Sigh…
So here’s what’s been going on lately. Most of you who read this blog already know that when my wife and I left Christianity, it wrecked most of our family relationships. My wife’s parents and siblings, as well as my own, felt that they could no longer interact with us socially after our deconversion. We were no longer invited to any family functions, and our communication with them all but disappeared. We would speak if it was about religious issues, or if there were logistic issues that needed to be worked out in letting them see our kids, etc.
Over the years, things have gotten a little better, especially with my wife’s parents. Things are by no means back to normal, but at least our infrequent interactions have become more civil and more comfortable. A few weeks ago, I even had a phone conversation with my father that lasted about half an hour and had no references to religion whatsoever. It was nice.
Nevertheless, the awkwardness is still there, just under the surface. And we’re still blacklisted from all the family functions.
Throughout this time, I’ve occasionally reached out to my side of the family with phone calls, letters, facebook messages, etc, in an effort to discuss the issues that divide us. I don’t get much response. I’ve always been puzzled by that, since I know they think I’m completely wrong. If their position is right, why aren’t they willing to discuss it?
In the last five years, I’ve also been sent books and articles and even been asked to speak to certain individuals, and I’ve complied with every request. Why not? How could more information hurt? But when I’ve suggested certain books to them, or written letters, they aren’t read. When I finally realized that my problems with Christianity weren’t going to be resolved, I wrote a 57-page paper to my family and close friends, explaining why I could no longer call myself a Christian. As far as I know, none of them ever read the whole thing. And sure, 57 pages is quite a commitment. But they say this is the most important subject in their lives…
This past week, the topic has started to come back around. A local church kicked off a new series on Monday entitled “Can We Believe the Bible?” It’s being led by an evangelist/professor/apologist that was kind enough to take time to correspond with me for several weeks in the summer of 2010. I’ve never met him in person, but a mutual friend connected us, since he was someone who was knowledgeable about the kinds of questions I was asking. Obviously, we didn’t wind up on the same page.
My wife’s parents invited us to attend the series, but it happens to be at a time that I’m coaching my oldest daughter’s soccer team. So unless we get rained out at some point, there’s no way we can attend. However, we did tell them that if practice is ever cancelled, we’ll go. I also contacted the church and asked if the sermons (if that’s the right word?) will be recorded, and they said that they should be.
Monday night, the weather was fine, so we weren’t able to attend. And so far, the recording isn’t available on their website. However, they do have a recording of Sunday night’s service available, which is entitled “Question & Answer Night.” I just finished listening to it, and that’s where the bulk of my frustration comes from.
It’s essentially a prep for the series that kicked off Monday night. They’re discussing why such a study is important, as well as the kinds of things they plan to cover. What’s so frustrating to me is that I don’t understand the mindset of evangelists like this. I mean, they’ve studied enough to know what the major objections to fundamentalist Christianity are, yet they continue on as if there’s no problem. And when they do talk about atheists and skeptics, they misrepresent our position. I can’t tell if they honestly believe the version they’re peddling, or if they’re purposefully creating straw men.
A couple of times, they mentioned that one of the main reasons people reject the Bible comes down to a preconception that miracles are impossible. “And if you start from that position, then you’ll naturally reject the Bible.” But that’s a load of crap. Most atheists were once theists, so their starting position was one that believed in miracles.
They also mentioned that so many of these secular articles and documentaries “only show one side.” I thought my head was going to explode.
And they referred to the common complaints against the Bible as “the same tired old arguments that have been answered long ago.” It’s just so infuriating. If the congregants had any knowledge of the details of these “tired old arguments,” I doubt they’d unanimously find the “answers” satisfactory. But the danger with a series like this is that it almost works like a vaccination. The members of the congregation are sitting in a safe environment, listening to trusted “experts,” and they’re injected with a watered down strain of an argument. And it’s that watered down version that’s eradicated by the preacher’s message. So whenever the individual encounters the real thing, they think it’s already been dealt with, and the main point of the argument is completely lost on them.
For example, most Christians would be bothered to find out that the texts of the Bible are not as reliable as were always led to believe. Even a beloved story like the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus writes on the ground, we’ve discovered that it was not originally part of the gospel of John. It’s a later addition from some unknown author. To a Christian who’s never heard that before, it’s unthinkable! But if they’ve gone through classes where they’ve been told that skeptics exaggerate the textual issues in the Bible, and that the few changes or uncertainties deal with only very minor things, and that none of the changes affect any doctrinal points about the gospel, then it’s suddenly easier for them to swallow “minor” issues like the insertion of an entire story into the gospel narrative.
Sigh…
I’m going to either attend these sessions, or I’ll watch/listen to them once they’re available online. I may need to keep some blood pressure medication handy, though.
Finding Truth 
Gary M, you wrote: “saying that your supernatural beliefs are ignorant nonsense is being honest”
No, it’s not honest. It’s false. And it is ignorant.
I write about miracles because I have experienced them.
I use third party miracles like the Shroud to try to find common ground.
I needn’t have bothered.
LikeLike
“According to the authors I read, the Shroud has the corpse covering his genitals with his hands.”
The authors you read are misinformed about a great many things. Go read better sources.
LikeLike
You cited “Silly beliefs.com” A website.
Guess what. Your website is not admissible in court, under the rules of evidence. Know why? It is not scientific.
I provided only a synopsis of the facts contained in the sources I would use. And my sources have the following features that “sillybeliefs.com” do not have:
(1) They are written by men with PhD.s in the subject matter under discussion.
(2) They men who wrote the articles were the actual persons who conducted the clinical experiments.
(3) They wrote their findings in formal scientific papers that follow the professional format,
(4) that were accepted for peer review and peer reviewed,
(5) by recognized scientific journals in the field of study, in which they were published.
Those criteria make what I was prepared to offer as evidence actual, legally admissible EVIDENCE, in the US court system, because those criteria make the sources I use actual professional SCIENCE, prepared using the scientific method.
“Sillybeliefs.com” does not meet any of those criteria. It is not science, it is not professional, and it is not admissible.
You hurled the charge of pseudoscience at me. I’m practicing science. You’re practicing pseudoscience.
It’s too bad, for you. You would be much better off to have COMPLETELY left Protestantism behind, instead of preserving all of that narrow-minded Protestant bigotry, and certitude about things you could not have possibly known then, or now. All you did was change gods.
Anyway, this has become as pleasant as a root canal, so I’m done with it.
LikeLike
Just to stir the pot, I’m suggesting this website.
http://www.historytoday.com/charles-freeman/origins-shroud-turin
BTW, Crown, your pleadings that the shroud looks like Jesus really don’t carry much weight since you’re basing your “evidence” on a very unscientific source.
LikeLike
Crown, very nice case. It’s a shame that they don’t seriously engage you and just scream “magic” and “unscientific”. Definitely root canal invoking.
Before you go, I think the most important step in your argument is in determining that there are no plausible natural ways to generate the image. What publication was able to show this?
LikeLike
“If God made a Son, no laws apply other than as he chooses to MAKE them apply.” – So – the god of the gaps defense –? Weak, very weak.
LikeLike
With Unk, that’s two votes for the god of the gaps.
LikeLike
Nan, thanks for that link. It makes a very persuasive case that it could not possibly be authentic.
LikeLike
I encourage everyone reading this thread to do a google search entitled: “full body photo of the image on the Shroud of Turin”.
I just did it and the corpse’s hands cover the entire genital area. If there is a circumcised penis there, I can’t see it. But, if Christians can “poof” AB blood onto the shroud that lacks the allele of a human father, then I’m sure they can also go “poof”, and using “magic Christian glasses”, see through the hands to view the circumcised penis.
This is getting down right ridiculous, folks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves — that we’ve been so credulous. “
— Carl Sagan —
LikeLike
“…it meets the expectations, in all of those respects, of what Jesus would look like.” – it meets the expectations, in all of those respects, of what four anonymous authors, writing 40 – 70 years after his alleged death, and who never met the man, indicated that Jesus would look like.
LikeLike
“Anyway, this has become as pleasant as a root canal, so I’m done with it.” – Don’t forget your briefcase —
LikeLike
Mmm…
I kind of hate to see things begin to break down, especially since they’re doing it along ideological lines. Not surprising, I guess. But I still hate it.
I haven’t had a chance to read every single line of these comments yet, but I’ve scanned them. A couple of things:
I couldn’t claim that either Crown or his beliefs are “ignorant.” He’s obviously accrued a great deal of information about them. Honestly, if his information is accurate, then the case for these relics is much better than I had ever assumed. It’s just not something I’ve ever thought to investigate before. I made that mistake once before — I don’t intend to make it again — so I plan to research this stuff.
Now don’t freak out — I didn’t leave Christianity lightly, and I have many problems with it. It would probably take more than just a couple of relics to convince me that Christianity is true. But I think it would be intellectually dishonest for me to just dismiss what he’s saying without investigation.
At the same time, Crown, you have to recognize (and I think you probably do) that miracles are very hard to demonstrate to anyone who doesn’t experience it in person. Most of us on this thread don’t believe we’ve ever seen anything supernatural. So to us, any natural explanation seems more likely than a supernatural one. I don’t think that’s an unfair standard — it’s just an acknowledgment of what “supernatural” and “miraculous” mean.
THEREFORE… I think it makes most sense for neither side to claim victory after only a couple of posts. Crown’s comments have been very thorough so far, but a group of skeptics is going to need time to research the claims before we’ll grant any kind of victory. And for us skeptics, we shouldn’t expect Christians to drop their beliefs after only a couple of points from us. It’s a complicated issue, and we all feel strongly about it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oooh, and let me add that I’m mostly speaking about myself here. The rest of you guys may have already researched this more than I.
LikeLike
You make very good points, Nate, but must we skeptics really “thoroughly investigate” every supernatural claim before we discount it as nonsense?
There are thousands and probably tens of thousands of supernatural religious claims in this world. Must we, and can we, investigate them ALL before we make the definitive statement: “I don’t believe in the supernatural. I believe that superstitions are nonsensical.”
If a Hindu tells us that on one day several years back, hundreds of Hindu gods spontaneously starting drinking milk from spoons offered to them, must we “thoroughly” investigate this supernatural claim before declaring it a superstition? Must we tell Mormons that we will have to do some thorough research regarding their claim that Joseph Smith received tablets of gold from an angel before we can declare this belief as superstitious nonsense?
I don’t think so.
I believe that the burden of proof is on the person who makes the supernatural claim to provide concise, verifiable evidence for his claim…free of “poofing”…or expect for his claim to be rejected as nonsense.
To not do this is to legitimize the belief in superstitious thinking and by doing so, subject yet another generation to the whims of fear-mongering churchmen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Gary, you make some great points. This is something I still struggle with. I’ll say that the first detailed comment Crown posted got my attention. I’m skeptical — but he laid out better evidence than I had anticipated. At that point, I think it’s appropriate for me to consider what he has to say and look into it for myself before I completely reject it. Or worse, expect him or anyone else to.
You know, on the flip side, you and I had to do the same thing when we were presented with claims against Christianity. I mean, the legitimacy of the Bible was a fact to me at that point. I could have (like many people I know) simply rejected those claims since I “knew better.” But I’m really glad I didn’t.
I do think that atheism is the correct worldview. But… I’ve also been wrong before. I agree with you that we don’t have to entertain every single supernatural claim that someone makes. But if there’s actual evidence to consider, I don’t mind looking at it.
I may reach a point down the road when I no longer feel that way… I don’t know.
Plus, I’m really tired, so I’m not sure how coherent I’m being anyway 😉
LikeLike
I’m cut to the quick – no one even thought enough of my conclusion to attempt to refute it, and I thought it was compelling! This would be the part where I go off and pout —
LikeLike
Nate has a fatal flaw – he bends over backward in fairness. One day I fear I’ll hear his spine snap.
LikeLike
Well, I spent so many years feeling like I was being bent over the other way…
😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have a much better sense of being tactful than I do, Nate, and for that I commend you.
If I were having a conversation with a Christian friend or family member I would NOT start off the conversation by saying that their beliefs are nonsense; not if I valued the relationship and held out hope that I could maybe one day get them to see the falseness of their belief system. I would try to reason with them…tactfully.
My bluntness with Crown may have been due to his “victory lap” regarding “trapping” me in my claim that I had more experts than he did in our imaginary court case. I probably should have held my fire.
I’m a doctor…disliking gloating attorneys is in our DNA.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arch, for what it is worth I thought your presentation was compelling.
Though it can be dangerous when one fishes for compliments. I used to dread trying to answer honestly my grandmothers question, ‘how did I like the meal’? Cooking was not her strength.
LikeLike
I’ve always found that if you answer such questions honestly once, you rarely ever need to do so again, as you’re rarely asked a second time.
And I wasn’t fishing, I was BS’ing – I do that a lot.
LikeLike
“I plan to research this stuff”
Hi Nate, bravo! I plan to do the same, and I intend to write something on it no matter how it turns out. I am not Catholic and I am not much impressed with most of the little I know about relics of the saints and all that, so my natural predisposition is to be sceptical of all this. But Crown did make an impressive presentation and it may be that the facts support him.
I’ll be interested in what you come up with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nate,
I appreciate your forum. I appreciate your level-headedness.
Way back when I discovered this place, you and I exchanged some e-mails. I decided not to post here generally, because I agreed with you in general that discussions of miracles would probably become nasty. You were right. They started well, but very quickly it became a matter of belittling me for the putative sin of being superstitious.
I myself only accept the existence of the supernatural because of miracles.
I know, because of miracles. Nobody will believe mine, and people are nasty, so I try to take the most scientifically examined physical miracles and discuss from that vantage point.
The discussion can be had with some.
Others are OJ jurors and it’s pointless from the get go.
LikeLike
If the glove don’t fit —
LikeLike