Faith, Reason and Truth

[SneaksieDave]

My vote is it's best off completely. If it's only in select areas, that still doesn't stop resentment from following a poster around. Let everyone just speak as it was before that system arrived.

 

+1

 

There, I just backed up my own comment.

[Sotha]

My vote is not turn it off, keep it as it is, but give better instructions to people how to use it, maybe a brief addition of info on the forum rules.

 

There is no harm in the system and it encourages nice behavior. People may get a few negative reps, but life will continue. I wouldn't die of shock if someone gave me negative reputation and most of the reputation changes I see in the threads are positive ones. If there was some negative reputations in this thread, not all of them were totally uncalled for.

 

And finally:

the reputation system is definately not such a big issue it should further burden greebo, who carries selflessly most of this mods future on his shoulders.

Shame on those who demand greebo to do manual editings to petty things like forum reputation.

[rich_is_bored]

I think if people view it like a balance as opposed to a popularity contest, they'd stop taking issue with it. If you're in the red, pay your bills.

 

Case in point, I've got a lot of points to spare should I ever need to call one of you a fucker.

[Mortem Desino]

Another question occurred to me a few days ago and made me think of you: As someone with a good knowledge of history, how do you deal with the discrepancies surrounding the date of Jesus' birth? Luke 2:2 claims it was during the period where Quirinius was governer of Syria, and Matthew 2:1 claims it was during the reign of Herod the Great. These two periods do not actually overlap. Quirinius' famous census was a good 10 years after the end of Herod's reign.

 

Most modern historians suggest that Luke's account is mistaken. However, if you believe the Bible is infallible then you would seem unable to accept that, so how do you rationalize this apparent contradiction?

Bingo! I think I found your answer!

 

Nothing prohibits Quirinius; and Herod the Great's lives from coinciding. Let's take a quick exegesis.

 

Luke 2:2

αὕτη ἀπογραφή πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. (the forum doesn't like classical greek fonts. Ignore the three extra spaces)

this census (as a first) came about, Quirinius [being] governing Syria.

 

There is no noun for 'governor' in that sentence. In fact, I believe that that "governing" participle cannot be used substantively, like a noun.

 

Quirinius need not be a governor to 'govern' Syria. He was actually rather famous before becoming governor. Tacitus says that Quirinius was off doing military expeditions "in the eastern provinces" (perhaps including Syria?) during and shortly after ἐν ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου τοῦ βασιλέω ς (in the days of Herod the King).

 

Boy, I love my Koine and Commentaries.

[Springheel]

There is no noun for 'governor' in that sentence. In fact, I believe that that "governing" participle cannot be used substantively, like a noun.

 

Quirinius need not be a governor to 'govern' Syria.

 

Hmm, interesting. So you're interpreting it as "governing", not "governor"?

 

I'm certainly in no position to argue Greek definitions with you, but that verse is translated as "governor" in the King James Bible, The International Standard Bible, The Geneva Study Bible, the New Living Bible...in fact, it's translated as "governor" in every Bible I can find, with the exception of the "Bible in Basic English" version, which translates it as "ruler".

 

So either all the common versions the Bible have translated it wrong, (which raises the obvious dilemma of how one could trust the overall accuracy of any of them), or your translation is a bit unorthodox. In the latter case, an objective observer would have to wonder if it wasn't the result of a little too much eagerness to find a way out of the apparent contradiction.

 

In any case, even if your interpretation were correct, the first part of the sentence still refers to the "first census". The earliest known Roman census in Palestine was taken in AD 6-7, long after the reign of Herod. So the contradiction, as far as I can see, would still exist.

 

Btw, I was hoping you'd address my other questions as well. You've proven yourself to be quite a reasonable and rational person throughout the time I've known you here, so I'm very interested in your view on Biblical inerrancy.

 

I believe that the bible is to be taken literally, except for the few occurrences that God inserts obvious figurative 'picture language' and such

 

How do you judge what is "obvious figurative 'picture language'" and what is not?

[Mortem Desino]

So either all the common versions the Bible have translated it wrong, (which raises the obvious dilemma of how one could trust the overall accuracy of any of them), or your translation is a bit unorthodox. In the latter case, an objective observer would have to wonder if it wasn't the result of a little too much eagerness to find a way out of the apparent contradiction.

 

In any case, even if your interpretation were correct, the first part of the sentence still refers to the "first census". The earliest known Roman census in Palestine was taken in AD 6-7, long after the reign of Herod. So the contradiction, as far as I can see, would still exist.

I'd argue that there is no contradiction. It was the first Judean census that Diocletian ordered, during which time the famous Quirinius was possibly some kind of governing figure of Syria (not yet elected governor), and Herod the Great was still alive. Hrm. I just re-re-reread your post.

 

It's not a wrong translation, by any means. I would guess it's so often translated "governor of Syria" is because it's just good english. "This census as a first came about, Time during which Quirinius being governing Syria" is awkward English. From other classical pieces I've translated, if it was a real kingly figure, his position would usually be a derived form of ἀρχή or βασιλεύς, not γεμονεύω.

 

Second, and this is a stretch (though grammatically possible); you could use πρώτη with the participle as a time before which construction. 'This census came about, before Quirinius [being] governing Syria'

 

I'll get to your other question as soon as I get the time. And my new commentaries arrive in the mail.

[Springheel]

I would guess it's so often translated "governor of Syria" is because it's just good english. "This census as a first came about, Time during which Quirinius being governing Syria" is awkward English.

 

If you're saying it should be interpreted as "governing", rather than "governor", isn't it simple enough to say "when Quirinius was governing Syria"? There's nothing awkward about that.

 

I've now checked more than fifteen different Biblical translations, however, and all but three of them say "governor". The others say, "had the government", "during the governorship", and "was ruler of Syria" respectively. It would be awfully difficult not to interpret these as referring to the period where Quirinius was, in fact, governor.

 

Second, and this is a stretch (though grammatically possible); you could use πρώτη with the participle as a time before which construction. 'This census came about, before Quirinius [being] governing Syria'

 

Except that such an interpretation would require that there was an earlier census than the one in AD 6-7, for which there is no historical evidence whatsoever. That's a bit hard to swallow, since we have very good Roman records from that time, as I'm sure you know.

 

It seems to me that of the three possible options, the most likely one is that the author of Luke made an error.

 

I'll get to your other question as soon as I get the time.

 

Fair enough. I'm looking forward to it.

[Mortem Desino]

Well, your question ate at my brain, so I called the big gun R.C.H. Lenski. This is what I gleaned.

 

Quirinius was the regular governor in Syria during A.D. 6, after Archelaus died and a census for taxation was made, treating Palestine as an ordinary Roman province. But Quirinius functioned in Syria during B.C. 7 and after, not indeed as regular governor of the province but in a governing capacity (see my translation above: 'being governing'). Or in other words, at the time of Jesus' birth (somewhere near 6 BC), Varus was the governor of Syria and administered its regular affairs. While Varus was governor, Quirinius controlled the armies and directed the foreign policy of Syria. It was thus that he supervised the enrollment for taxation also in the kingdom of Herod. Remember that about 2 years later, Herod the Great died.

 

So, there was a census of Palestine during Herod the Great's watch in approx B.C. 6, under which Quirinus acted as Syrian Foreign Policy Leader. Don't confuse this early census with the one in A.D. 6, which Tertullian, Josephus, and the book of Acts talks about. That genitive absolute phrase "Quirinius governing in Syria" is not so much a date rather than a statement regarding the control of the enrollment for taxation. Acting in a governing capacity of some sort in Syria, Quirinius managed the enrollment also in Herod's domain.

 

Note also that Herod the Great's standing with the emperor was not the best. This might have urged him to create this B.C. 6 census, supervised by a roman, in order to gain better favor.

[Springheel]

Well, your question ate at my brain, so I called the big gun R.C.H. Lenski

 

Cool. I find your response interesting for two reasons. First, even though you started off claiming that belief in religion is inherently irrational, you actually do seem to care about finding some level of evidence to support it. Instead of saying, "I just have faith that there's no contradiction", you're actually presenting evidence.

 

I'm not entirely sure whether the evidence is incidental to you or not. In other words, do you believe there's no contradiction because the evidence is compelling, or do you come to the table already believing there's no contradiction, and therefore look for anything you can find to defend that belief? If belief in religion is irrational, why bother with evidence at all?

 

The second thing that interests me is that you're using an avowed Christian apologist to defend your position. R.C.H. Lenski was described as a "conservative Lutheran" who had an "unwavering...view of Scriptural authority". That would seem to call his objectivity into question, wouldn't it? He sounds very much like someone who was looking for evidence to support a pre-existing belief, rather than someone who was evaluating all the evidence critically and seeing which conclusion made the most sense. I think it's fair to say that modern historians do not tend to agree with his interpretation.

 

However, even we assumed for the sake of argument that such an interpretation did have some historical evidence to support it, the explanation you're presenting still has a major problem. As I've already pointed out, none of the well-established translations of the Bible interpret the verse the way you're suggesting. So if you and Lenski are correct, all you've done is show that 99.9% of Christians are reading Bibles that are demonstrably false.

[HappyCheeze]

@Mortem,

 

I'm curious which bible translation you use?

 

Wait, I think I misread, you read a Greek text right?

[Mortem Desino]

Yes, HC, I use the original ancient languages for analysis, but not casual reading. Otherwise, I like to use the time-tested KJV translation, though I was raised on the NIV. Oh, yes, and occasionally in my specialty of Latin; but that's usually only because of church fathers that wrote their notes and letters in Latin.

 

Well, be careful making those accusations, Springheel. I could quite easily make the same sort: That it's also safe to say that modern historians don't necessarily have the exegetical and Greek analysis skills as an avowed Lutheran apologist with a doctorate in theology. They could easily take any of your translations of the bible, interpret Luke 2:2 and Matthew 2:1 literalistically, and skip critically analyzing what the original language says.

 

If you want more historical evidence than what I have you, you can look in Josephus' Antiquities, Tertullian, or even the aforementioned Tacitus. All of them confirm an enrollment for taxing sometime not long before Herod the Great's Death in BC 4.

 

Once again: none of those are necessarily 'false' translations of that verse. They have fair continuity between translations, good idiomatic English, and no needless over-complication for the average bible reader. That's why there are commentaries! Why 'modern historians' and naysayers don't use critical commentaries for most accurate biblical interpretation -- I honestly don't know!

 

As for my motivation to find evidence, I'll let you muse a little longer. God is a god of perfect order: why shouldn't His book contain no contradictions in the first place?

[Ariminius]

My Jehovah's Witness experience was similarly polite and pleasant. I told them that I was a scientist, and they proceeded to ask all about the theory of evolution, which I did my best to explain. The man was actually genuinely surprised to learn that evolution explains the origin of species, not the origin of life itself (biogenesis).

My experience with Mormons was a good one as well. Two 19 year old buxom blonde hotties came round to chat and hand out pamphlets. It's pretty sneaky way to spread the faith and they did a hell of alot better in getting converts than 2 mousy guys in nice suits would have. I was going to ask them about the polygamy aspect of the faith but I lost my nerve I had to consent myself with pamphlets and the promise of a return visit; unfortunately instead of the girls 2 guys in suits showed up later in the week.

 

Anyway on topic, I went to a Christian school for my whole school life and the faith never really sat well with me. One thing I could never reconcile is christianity's ideas of heaven and an afterlife which were supposed to be a sort of utopia (this is probably the wrong word to use in its most literal sense) where nothing bad happens. I honestly cannot see the appeal of any heaven ; even 72 virgins would get boring after a while, and the christian idea of heaven is even worse IMO than the muslim one. Without sin, conflict or struggle the idea of Heaven sounds awfully boring; I'd prefer Hell or better yet Valhalla. but even quaffing mead and fighting all day would get stale after a hundred years or so.

 

Added to this are the inconsistencies between the New and Old Testaments. It seems to me that the old testament is Jewish, and the new is Christian; why bother including the old testament in all versions of the bible? All it does is highlight the inconsistencies between god's treatment of people across 2 time periods, the former where he is almost categorically murdering everyone who "isn't one of my people" and the latter where we're all supposed to be altruistic pacifists. With such inconsistencies it boggles my mind why so many pentecostal/evangelical denominations in America go so nuts over the question of creationism vs. evolution. You'd think it would more be the Jews who would be protesting the debunking of the creation myth considering the old testament has very little to do with Christianity as far as I can tell.

 

And if it was Christ who was supposed to change the whole game, and shift the nature of god from being practically demonic to benevolent; why'd he leave it so late? And what happens to everyone born before Christ? I don't recall any concrete answer to this in the NIV; maybe its like Dante suggests and there are spaces in heaven (or hell) reserved for 'Virtuous Pagans'.

 

If you want more historical evidence than what I have you, you can look in Josephus' Antiquities, Tertullian, or even the aforementioned Tacitus.

Off topic, Mortem I was wondering about some of the historical texts you have access to. I know that many Romans had good command of Greek, the Lingua Mundi as it were, as well as Latin; I'm curious to know whether the surviving texts we have access to (Tacitus, Seuotinius, Josephus etc.) from the late republic/early empire, were they written in Greek or Latin?

Edited August 12, 2010 by Ariminius

[Springheel]

Once again: none of those are necessarily 'false' translations of that verse. They have fair continuity between translations, good idiomatic English, and no needless over-complication for the average bible reader.

 

This is the second time you've made the claim that it would be too "complicated" or "awkward" to translate the passage accurately. Sorry, but that strikes me as ridiculous. How is it complicated OR awkward to say "when Quirinius was governing Syria"?

 

Since that is the correct translation, in your opinion, don't you wonder why no English Bible translates it that way?

 

That it's also safe to say that modern historians don't necessarily have the exegetical and Greek analysis skills as an avowed Lutheran apologist with a doctorate in theology.

 

Huh? Are you saying that only Lutherans or Christian apologists can have adequate knowledge of the ancient Greek language or Roman history? What does theology have to do with historical facts?

 

As I'm sure you know, there are at least half a dozen theories to rationalize the apparent contradiction between Luke 2:2 and the historical record, including suggestions that Quirinius was governor twice or that the author of Luke meant a census before Quirinius was governor. Modern historians are not unaware of these theories (most of which have been around for centuries), but they have been unable to find enough historical evidence to support any of them.

 

God is a god of perfect order: why shouldn't His book contain no contradictions in the first place?

 

Well, that question contains a number of assumptions.

 

1. That a god exists. What reason do we have to think this is true?

 

2. That, if a god exists, he is perfect. What reason do we have to think this is true? (The Bible contains a great deal of evidence to suggest the opposite.)

 

3. That, if a god exists and he is perfect, the Christian Bible is "his" book. What reason do we have to think this is true? Why couldn't "his" book be the Koran, as more than one billion Muslims believe?

 

Even granting all the assumptions above, one would still have to ask, which version of the Bible is "his" book? And who decides?

[Mortem Desino]

My, oh my! So many things I could respond to, Ariminius! But I haven't the spare time, so I'll just answer your one question. I have access to the English translations of Josephus' Antiquities, and various histories by Tacitus and Tertullian because I'm enrolled in a university (All huzzah for JSTOR!).

 

Springheel, Luke 2:2 would need a page-long footnote explanation. 'This tax enrollment took place while Quirinius, as a Roman oversaw it in the stead of Herod the Great, while being Syrian foreign affair administrator.' still doesn't neccessarily cut it for naysayers.

 

Well, that question contains a number of assumptions.

 

1. That a god exists. What reason do we have to think this is true?

 

2. That, if a god exists, he is perfect. What reason do we have to think this is true? (The Bible contains a great deal of evidence to suggest the opposite.)

 

Well, God is 'the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lord, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see'. If we are to know anything about God, God must reveal himself. Thankfullly, he has already done this: in his creation. In fact, the revelation of God's existence learned from creation is so clear that the Bible tells us only a fool would deny God exists.

• God exists (for there could be no creation without the Creator)
• God is eternal (for he existed before the world)
• God is powerful (for he made the universe by his command)
• God is good (He cares for all his creation)
• God is wise (seen from the intricacy of creation and creatures)

We see from the law that God wrote into peoples' consciences that we are accountable to him. The conscience, a spiritual emotion, testifies to the existence of God's law in human hearts. On the basis of this law, the conscience either approves or condemned behavior. Therefore, all people have a knowledge that God exists and that they are accountable to him.

 

But the bible (a non-'natural knowledge' of God) is not a record of human speculation about God's activities in history. People didn't see something happen in the world and then write down their opinions as to what is meant. Without God's own interpretation of his acts in history, we could never, with any certainty, know what God was doing in history. Unfortunately, the attitude of many has been that the Bible is man's word about God rather than God's Word to men. It has been quite a while so far that people speculated and dissected and criticised the Bible.

 

Your last point reminds me a little bit of existentialism, which is basically saying that 'nothing is the Word of God until it becomes a word of God for you.' God decides. The film "Luther" put it pretty well. The Bible should be like a mother whispering a lullaby to her child. If a 'version' or translation of the Bible causes divisions or contains false doctrine, then you know for sure.

[HappyCheeze]

Well, God is 'the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lord, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see'. If we are to know anything about God, God must reveal himself. Thankfullly, he has already done this: in his creation. In fact, the revelation of God's existence learned from creation is so clear that the Bible tells us only a fool would deny God exists.

 

So you're saying the reason why we should believe God exists is because the bible says so?

 

We see from the law that God wrote into peoples' consciences that we are accountable to him. The conscience, a spiritual emotion, testifies to the existence of God's law in human hearts. On the basis of this law, the conscience either approves or condemned behavior. Therefore, all people have a knowledge that God exists and that they are accountable to him.

 

 

What about sociopaths-- people who don't have a conscience? Do they still have that knowledge? Are they still accountable?

[Mortem Desino]

Quite the contrary, HC. I listed above how the universe shouts that there must be a wise, ordered creator. Conscience is another natural knowledge of a god that I mentioned. If you want another -- you can also recognize how sin and evil can make people, whether by rationalization or intuition, recognize that we need some sort of godly help in the world.

 

I don't quite understand the question though. Are you asking for a rationalization to believe in God? Want or need? What sort of 'reason' do you mean?

 

Your sociopath example touches on a different subject: one of how sin disfigured and tainted God's lost and confused masterpiece of creation -- humanity. Is a hermit with no missionary/religious contact held just as accountable before God?

[HappyCheeze]

Quite the contrary, HC. I listed above how the universe shouts that there must be a wise, ordered creator. Conscience is another natural knowledge of a god that I mentioned. If you want another -- you can also recognize how sin and evil can make people, whether by rationalization or intuition, recognize that we need some sort of godly help in the world.

 

Do you mean these points?

• God exists (for there could be no creation without the Creator) <-- This is one of the assumptions Springheel was talking about
• God is eternal (for he existed before the world)
• God is powerful (for he made the universe by his command)
• God is good (He cares for all his creation)
• God is wise (seen from the intricacy of creation and creatures)

 

I don't quite understand the question though. Are you asking for a rationalization to believe in God? Want or need? What sort of 'reason' do you mean?

 

If those are the points you were talking about, than why look in the bible and declare him the cause of that? Is that because its supposed to be the revealed word of God?

 

 

What if I had a book that claimed to be the revealed word of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and it said he created everything and gave human beings a conscience to know right from wrong-- Is that an equally valid claim?

 

 

Your sociopath example touches on a different subject: one of how sin disfigured and tainted God's lost and confused masterpiece of creation -- humanity.

 

 

 

 

Is a hermit with no missionary/religious contact held just as accountable before God?

 

 

 

Lets say a prominent pastor suffers brain damage that inhibits his ideas about right and wrong, and his ability to feel pity or remorse. He no longer has a conscience, at least in the neurological sense, so to speak. Does this damage to his brain which he had no control over, still make him accountable?

[Sotha]

Thankfullly, he has already done this: in his creation. In fact, the revelation of God's existence learned from creation is so clear that the Bible tells us only a fool would deny God exists.

• God exists (for there could be no creation without the Creator)

H.P. Lovecraft, in his cthulhu mythos, hints that all life on earth was seeded by the Elder Things. Since there would be no creation of life without the creator and since we are here, it must be true?

 

We see from the law that God wrote into peoples' consciences that we are accountable to him. The conscience, a spiritual emotion, testifies to the existence of God's law in human hearts. On the basis of this law, the conscience either approves or condemned behavior. Therefore, all people have a knowledge that God exists and that they are accountable to him.

 

-Er.. Does this mean that human conscience is of divine origin? Would it be more likely that a society of which individuals do not revel in chaos, mass murder and evil have much better chances of survival? When people are raised properly, they typically stick to tolerable morals. Why choose a supernatural expalantion for something mundane, when a simpler non-supernatural explanation is available?

 

 

But the bible (a non-'natural knowledge' of God) is not a record of human speculation about God's activities in history. People didn't see something happen in the world and then write down their opinions as to what is meant. Without God's own interpretation of his acts in history, we could never, with any certainty, know what God was doing in history. Unfortunately, the attitude of many has been that the Bible is man's word about God rather than God's Word to men.

 

-Um.. Does this mean that you seriously think god wrote the bible? I read this several times and it still gives me that impression.

[SneaksieDave]

I recommend anyone interested in this thread to check out (literally) everything by Youtube user NonStampCollector. He uses a simplistic cartoon format for amusing and intelligent commentary on the issues. Some of them are downright hilarious regardless of your stance. And all of them will make you think. Even his username addresses one of the points of contention (that "atheism is a religion").

 

* The faithful might have their faith challenged, and it might also inspire them to new debate material.

* The non-faithful will be entertained.

* Most importantly though, everyone will be presented a good summary of the most common arguments for faith and the reasons presented against them.

 

Since this thread seems to be going the way of the most common points, this might save some effort for better, new arguments.

[Mortem Desino]

Yeah, isn't it goofy? I'm a programmer, and I work with logic all the time. Yet I strongly believe in such irrational, illogical things.

[Springheel]

the revelation of God's existence learned from creation is so clear that the Bible tells us only a fool would deny God exists.

 

* God exists (for there could be no creation without the Creator)

* God is eternal (for he existed before the world)

* God is powerful (for he made the universe by his command)

* God is good (He cares for all his creation)

* God is wise (seen from the intricacy of creation and creatures)

 

This is a long list of assertions with little or nothing to back them up. You're basically telling me what you believe, while I'm mainly interested in why you think there's a good reason to believe them.

 

(for there could be no creation without the Creator)

 

Why not? There are plenty of examples of seemingly complex things that come into existence without creative intent. Snowflakes, for example, are extremely complex and beautiful, yet we don't assume they therefore must be crafted by ice fairies. We understand that beautiful, complex things can be formed by entirely natural, mindless processes. What reasons do you have for thinking a supernatural creator must have been involved in "creation"?

 

(for he existed before the world)

 

That's completely begging the question. What reasons do you have for thinking this is true?

 

(for he made the universe by his command)

 

At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, how do you know this?

 

We see from the law that God wrote into peoples' consciences that we are accountable to him. The conscience, a spiritual emotion, testifies to the existence of God's law in human hearts. On the basis of this law, the conscience either approves or condemned behavior. Therefore, all people have a knowledge that God exists and that they are accountable to him.

 

This is a common, but IMO misguided, argument for the existence of a god. It has three major problems.

 

First of all, you're saying that a conscience either approves or condemns behaviour based on "God's law". If that were true, and this feeling were put there directly by a god, then there should be some significant agreement amongst people about what they do and do not feel guilty about (and therefore what is moral and what is not).

 

Yet we know that this is not the case. Even people who actually believe in a god cannot agree on how he wants people to behave. Do you stone unruly children or not? Do you circumcise male children or not? Is it immoral to own slaves or not? Is masturbation immoral? Is birth control immoral? Is it immoral to kill in self defense? Is it immoral to be wealthy? There is no consensus among believers (even believers of the same god) on what they should and should not feel guilty about. This puts the idea of a "law in our hearts" into significant doubt.

 

Secondly, even if everyone DID have a conscience, and everyone's conscience was the same, there's no evidence to suggest it was "written" there by some external, supernatural source. We know animals have some sense of morals. The more social the animal, the more developed their sense of morality is. In experiments, chimps have been observed starving themselves for days rather than harm another chimp in order to get food. Did a supernatural being tell chimps it was wrong to hurt another member of their group? It is likely that social groups full of members who help each other would be more successful than social groups that harm and kill their own. That's all that is needed for natural selection to encourage the development of moral behaviour.

 

I think both of those arguments are more than sufficient to cast doubt on the idea of a magically implanted conscience. However, even if there were some way to demonstrate that people's consciences had been surgically implanted by a magical being, there is still no way to link that to the Christian God. Your conscience could just as easily been put there by Vishnu, or Zues, or The Great Raven.

 

Without God's own interpretation of his acts in history, we could never, with any certainty, know what God was doing in history. Unfortunately, the attitude of many has been that the Bible is man's word about God rather than God's Word to men

 

Again, you're making assertions without providing evidence to support it. How do you KNOW the Bible is "God's Word to men"? And what would that even mean, exactly? I know when I was a Christian I used to throw around phrases like that without thinking much about what I actually meant. Are you saying an angel dictated it to the authors, as the Koran was supposedly dictated to Muhammad? Did God provide golden tablets for them to transcribe, as he supposedly did to Joseph Smith for the Book of Mormon? Did God put the words directly into the minds of the authors, or were they just "divinely inspired" and thus using their own words? Did he "divinely inspire" the translators? How about the Bishops of the Nicaean Council? Did God tell them specifically which books should be in the Bible and which should be left out? I found that often the more precise I tried to get, the less sense it made, until I was eventually left with the old fallback of "you just have to have faith".

[SneaksieDave]

Yeah, isn't it goofy? I'm a programmer, and I work with logic all the time. Yet I strongly believe in such irrational, illogical things.

I'm not sure whether to read that as offended sarcasm or as matter of fact... and I do admit there have been times when I wondered if this was ruse. Well either way, I meant no offense.

 

On topic: who created the Creator?

[Mortem Desino]

Thanks for reeling me in. I know my slightly bruised ego partially brought this on myself, but I don't want this thread to be renamed "MD! PREPARE TO DEFEND THYSELF!"

 

I'll be repeating myself several times for those who haven't been following along earlier in the thread. So why is there and what is a good reason for me to believe this nonsense? (And I cannot lie: I'm "indoctrinated", raised with it since childhood. Upbringing makes a big difference to any person.)

 

First off, I don't think religion is the Opium of the People, but very important to man for finding his purpose and meaning for life, which has been lost in modern materialism. Isn't that every human's duty to himself?

 

Suffice it to say, I have no disproof of God, only condemning evidence. I have no proof of God/Biblical History, only vindicating evidence. Then does the 'childlike faith' fall into place. But this seesaw of faith-placement teeters. The more evidence you wish to find on one end, the more you will teeter toward that end. Finger-in-ear syndrome is a common practice.

 

Atheists and Christians can both look at the world with disgust. Humans have done some pretty bad things. Theistic and atheistic have both committed terrible atrocities that really can't be reconciled or rationalized under any paradigm. This is the problem of evil. The Agnostic looks at the world and whether by intuition or rational thinking, recognizes that we need help in solving these problems, and there must be a much higher power or being in existence to orchestrate meaning and purpose for everything. Then, the Christian goes the next step from that by saying that he/she believes that the higher being does not remain silent, but wants to reveal himself—in the Bible.

 

But that's still a pretty irrational claim. What reason have I got to make it in the first place?

 

Knowledge isn't based on just logic. We also base it on experience, even if it goes against logic. My logic says what Descartes said, paraphrased: I am all that logic can affirm exists. Logic is a necessary thing, but don't become a robot to it. It's limited. The rest is called metaphysics where logic does not always apply. See also: Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. I won't give you my life story, but I've experienced enough for me to teeter strongly towards Christianity.

 

Plus I like one specific point concerning theism as a whole. There are many and varied arguments, all saying 'this makes no sense!'. I reply: don't you think that an uber-being would do what he does for reasons beyond human reasoning?

 

Lastly, HC can insert "Flying Spaghetti Monster" for "God" and "Sacred Recipe of Tomato Sauce" for "Bible".

[Sotha]

I like this post a lot. It has brought a new perpective for me.

 

First off, I don't think religion is the Opium of the People, but very important to man for finding his purpose and meaning for life, which has been lost in modern materialism. Isn't that every human's duty to himself?

People indeed need a purpose in life. Some gain purpose by career and wealth, others with children, others with religion. Others by doing silly maps for a game mod. The most common thing is the combinations of many components, others focus only on a few, others choose many. I think it is safe to say it is entirely rational to seek the purpose for oneself. Purpose in life is a peculiar thing because it is based more on emotion and feelings, rather than logic. Interesting!

 

But that's still a pretty irrational claim. What reason have I got to make it in the first place?

 

Knowledge isn't based on just logic. We also base it on experience, even if it goes against logic. My logic says what Descartes said, paraphrased: I am all that logic can affirm exists. Logic is a necessary thing, but don't become a robot to it. It's limited. The rest is called metaphysics where logic does not always apply. See also: Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. I won't give you my life story, but I've experienced enough for me to teeter strongly towards Christianity.

 

Yep. Logic is definately not the answer to everything. I know from experience that sometimes you need to challenge existing logic to create something new.

 

Plus I like one specific point concerning theism as a whole. There are many and varied arguments, all saying 'this makes no sense!'. I reply: don't you think that an uber-being would do what he does for reasons beyond human reasoning?

 

I can't comment this much, but yeah, human behavior probably appears mysterious to ants. It still does not give any rational base for faith, but like said: it is rational to seek purpose, even if the purpose itself is irrational. Some people collect used stamps, for crying out loud! (my apologies to those that do.)

[Springheel]

So why is there and what is a good reason for me to believe this nonsense? (And I cannot lie: I'm "indoctrinated", raised with it since childhood. Upbringing makes a big difference to any person.)

 

Yes, 100% true. One of the main reasons religion continues to persist in otherwise reasonable people is because it was taught to them as children. Children have no way to judge what is reasonable or not, which is why they also believe in Santa and the tooth fairy.

 

By the time they get old enough to start to question their belief, religious children have lots of reasons to cling to it--it provides comfort and a sense of purpose; it is intrinsically linked with family and friends; and it teaches that there are serious consequences for not believing. Unlike Santa and the tooth fairy, religion also glorifies "faith", so that even if the belief doesn't make sense, it's considered a virtue to continue believing it. There's no other area of human endeavor where we would respect that approach.

 

This is why so many reasonable people are forced to make all kinds of excuses in order to hang on to their faith. They know it is irrational, but it is too deeply rooted for them to give it up. So they're forced to try and jump through hoops to make it make sense.

 

How many adults would come to believe in a religion on their own, if they didn't have it thrust on them before the age of reason?

 

Suffice it to say, I have no disproof of God, only condemning evidence.

 

You cannot disprove God, any more than you can disprove nature fairies. The correct question is, "what reason is there to believe a god exists?"

 

I have no proof of God/Biblical History, only vindicating evidence.

 

And what is this evidence?

 

we need help in solving these problems, and there must be a much higher power or being in existence to orchestrate meaning and purpose for everything.

 

Even if it were true that we "need help" from some external source (and I don't agree it is) that still doesn't mean there "must be" some source there to help us.

 

But that's still a pretty irrational claim. What reason have I got to make it in the first place?

 

That's the question I'm hoping you'll actually answer!

 

Other than "I was taught it before I knew any better", what reasons are there for thinking a god exists?