftentimes) wrong, why does it find such support in the NT?
I understand how progressive revelation tries to explain these problems, I’m just unconvinced by it. It seems too much like special pleading to me:
Sure, the various parts of the Bible are very similar to other writings of those time periods, but that’s just God meeting people where they are.
Yes God’s attributes are oddly similar to those of the false gods in the surrounding regions, but this is just an example of progressive revelation. People see what they want to see, after all, so it’s no surprise that they viewed Yahweh similarly other Canaanite gods, etc.
I applaud the Christians who are able to see these issues, rather than just continuing to claim that God is perfect, unchanging, and the Bible is inerrant. But it still seems like they’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, when just moving to deism or pantheism, etc, would fit things much better for them. Again, that’s just my opinion, of course.
LikeLike
Hi Nate, you don’t have to apologise for disagreeing – it is your blog after all, and anyway I always appreciate what you have to say even when I disagree in return.
I think you have the logic the wrong way round. How can the accuracy of an old document make any difference to the accuracy of a newer document? I could reference Harry Potter in a comment about Jesus and that says nothing about the historicity of Harry Potter. In the end, what matters is what historians say about Jesus, and they say quite a bit. I can’t see how anyone can say otherwise.
I also disagree with some of your examples. For instance, Matthew 5 does have Jesus’ statement about the law not passing away, but before interpreting that in the way you might, you need to consider in the same chapter Jesus several times saying “the OT law said this …., but I say to you this ….”. I think overall Matthew, as do Luke, John and Paul, clearly support the replacement of the OT law with a new ethic and a new relationship with God. That’s what the Last Supper is all about.
Finally, the NT refers in several places to people and events that are not in the OT, but in Jewish “mythology” (not a good word, but it’ll do) – as you know from reading Enns. So there is no reasonable way anyone can argue that an NT quote implies OT historicity.
So I don’t think fitting a square peg in a round hole is quite right. I think the truth is that there is good historical evidence for Jesus and the broad range of his life, teaching, death and believed resurrection. (The historical evidence for his healings and resurrection is pretty good, it is a metaphysical viewpoint and not history that prevent most people believing those things.) There is enough there on which to judge whether we believe Jesus was the son of God, or not. I believe it, you don’t. Once I believe that, I try to work out the rest of my beliefs from that base. I accept what the historians say (broadly) about the OT, and I find it doesn’t change anything I believe about Jesus because nothing I believe about Jesus depended on the OT in the first place.
I’ll end with this quote from Greg Boyd:
“The earliest disciples didn’t believe in Jesus because their scripture (Old Testament) proved to them that he was the Son of God. They were rather convinced by Jesus’ claims, his unique life of love, his distinctive authority, his unprecedented miracles, his self-sacrificial death, and especially his resurrection. …. The things about Jesus that convinced the earliest disciples that he was Lord continue to be compelling enough to convince open-minded people today that Jesus is Lord, and they do not presuppose the view that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.”
I respect your decision not to believe in Jesus, but I think this particular reason is not reasonably based. Thanks.
LikeLike
@Unklee
“Focus on the problems with atheism and you’ll likely give up atheism.”
Hi Unklee, not trying to seek an argument but honestly want to hear more from you on what are problems with atheism. Maybe just list a few of them and I’ll go take a look and dwell upon them.
I kinda disagree with your claim instinctively as I think atheism is not really a belief – it’s more like a lack thereof. And since it is a quest for truth (my definition, not sure about others) I’m kinda skeptical whether atheists will purposely avoid the problems with atheism.
As such, your lists will be greatly helpful for me to check my own blindspots and make sure I’m not committing the same logical fallacies which I abhor.
Thank you in advance.
LikeLike
Hi Powell, thanks for your question.
I see things in terms of explanations – what is the best explanation of different things we experience and know?
Sceptics critique christian theism like this all the time, asking questions like How can you explain the evil in the world? Or how do you explain apparent contradictions in the Bible?
I think there are a bunch of things that atheism can’t explain too, for example:
1. How does the universe exist without a cause?
2. Why is the universe “finely tuned” in its physical laws and constants to an amazing degree?
3. How can we explain all the ethical values and the dignity and worth of every human being in the universal declaration of human rights and other societal norms and laws? For example:
* the claim to objective ethics
* the value of human life
* freedom of choice
* conscience and ethics
* consciousness
* reason
4. How to explain the historical facts about Jesus and the success of the early church?
5. How to explain the apparent direct experiences of God via visions and miracles, including many for which there is strong medical evidence that something very unusual happened after prayer for healing?
I haven’t seen satisfactory atheistic/physicalistic explanations for these things. Many attempts at explanation either deny or ignore the facts, or simply say we don’t know but science may explain it one day.
I find many things about christian belief that I cannot understand, but they are not as many or as fundamental as these things which atheism cannot explain, and I can understand why I can’t understand them. So for me, the balance of evidence clearly indicates christian theism is the truth.
Thanks for asking.
LikeLike
@unklee
Thanks for the quick response.
To me your list doesn’t really shout “problems with atheism” but rather how atheism doesn’t debunk Christian claims.
Was hoping for self-contained problems within atheism perhaps in similar line of say – God says He is merciful and yet He is just. This is paradoxical (at least for me, not trying to debate this now). Do you have something similar for atheism? Like something that is internally conflicting.
LikeLike
Well I think they ARE “self-contained problems within atheism”, in that I don’t think atheism can explain those things satisfactorily. That’s what an intellectual or evidential problem IS – an inconsistency. So there is an internal conflict within atheism as an explanation of the facts.
Like I said, it’s just the same as the paradox you mention about God – it’s (allegedly – I don’t think it’s an issue at all) something that can’t be explained.
So how do you explain the cause of the universe or the design of the universe, or consciousness?
LikeLike
@unklee
I dunno, but at least for me atheism doesn’t attempt to answer who/what created the world. So I fail to see how that is considered an inconsistency or intellectual failure. This is rather different from the supposed paradox I suggested – both attributes are claimed by Christians. And thus theists will need to reconcile the “false paradox” and this is where we can see if there is any logical fallacies involved. Obviously you think
that the theistic answers are to your satisfaction, while to me they are not.
I’m hoping perhaps you could pinpoint certain tenets or claims of atheism that you said are problematic and I would like to see if I am at fault of doing mental gymnastics to resolve atheism contradictions.
With regards to creation, I could throw back the same question at theists about who created God. But at the end of the day theists may simply say “I don’t know or I don’t care”, which is fine, since I don’t think who created God is a question that Christianity attempted to answer in the first place. And i think that is the same as atheism vis a vis creation – we’re just one level difference.
LikeLike
Hi Powell, I appreciate what you are saying. In the end, we want what we do and think to reflect what is really the truth. We do science so we can know what the universe is REALLY like, and so we can live in it as well as possible. If, for example, our medicine doesn’t conform to reality, then we may die.
So the test of a hypothesis is whether it conforms to reality, and the way we test that is to see what it explains and doesn’t explain. For example, the hypothesis that the earth was the centre of the solar system was initially plausible – after all, it sure looks like everything revolves around us. But as more data came in, that hypothesis became too complex mathematically and physically and still couldn’t explain all the data and a new hypothesis was developed.
So you and I propose different hypotheses, and I’d be very surprised if you’d be happy to think that your hypothesis failed the test of explaining reality in a similar way that the old astronomical model did. I’m suggesting that in fact is the case – it does fail the reality test.
The difference between God and creation is that the universe had a beginning whereas God is defined as not having a beginning. So God’s existence is explained by his being eternal and necessary whereas the universe is temporal and contingent. But there is no way in atheism to explain how a contingent universe had no cause. So there is no parallel, and the two explanations are not “one level different” but completely different – and only one makes logical sense to me.
LikeLike
Excellent!
LikeLike
@unklee
I would actually disagree with you on this –
I’d be very surprised if you’d be happy to think that your hypothesis failed the test of explaining reality in a similar way that the old astronomical model did.
As an ex christian, I was really trying very hard to believe in the christian model until I really couldn’t do it in the face of various facts (or how I interpret various facts according to you). I dare to say the same for Nate and many other ex christians that we would actually be happier if it is indeed proven that God is real and we are wrong about it (as long as this proof does not involve meeting God face to face after we die lol, we would be screwed)
Hence I’m hoping to hear from you what you deem atheistic problems are, which tbh based on your previous list I don’t really see them, or at least not in the form of my problems with theism – namely contradictions and lack of biblical inerrancy etc. The so called problems that you have put forth are more in the form of unanswered questions – which to be fair I do have some naturalistic answers to all of them to various degrees based on my reading. Just as you have said – my set of answers to the questions you posed are essentially hypothesis of how the world works. However, at least from my current point of view I do not see any conflict between atheistic claims e.g. having a consistent worldview within itself.
On creation (which is a separate topic of what my original question tried to achieve), I think this has been gone through numerous times by different people on this blog, and I do think you already know what my objections to a “prime mover” would be. So lets not go that path shall we?
But related to that note am I right to say that according to you, you believe in existence of God because something/somebody must have had a hand in creation. And everything must start off somewhere. However, we can also accept that something must have always been there to begin with in order to make this equation work (just like how we define unreal numbers? bad analogy perhaps). And from there on, you believe in a creator, and subsequently by some other means you come to the conclusion that the christian God is the right one as oppose to some generic deistic belief?
LikeLike
I find that if you read the bible, allow yourself to ask the obvious questions and then treat the bible as any other source, you’ll see that it has some serious holes.
Sure, many will try to patch these holes by making explanations like, “the first century jews wouldnt have had a problem with this,” or “maybe there’s a good explanation that we just dont have yet,” or they’ll propose several potential scenarios, however unlikely and implausible, and suggest that those made up anecdotes solve the bible’s problems… but they dont. the issues are still there, the holes are still there, right where they always were, even if they’re now “covered” by whatever some person created to try and patch them. the bible still says what it says and is still missing what it’s missing.
If god could speak directly to us all, then why doesnt he?
if god could speak directly to every person, whom he loves dearly and without favoritism, why does he only do it through select people?
if he gave miracles to vouch for these select messenger’s claims (that they do indeed speak for him), why is it that we only have claims of miracles that support their claims, and no actual miracles?
are there any examples of a contradiction that cannot be “patched” or explained away in the manner than apologists “patch” or try to explain away the problems with the bible?
LikeLike
A rancher’s horse is not well and has some, and needs a vet to find out what’s wrong and how to to treat it. The rancher, being frugal, decides to get treatment prices from the two vets who are in closest proximity.
he calls the vets and says to each, “hello, my horse is sick. I need to know how much it costs to find out what’s wrong with him and to treat him.”
vet 1: Well, since you’re horse only has an upper respiratory infection, it’ll be total of $2k.
vet 2: without examining your horse, i cant be sure what the problem is, but my rate to visit you would be $100 to drive out and have a look, with treatments ranging in price depending on the problem. or you can bring him here for a $50 checkup, with treatment costs depending on the problem.
the rancher thanks them both and after getting off the phone with vet 2, he shakes his head, and says to himself, “how can i trust a vet if he doesnt even know what the problem is? I’ll go with vet 1 because he at least has an answer.”
sometimes “i dont know” is the only answer, and sometimes an answer that claims to be certain, is anything but.
the bible claims to know how the heavens and earth were made, but what verifies those claims, made by the guy who wrote genesis 1, and confirms they are accurate? oh yeah, it has an answer where as science is still conducting its examination.
LikeLike
“So how do you explain the cause of the universe or the design of the universe, or consciousness?” – How do you explain the origin of god?
LikeLike
what’s interesting is the origins of the bible are not a mystery, and are clearly not of supernatural means.
it’s a book, written by men, who claims that god is a specific way and did certain things… so they must be right.
LikeLike
“whereas God is defined as not having a beginning” – By whom? Theists? Unsurprising. Upon what evidence is this definition based? Bear in mind that those who wrote the creation stories were anonymous, superstitious, scientifically-ignorant Bronze Age priests.
LikeLike
This is by Neil Carter, author of “Godless In Dixie,” an excellent, well-written blog that I would highly recommend:
LikeLike
UnkleE, atheism can’t explain many things. Atheism can’t explain why someone is short, another tall, why vanilla tastes like vanilla you know so many things but this doesn’t mean there is an inconsistency. Atheism is absence of belief in deities. It offers no explanations on anything.
The beginning of the universe- cosmology
consciousness- psychology and associated disciplines
value in human life- a human question not anything to do with gods
fine tuning of the universe- please! not you too
Jesus and success of the church- history and anthropology
direct experiences of god- neurology.
You are most welcome. Am glad I could help
LikeLike
Arch-
I really like what he had to say in that interview. Thank you for sharing that.
LikeLike
No problemo, Primo —
LikeLike