My friend UnkleE and I have been having a wide-ranging discussion on several topics related to Christianity that ultimately come down to epistemology, or how Christians know God’s will. The discussion began in my last post, which critiqued a doctrine common to more moderate circles within Christianity. UnkleE had more to say on the subject than could reasonably fit within a comment, so he decided to do his own post in response, which is worth reading. We conversed a bit within that comment thread, where I said:
The President of the US and his spokespeople now regularly say things that are factually untrue. Yet plenty of his supporters are content to ignore reputable sources and only listen to the sources that they want to agree with. Where do you go from there?
It seems to me that the view you have of Christianity is similar. Why does the New Testament speak so much about false teachers, if it’s perfectly fine to get your beliefs from private revelation? If Paul and Hymenaeus have a disagreement, perhaps Paul is the one who’s wrong? Or maybe both of them are right, simultaneously? How can one use scripture to “teach, reprove, and correct” in such a system?
In the end, isn’t such a religion just anarchy? How can there be such a thing as “truth” when each person’s version is just as good as someone else’s? At least as an atheist, I can point to my understanding of reality and the physical world to try to reach a consensus with others. And if they can provide data that invalidates some position I hold, then I can change. But if I took my own random thoughts and feelings as revelation from the supreme creator of the universe, how could I ever be convinced of anything else?
Once again, this opened a big topic that was better suited to a full post, rather than a comment, so UnkleE offered his response here. And as my reply to that post grew and grew, I realized that I needed to offer it as a post as well. What follows will reference and borrow quotes from UnkleE’s latest post.
What Is the Gospel?
Under a section called “Another Gospel?” UnkleE gave this introduction:
Nate references Galations 1:6-9, which warns of accepting another gospel. But what does Paul mean by “gospel” (or “good news”)?
He then listed out 5 main points that he views as central to what the gospel is:
- Jesus, the “son of God”, lived and taught about the kingdom of God.
- He died to deal with human sin (how that happens is very much up for debate!).
- Jesus was resurrected and so conquered death.
- We need to change our thinking, turn away from behaviours that displease God, and seek forgiveness.
- Our new way of life should include loving God, loving neighbour, and even loving our enemies.
But it seems to me that the New Testament spends time referring to false doctrines that are ancillary to those 5 points. The entire book of Galatians has Paul accusing the Galatians of turning their backs on the gospel and trying to follow the Law of Moses, when it really just sounds like they were trying to follow both:
Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
— Gal 5:2-6
To me, that sounds like something that we’d view as a matter of personal preference, today, certainly not something that would qualify as a “different gospel.” And look at 2 Cor 13:5-10:
Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! I hope you will find out that we have not failed the test. But we pray to God that you may not do wrong—not that we may appear to have met the test, but that you may do what is right, though we may seem to have failed. For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. For we are glad when we are weak and you are strong. Your restoration is what we pray for. For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.
We don’t know the specifics of what Paul is criticizing here, but if these individuals were still present in the congregation to see Paul’s letter, then it’s likely they still held to the basic principles that UnkleE outlined above. What else could they be lacking that would make them “fail the test”?
In 2 John 7, it was considered heresy to question whether or not Christ had actually come in the flesh (like docetism, I guess):
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.
To me, this seems kind of minor in many ways, though it was a huge deal back then. If someone still believed that Christ was the son of God and brought salvation in some way, should it have mattered if they didn’t fully understand how that happened? But 2 John shows that some early Christians had a huge problem with the doctrine.
2 Tim 2:16-19 talks about another form of false teaching:
But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”
To me, this also seems like a minor quibble that runs outside the principles UnkleE laid out as the core of Christianity. Again, exactly what people believe about how/when the resurrection works, or even exactly what the writer means by “resurrection” here seems minor if an individual still believes Christ is the avenue for salvation, etc. Incidentally, there’s an interesting discussion of this passage here.
And if God is unchanging, it’s hard to overlook some of the judgments he supposedly handed out in the Old Testament, like killing Nadab and Abihu for not getting their sacrificial fire in the right way. Killing Achan and his entire family when he didn’t follow the command about not looting Jericho. Honestly, there are tons of OT examples, and I won’t take up any more space with going through them. But they each show how particular God was in seemingly minor things. Now, I agree that most of the New Testament argues that such legalism is no longer necessary. But I think the passages I listed above show that it still isn’t just free rein, especially if God’s character is unchanging (Psalm 102:25-27; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).
The New Testament gives parameters about divorce and remarriage that are pretty strict. In Matthew 19:9, Jesus is speaking, and he says:
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.
That’s a rigorous standard that most Christians don’t really apply today, in that a large number of Christian marriages are actually adulterous, according to Jesus. Marriage and remarriage does not fall within the 5 precepts of the gospel that UnkleE laid out, but it still seems like it would be a big deal. After all, we’re told in 1 Cor 6:9-10 that adulterers can’t “inherit the kingdom of God.” What does that mean, exactly? I think it’s referring to salvation itself, and I think 1 Cor 5 bears that out. In that passage, Paul is telling the Corinthians to cast out the member among them who is sleeping with his father’s wife “so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.”
Apparently, this Christian was in danger of losing his salvation if he didn’t repent of his wrongdoing. And to go back to 1 Cor 6 for a minute, we see that far more than just adulterers would be in danger of the same fate:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
That’s quite a laundry list. Those sins might fall within the 4th and 5th points from UnkleE’s list, so does this include married couples who didn’t divorce their previous spouses for infidelity? For consistency’s sake, I would think that they would have to be included, yet very few churches make an issue of it.
In the end, I think when Paul uses terms like “the gospel,” he’s not always strictly speaking about the 5 basic points that UnkleE outlined. I think he’s also talking about any specific instructions that he (or other apostles) laid out in their epistles. Yes, passages like Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8-10 talk about issues that individual Christians may have differences of opinion over, but that’s because those were issues that no specific instruction had been given about. But today, there are so many issues, like divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, and women’s roles in the church that are considered minor by moderates today. And this is where the idea of authority comes into play. How do they justify their positions on these things?
Principles Not Rules
UnkleE goes on to argue that the New Testament focuses more on principles of how to live versus hard and fast rules. I do agree that it focuses more on principles than the Old Testament did, but I think the passages we’ve already looked at show that hard and fast rules still played a part.
UnkleE offers the following supporting points:
We serve God not according to a written set of rules, but guided by the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6, Romans 7:6). Note that he uses as his example in the latter case nothing less than one of the Ten Commandments!
But I don’t think these 2 passages really illustrate UnkleE’s point. He makes it sound as though Paul is saying that written sets of rules no longer apply, but that’s not at all what he’s saying. He’s specifically talking about the Old Law (the Mosaic Law) in those passages, and UnkleE and I already agree that Paul argues the Old Law (including the 10 Commandments) has served its purpose and is no longer binding to Christians. That doesn’t mean there’s no longer any kind of written law — what about all the teachings in the New Testament, including the gospel?!
We can legitimately hold different views on moral issues. Paul gives several examples, some of them significant issues in his day – the eating of meat that had been offered to pagan idols (1 Corinthians 10:23-30), and the keeping of rules about Sabbath days and “unclean” foods (Romans 14:1-23). But he says quite definitely (Romans 14:13): “Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.”
But as we saw above, these passages are dealing with issues about which there was no direction given in the New Testament. They were true matters of personal conscience. Paul does not give permission to make these same kinds of judgments on things like divorce and remarriage. And while Paul says that they shouldn’t judge one another about these kinds of things, 1 Cor 5 talks about how they’re supposed to judge the actions of fellow Christians.
UnkleE’s third supporting point is:
Therefore, Paul’s conclusion on even important matters of behaviour is that we are free to decide (1 Corinthians 10:23), we should leave the judgment to God (Romans 14:4) and it is not rules but faith that will decide, for whatever is not done in faith is wrong (Romans 14:23) and all should be done to God’s glory (1 Corinthians 10:31).
But again, all of the passages here come exclusively from 1 Cor 10 and Romans 14, which discuss issues that are merely matters of personal preference.
The Holy Spirit
This is really where my biggest concerns lie. UnkleE has this to say about it:
A key fact, which many christians as well as critics can forget, is that christians believe we have been “given” the Spirit of God. Again, I don’t pretend to fully understand how this works, but it is clearly taught in scripture. Each believer has the help of the Holy Spirit in following Jesus in our lives and – crucially for this discussion – in guiding us to truth.
The Spirit is God, which means he is above the Bible, not lesser!
This is exactly what I was trying to get at in my initial questions to UnkleE. If the guidance of the Holy Spirit can trump scripture, how can any position ever be tested? If a man is married, but strongly believes that God wants him to be with his next door neighbor, who’s to say he’s wrong? Sure, the Bible contradicts his feelings, but the Holy Spirit has authority over the Bible. Yes, common sense contradicts his desire, but “God’s ways are higher than man’s.”
UnkleE also says this:
This merits a longer discussion than I can give now (but will post on soon), but we are told that the Holy Spirit will guide us into truth (John 16:13), so we can even know God’s will for us (Romans 12:2). We see examples of the Spirit guiding the believers in Acts (e.g. Acts 11:1-18, 13:1-3, 16:6-10). But we do, I believe, need to ask (James 1:5, Matthew 7:7-8).
So far from being “random thoughts”, if we pray, and take the precautions that the Bible gives us, we can have faith that God guides us (not just me, but his whole church) through his Spirit into true understandings – not infallibly, but steadily over time.
But to me, such a system looks exactly like “random thoughts.” How could anyone tell the difference between his own thoughts and the Holy Spirit? How could Paul rail against false teachers and false gospels if guidance from the Holy Spirit carries more weight than scripture? If 1000 different Christians all believe God has given them personal revelations that happen to conflict, there’s no way to sort among them to separate the true revelation from all the false ones.
In effect, it seems to me that such a religion can end up saying everything, which basically means it says nothing.
One More Thing
I know this post is painfully long, but I wanted to add one more thing. In his closing, UnkleE makes this point:
I suggest we should always start with what the scriptures say and expert knowledge about what it means – what would this or that passage have said to the people of the day, what do the words actually mean and how do experts understand them? We must read more than one viewpoint.
Then we must pray, consider, wait if necessary, and see if we receive guidance, and see how the Spirit is working and leading the body of believers as a whole. Our own experience and thoughts (if we are allowing God to transform our thinking) will help us.
Isn’t this exactly what we, as atheists, do as well? I’m quite familiar with the Bible (more so than many believers that I know), and I try to pay attention to what Biblical scholars have to say. I consider more than one point of view. I don’t pray, but I used to. And I believe that I’m open to being wrong — I’m even open to guidance. And I would love for God to give me some kind of message, personally. Used to plead for it, in fact. What else is there for me to do?
Closing
Let me stress that I really appreciate UnkleE’s willingness to discuss these things with me. As he knows, I was raised within a very fundamentalist version of Christianity that believed in biblical inerrancy. UnkleE has a very different perspective, and it’s difficult for me to fully understand it. My arguments here are how I try to come to terms with his beliefs. If I’ve missed some obvious answer to some of my questions, it’s solely due to ignorance, not obstinacy.
Finding Truth 
I have a question for the theists. Do you believe non-belief — in a God or the Christian God — can be rational?
I’m not asking if you think it is the correct opinion, but whether you think a person can rationally not believe in God and particularly in the Christian God? Can a reasonable evaluation of the evidence lead to a conclusion that differs from your own?
LikeLiked by 4 people
@ Jon
What an excellent question!
I await reading a theist’s answer with eager anticipation.
LikeLike
Hi Jon,
”Were they all Jews? …. For the most part, Jews rejected Christianity.”
Yes, I think you are partly right and I claimed too much. I wrote without doing any reading, and when I do a little more reading, I see that it isn’t at all clear.
There are four different groups of christians we need to consider – (1) Palestinian Jewish christians, (2) Diaspora (Hellenistic) Jewish christians, (3) Jewish (ex-Gentile) proselytes who converted, and (4) Gentile christians. And while we can distinguish these groups in theory, in practice they were very much mixed together (see this source). The matter is complicated more because some Hellenistic Jews lived in Jerusalem. And we lack any real population estimates for these subgroups, and in many cases even for Palestine and the entire Roman Empire, so much is guesswork.
The major separation between Jews and Jewish christians began after the Jewish rebellion in 67-70 CE (see e.g. this source) and in many areas the separation of the two religions was pretty much complete by the start of the second century, when the Romans tended to treat them as separate. However many Jewish christians continued to meet in synagogues as Jews in some areas into the third century.
This comprehensive paper tends more to your view on numbers, estimating very low number of Jerusalem Jewish christians, but it seems to me to make an enormous number of questionable assumptions, and dismisses the idea that there could have been many converts among diaspora Jews temporarily in Jerusalem very early on as Luke describes in Acts. Other sources seem to be less dismissive of Acts so (not surprisingly, when all is speculation) there is a breadth of views among the few scholars I have read or the many I have seen referenced.
I would now say that:
(1) It isn’t clear to me when the christian movement became predominantly Gentile. Sims in the reference I’ve given says by the middle 50’s it was roughly equal. Following other sources would lead to a later date.
(2) I still don’t think there is evidence of any Gentile writers of the NT apart from Luke, but authorship is often uncertain. Some of the gospels may have originated out of Palestine, but still likely written by Jews, and certainly compiled by communities that included Jews.
(3) All this is interesting (to me, at any rate), but not actually relevant to the original question, where you said: ”Christianity was mostly rejected in Jerusalem and Galilee where people were (allegedly) firsthand witnesses to God himself performing miracles, fulfilling prophecies and generally showing the power of God.” But as far as we know, Jesus’ Jewish “opponents” didn’t dispute the “historical” facts about Jesus – his life, teaching, miracles, death – and they knew his followers believed in a virgin birth (hence the Pantera etc stories) and his resurrection (most of this is in the “genuine, reconstructed” Josephus) – but they argued that he and his powers were evil and resisted the idea that he was divine.
”Habermas only says he has “compiled 23 arguments for the empty tomb and 14 considerations against it” and that “approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb…” It is not clear to me that this means these scholars actually support the historicity of the empty tomb. “
But if a scholar favours an argument, that means he favours its conclusion, surely? This is supported by his following statement: ”Thus, while far from being unanimously held by critical scholars, it may surprise some that those who embrace the empty tomb as a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong majority.”
I still think Habermas’ work is clear until and if someone does the same research and shows he is wrong.
”I have a question for the theists. Do you believe non-belief — in a God or the Christian God — can be rational?”
Of course.
Belief and disbelief involve factors other than rationality – assumptions, our choice of reading, what we focus on, our wishes, our experience, etc. These aren’t necessarily irrational, but they are sometimes a-rational. I think these factors often explain why two rational people can come to such widely different conclusions. If we were all purely rational, we would surely be slightly less widely divergent in our views.
PS Thanks for your kind words and your support for my possible rationality! 🙂
LikeLike
Hi Sirius,
”I want to get a fair and accurate depiction of your reasoning behind what you believe. Without it, no one can evaluate your position with any fairness.”
I appreciate your wanting to be fair, but I’m not so sure my answer to your question will help you evaluate my reasoning behind what I believe. As I said, direct communication from God is not a major part of my belief – there has been so little that can be easily identified, it couldn’t possibly be.
So let me summarise briefly the reasons why I believe now.
1. I believe christian faith is the best explanation of all the facts – the universe (origin and design), humanity (consciousness, freewill, rationality, moral sense), Jesus (and other religious figures), human experiences of the apparent divine. In fact, I believe it is the only explanation that is plausible. It seems to me that the only sceptical argument that has merit is the problem of evil – most other criticisms are (IMO) based on incredulity, which is a poor and not very rational basis.
2. Life for 50+ years as a very questioning christian has tended to confirm my belief and reinforce the “goodness” of it. (Direct communications from God is just a very small part of this.) Scientific studies confirm that my belief is likely to lead to better brain health, wellbeing, physical health and prosociality (some forms of religious belief are not so benign). So not only do I think it is true but it is good for me and the world.
Other christians would offer different reasons and perspectives, but this is how it is for me.
”it strikes me as a very personal framework. If this is how a deity might conduct a relationship across the spectrum, then I think it would create as many different frameworks of that relationship as there are people. Unfortunately because they’re unique, there’s no way to independently compare notes as to any objective facts about this deity.”
Yes, that is true if you focus on the personal “relationship” angle – everyone is different, and just as we all relate to each other in different ways, so would God. But if you focus instead on the content of belief, then there is a core of objective belief that most christians hold – the Apostles Creed for example.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I believe christian faith is the best explanation of all the facts”
unkleE , whether you are willing to admit it or not, you wouldn’t be saying this had you been born in Iran and raised in a Muslim family.
“Scientific studies confirm that my belief is likely to lead to better brain health, wellbeing, physical health and prosociality”
Again, those same studies also say belonging to most social networks promotes the same thing. You tend to leave this out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Scientific studies confirm that my belief is likely to lead to better brain health, wellbeing, physical health and prosociality”
This statement could apply equally as well if not more so to Mormon families, who tend to be very healthy individuals and whose life expectancies are longer than the average evangelical Christian (and who tend to be some of the nicest people you will ever meet, I have found). I will bet, however, that UnkleE does not believe that Mormon theology is true. Therefore a belief system which promotes well-being, pro-sociality, good health, and longevity is not necessarily an indication of the veracity of one’s beliefs.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Good point Gary. The Mormon paradox puzzled me when I called myself a Christian. But of course it all makes sense if the effect of religion is psychological rather than supernatural.
In a similar way I struggled to reconcile how one of the most decent and genuine people I knew had rejected Christianity. I really could not accept the Bible assessment that this person was thoroughly depraved, But rather than reaching the logical consequence of this observation for many years I persisted against the cognitive dissonance as I had too much of my identity invested in Christianity.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Unklee, said:”…and dismisses the idea that there could have been many converts among diaspora Jews temporarily in Jerusalem very early on as Luke describes in Acts. Other sources seem to be less dismissive of Acts so (not surprisingly, when all is speculation) there is a breadth of views among the few scholars I have read or the many I have seen referenced.««
To remind unkle once <again … these are the Major scholarly findings of the Acts Seminar after ten years of exhaustive investigation and study.
http://vridar.org/2013/11/22/top-ten-findings-of-the-acts-seminar/
Therefore, referencing Acts in this day and age is like referencing Doctor Emmett Brown on Time Travel.
LikeLike
Hey UnkleE,
Actually, the “reasoning behind what you believe” I was referring to is limited to just what we were discussing, and not the entire underpinnings of your faith. If I wanted to refer to your entire faith in Christianity, I would have said “your entire faith in Christianity.” My only interest here at this time is your position on special revelation and how you’ve argued above (and elsewhere in the posts Nate linked to) regarding its place in biblical interpretation.
While it might not be a large percentage of what’s shaped your other faith beliefs, it doesn’t alleviate the implications of what you were arguing. If what you are saying is true, it means that a deity can speak out of both sides of its mouth. Moreover, it can do it in a way that can lead two different followers in diametrically opposed ways on core, objective values.
LikeLike
Hi Sirius,
“If what you are saying is true, it means that a deity can speak out of both sides of its mouth. Moreover, it can do it in a way that can lead two different followers in diametrically opposed ways on core, objective values.”
I don’t think that, so I’m wondering if you can explain it a little further please, especially what I said that leads you to this conclusion. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark
While I would take the scholars involved with the Acts Seminar and their views seriously, I don’t think it’s prudent to cite their conclusions as conclusive. They are the views of one small group of academics, a legitimate part of the scholarly discourse, but not necessarily representative of academic consensus.
For what it’s worth, while stipulating that I am merely an interested layman and not particularly knowledgable about the topic, I would tentatively agree with many of their conclusions, particularly that Acts is an unreliable reconstruction of earlier Christian history, probably more shaped by theological, ideological and narrative concerns than by clear knowledge of historical facts.
I’m not saying it’s not valuable academic research, just that this group isn’t necessarily representative of an academic consensus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Jon
Therefore, can you please tell me what is the current academic consensus, and either provide a link or at least name someone who is able to reliably identify what the current consensus is?
Thanks,
LikeLike
I wish I could, but I don’t think there is a consensus on Acts. I believe it is usually dated to the late 1st or early 2nd century, and believed to be written by the same author as Luke. I believe that even many very conservative critical scholars generally acknowledge that Acts contains stories of dubious reliability, including clear inconsistincies with the letters of Paul.
But I don’t know that there is much of a consensus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So would it be far to say the unklee’s position regarding Acts, which seems to allude towards its historical reliability as generally untenable?
LikeLike
I haven’t studied the scholarship on Acts, but I have studied the scholarship on the Gospels, and since there is a consensus that the author of the Gospel of Luke also wrote the Book of Acts, I can say this:
—the majority of scholars do not believe that the author of Luke/Acts was an eyewitness (which even he admits) or even an associate of an eyewitness to the life and death of Jesus. The majority of scholars do not believe he obtained his information directly from eyewitnesses but from persons who told him that they knew of eyewitness stories about Jesus.
—the majority of scholars do not believe that the author of Luke/Acts was Luke the physician, traveling companion of Paul.
LikeLike
Hey UnkleE,
I’m referring to the post that Nate referenced, more specifically the points he highlighted from your post. Indeed, a major point in your response was:
(emphasis in original).
While I understand you’ve expressed the notion that you personally don’t agree with it, lack of agreement doesn’t adequately address the concern Nate and others have raised here. Different Christians disagree on material and core aspects of the faith, including: (1) the divinity of Jesus; (2) the authority of scripture; (3) the nature of scripture; (4) the existence of hell; (5) who goes to heaven; (6) wine or grape juice at communion; (7) how sacraments work; (8) reasons to perform sacraments; (9) music during worship; (10) whether it’s okay to celebrate certain holidays…and the list goes on from there. Some of these disagreements are logically exclusive, that is, hell can’t exist and not exist at the same time. But according to your reasoning you’ve put in your post, the holy spirit could tell people different things to help them grow in their relationship with said deity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Sirius,
Thanks for that explanation. But it is an enormous jump from my belief that God has communicated with me on a few occasions to ”the holy spirit could tell people different things” about ”material and core aspects of the faith”.
So I want to explore this jump you have made.
1. What things are core for christians?
In your list of ten items, only (1) is mentioned in the Apostles Creed, so that is really the only one that is certainly “core” – and on that one almost all christians are agreed. I can see no evidence of the Holy Spirit telling different people different things on that one.
At the other end of your list are a few things (#6-10) that are pretty trivial matters. The remainder (#2-#5) would be considered core to some christians and important to most. And on these things there is certainly diversity of opinion.
So I think we can see three different categories of christian belief and practice – let’s call them core, important and minor – and we need to be sure which we are discussing.
2. Is diversity “bad”?
If you want to argue that diversity of belief counts against the truth of christianity, you have to define what diversity you’d expect if christianity was true, and how much what we see diverges from that. So what are your criteria? Do you think uniformity is best? For everything, or just for core? Do you think correct knowledge is an important criterion for God? What difference does correct knowledge make to God’s objectives? What are God’s objectives?
I think you have made assumptions about the answers to these questions that you haven’t justified, and that I doubt I’d agree with. So perhaps it’s my turn to ask you to answer these questions please?
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey UnkleE,
It’s actually not that enormous of a jump. I’ll try my best to explain it.
1. As I’m using the term, “core beliefs” are those beliefs which a Christian regards as necessary to his or her faith. Since different Christians have different views of their faith, these core beliefs are often quite different from one Christian to the next. Even trying to declare the Apostles’ Creed as an arbitrary starting point wouldn’t fully do the job; multiple versions of that Creed exist. Would it be fair to use a version of that Creed which references hell when some Christians don’t agree on hell existing? I’m not sure it would.
2. This leads to the second question. Diversity isn’t inherently bad when talking about ancillary beliefs (whatever they may be; it wouldn’t be accurate to speculate). It’s only an issue here when diversity of beliefs result in logically impossible outcomes. Taking belief in hell as one example, what happens when some Christians believe it’s real and some Christians don’t? As a function of basic logic, one and only one of these groups can be right. If that’s the case, and both of these groups have sincerely been led by faith to believe what they believe about hell, then these are the result of one deity saying different things to different people.
It’s important to note that I’m not claiming this must apply in all circumstances to all Christians everywhere. However, I am saying it arises as a problem whenever Christians would have a conflict of core values. So, your views would not necessarily be problematic if every Christian had the exact same core values (or one core value).
In essence, I’m saying that logical impossibilities count against the points you made in your post to the extent that the logical impossibilities exist. Granted, some people might be okay with that and chalk it up to a divine mystery. That’s fine. However, to anyone who values a certain level of logical consistency, this is going to be a cause for concern.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hi Sirius,
I asked you several questions, which I’m still unsure what your answers are, and I think this is important. So let’s look at them.
1. Do you think uniformity is best? For everything, or just for core?
You say ”Diversity isn’t inherently bad when talking about ancillary beliefs” So I’m assuming you mean that it is an issue for core beliefs ”when diversity of beliefs result in logically impossible outcomes”, and you use the example of hell.
So I assume you believe hell is a core belief, so let’s examine it as an example.
I used the Apostles Creed as one reasonable summary of core beliefs, and I note it mentions hell, but not in the sense that you are using it, namely whether christians believe in everlasting torment or not. (In passing, you say there are multiple versions of the Creed, but this is a red herring. There is no significant difference in the content that I can see – please enlighten me if I have missed anything – and one of the only differences in wording concerns hell, which is often translated as “dead”.) So the creed doesn’t discuss hell in the sense I gather you are using it, but only in the sense of it meaning those who are dead, so I can’t see that it’s a core doctrine. But let’s accept that it’s important.
Your point about “logically impossible outcomes” also seems to me to be an overstatement. None of the outcomes are logically impossible, what you are saying is that two views are different. So is difference a reason to disagree? Is particle physics something we shouldn’t accept because there are times when particles seem like energy, and times when their behaviour seems illogical? Should we not believe that life evolved from chemicals because no-one has been able yet to determine for sure the process?
This is what I mean by examining assumptions.
Let’s look at your implicit argument a little more. You say that differences in christian belief ”are the result of one deity saying different things to different people”. I said this is a big jump, you said it wasn’t, so I’d like you to demonstrate that please if you could. I think the argument would go something like this:
(i) Christians believe different things about some doctrines.
(ii) God should see that they have the same beliefs.
(iii) Therefore God has said different things to different people
(iv) Therefore christianity is implausible.
1.1 Would you agree that is the argument. Please feel free to improve it.
Assuming this is the argument, how would you justify premises 2 & 3? Specifically:
1.2 Why should God ensure that christians agree on all the doctrines you nominate? (This comes back to Q 3 & 4 below.)
1.3 Are you saying (a) that differences of belief having nothing to do with people being opinionated and misguided, and (b) that God should over-ride human freedom to ensure uniformity?
1.4 Are you saying that christians who disagree all believe God has told them what doctrines to believe?
2. Do you think correct knowledge is an important criterion for God?
You haven’t answered this as far as I can see, and it is important in the case we are considering. Let’s ask a more specific sub question:
2.1 Do you think christians believe God sends people to hell because they have a wrong doctrine of hell?
3. What difference does correct knowledge make to God’s objectives?
4. What are God’s objectives?
Your answers to these questions (4 main questions and 5 sub questions) would be helpful please. If you are going to be consistent in criticising christianity for having varied beliefs, I think you to show that it is important against some criterion, and clarify that criterion.
I’m sorry to create more “work” for you, but I have been answering a lot of questions so I hope you don’t mind answering a few too! 🙂 Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey UnkleE,
I’ll try to label my responses to your points as best as possible.
1. Saying “uniformity is best” would misstate my point here. Rather, I’m saying that a deity needs to be uniform when logic demands it. Thus, if a deity has an objective quality or idea (i.e., true outside of just one person or point of view) that is exclusive to other ideas, it must be true under different circumstances. To think of this as “best” or even preferable would require me to make more assumptions instead of fewer, and I haven’t been doing that here.
1.1: I would not agree that this is the argument. I’m not trying to argue that all of Christianity is implausible, and I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea from. My argument actually is thus:
(i) If a deity communicates to Christians ideas they should believe, these communications are manifested in the resulting belief.
(ii) Christians sometimes have beliefs which are logically exclusive and inconsistent to each other.
(iii) Therefore, a deity has made logically exclusive and inconsistent statements to Christians.
1.2. I’m actually not nominating any specific list of beliefs to agree upon. They’re illustrations of difference of belief. However, implicit in my argument is the notion that if a deity has a quality which is objectively true (true under all circumstances), then it logically would need to be consistent. Thus, if there is an objective truth to any deity out there, it would have to be consistent with all the people that deity has communicated that truth to.
1.3. I’m not saying either of those things. I am saying there are Christians who could qualify under your earlier criteria for having received divine guidance, and that these people believe differently than each other.
1.4. I think my answer to 1.3 applies.
2. I think that it would be important for a deity who wants people to get things right. But really that’s irrelevant to the main argument I’m making.
2.1. There are Christians out there that think you have to believe certain things about hell in order to really be a Christian. If you’re not really a Christian, then you’re going to hell. I’m sure Nate and anyone else you talk to who lives in the American South can provide further examples ranging on a wide variety of beliefs.
3. None of my points rely upon the objectives of a deity, except maybe a theoretical objective of being consistent. But that would require making assumptions about other people that I don’t need to make in support of my argument. I’m not sure I’m comfortable going that far off-topic when we might not be clear on the original discussion.
4. Please see my answer to number 3. If we’re stuck being confused talking about apples, I’m not sure if it’s wise to bring in oranges. If there’s some relevance I’m not seeing, please let me know, and I’ll be more than happy to discuss!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Has anyone else noticed that whenever a religious person puts up a ”new” religious post somewhere, championing their version of god belief you hardly ever read anything truly new and / or original inasmuch as something that might remotely make a neutral observer or non-christian or ex christian sit up a take serious notice?
In fact, the more you read of their garbage the more you realise just how tired, contrived and shallow apologist arguments truly are. Look at this post for example.
And the more science etc chips away at the fallacious claims of this ridiculous and thoroughly obnoxious cult of Human Sacrifice and pseudo cannibalism the more these apologists with their bronze age beliefs have to dance around the truth to ensure they are able to maintain a semblance of respectability.
All said and done, Christian apologetics is actually quite nauseating.
LikeLike
What is the difference between a Christian apologist and a snake oil salesman?
*None.
—Both will say whatever is necessary…using complex, sophisticated-sounding arguments and appeals…to make their “product” believable and sellable.
—Both are selling products which have no demonstrable benefits whatsoever other than a possible psychological placebo effect.
*I will add a caveat: Most snake oil salesmen know they are conning people; they know their product is totally bogus. I believe that there are many apologists who genuinely believe in the benefits of their “product”, but my issue with them is, no matter how much evidence is presented to them that their product is bogus, they stone wall, insisting that their bogus product MUST be good and beneficial, simply because they WANT so desperately for it to be good and beneficial. Therefore, the end result is the same: People are conned into “buying” something they do not need.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Except a snake oil salesman doesn’t tell you that you are a sinner and if you don’t buy his product you will spend eternity after your death being tortured by the same company that supposedly made the product that he is so desperately trying to get you to buy.
It is a measure of the power of indoctrination under the misguided belief that supposed religious freedom(sic) is a virtue that only the snake oil salesman you could tell to ”F**K Off”, and probably you’d also be able to get a restraining order against too.
Religion ”allows” one to chop off the heads of non-believers in some countries, abuse women and children, and can even be cited as an authority for starting a war … and you do not even need to produce a scrap of evidence.
And we are truly supposed to beleive that the supposed ”Moderate Apologist” is harmless?
I guess it’s like the difference between one cockroach being a nuisance but several million are an infestation.
LikeLike
Hi Sirius,
Thanks for your answers. I think we don’t only disagree about our beliefs, but about our basis for deciding what is true. But I think it is worthwhile clarifying those differences a little more, if you do.
”I’m saying that a deity needs to be uniform when logic demands it.”
As I said before, I haven’t seen anywhere you’ve shown that “logic demands it”. All I’ve seen is some examples, most of them not very important, where christians have different opinions (which isn’t at all the same thing).
”(i) If a deity communicates to Christians ideas they should believe, these communications are manifested in the resulting belief.”
OK, that’s good thanks, let’s run with this. To support premise (i), it would help to state which beliefs you believe God has communicated to individual christians. And then to show how you draw the conclusion that those communications MUST lead to the resulting belief. I think this is terribly implausible (it is quite clear from life and from scripture that people in fact often DON’T follow what they have been told) and impossible to demonstrate. In other words, you need to show fault with God rather than with people.
”Thus, if there is an objective truth to any deity out there, it would have to be consistent with all the people that deity has communicated that truth to.”
Three problems with this. (1) Same as above, you have to show that the fault is God’s and not people. (2) It is also important to show that the belief is important enough for God to want to make absolutely sure we didn’t get it wrong. Any parent or teacher knows that you don’t necessarily pick up every mistake. (3) You have said you are talking about direct communication from God to person today. Very few christians think that anything core is communicated that way. That makes your argument even less plausible. You are only talking about very non-core things!
”I am saying there are Christians who could qualify under your earlier criteria for having received divine guidance, and that these people believe differently than each other.”
So do you expect people to always get things right? Never to make a mistake? Never to ignore the truth?
And have you shown anything that is communicated one to one that is a christian belief rather than something personal? I can’t recall seeing it.
”I think that it would be important for a deity who wants people to get things right. But really that’s irrelevant to the main argument I’m making.”
I think this answer misses the point I’m sorry. If correct knowledge of hell was important to avoid hell, then that knowledge would be critical. But if it was irrelevant to avoiding hell, then it becomes almost academic. (Just reminding you I don’t believe in the everlasting punishment hell, and I certainly don’t think God’s judgment depends on our theology of hell.)
”There are Christians out there that think you have to believe certain things about hell in order to really be a Christian. “
I’ve never met any, but I’ll take your word for it, because there are christians out there who believe all sorts of things. But that wouldn’t be a major christian viewpoint. If you asked a thousand christians what they need to do to avoid hell, I reckon 800 would say “believe in Jesus” and 199 would say “live right”, and only one odd christian (if that) would say “have the correct belief about hell”.
”None of my points rely upon the objectives of a deity, except maybe a theoretical objective of being consistent.”
I find this very strange. How can you make any statements about what God “should” do if you have no idea of his objectives? Strategies should always follow objectives.
So to sum up, I think your understanding of christianity is not only very different to mine, but very different to mainstream christianity:
(a) You misunderstand what God is trying to do. Correct knowledge is desirable, but only really important if it contributes to God’s objectives. If God’s objectives required correct knowledge about the sorts of minor matters you are talking about, then less intelligent people would be disadvantaged. God is interested in “heart” more than “mind”.
(b) You blame God for not communicating clearly without giving any convincing examples, and without showing that it is God’s fault rather than people’s. You haven’t addressed the free will question and how people grow in maturity through resolving dilemmas.
(c) You seem to think that core beliefs are revealed in individual, personal revelation, which would itself be very inconsistent. Core beliefs are revealed in scripture, as virtually all christians say. There is of course scope for interpretation there, but that doesn’t generally come through personal revelation, but through revelation to the whole body of believers (even if some refuse to receive it).
I’m not sure where we go from here, but I’m happy to see your response. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark:
Zoe: Don’t forget the salesman selling annihilation. The kinder punishment.
LikeLiked by 1 person