"But even if that evidence were good, the trilemma on offer would be ludicrously inadequate. A fourth possibility, almost too obvious to need mentioning, is that Jesus was honestly mistaken. Plenty of people are. In any case, as I said, there is no good historical evidence that he ever thought he was divine."
I find some inconsistencies with The Dawkins's broader approach here; indeed, with his main atheological strategy.
If "honestly mistaken" is a live option here, if The Dawkins is serious here, then why does he not give this kind of nod to the theist?
Why are we always deluded, irrational, even insane?
We suffer, presumably, from the same meme Jesus suffered from. "The God Delusion" is supposed to be a belief comparable to a psychiatric disease. We suffer from delirium.
He draws analogies between people who believe in God and people who believe a pink elephant is in the room with them. The latter, says The Dawkins, we wouldn't hesitate to throw into a psychiatric ward.
So why does Jesus, arguably a specimen of the God delusion par excellence, receive "honestly mistaken" as a live option here?
Certainly, if Jesus can be "honestly mistaken" about being God himself, how much more then (on Dawkinsian assumptions) can the theist be "honestly mistaken" in his belief that there is a God other than himself?
If Dawkins met a man who said there was a pink elephant in a 10*10 room, would he say that the man could be "honestly mistaken?" How much more would he say that a man who thought he was the pink elephant in the room was "honestly mistaken?"
If Jesus could be "honestly mistaken" then so can all theists. If so, then The Dawkins's position that we are all psychologically deluded saps is, like the Lewis position he critiques, "ludicrously inadequate" (on his own terms).
I can never cease to be amazed at the extent of Dicky D's expertise. He must be a psychologist too, I suppose. Is he seriously suggesting that one can erroneously believe oneself to be God yet be perfectly sane?
ReplyDeleteAlert the justice system, this could be a new defense against the insanity plea.
ReplyDeleteYour response is ridiculous. Jesus obviously had less knowledge than we did. Given what he knew when he was alive, it may have been the most logical conclusion for *him* to conclude he was divine.
ReplyDeleteIe. he may have read Job and concluded only a transcendent being could have been responsible for the creation (mistaking a poetic response to reality for a scientific explanation).
He may have read the Pentateuch and realized no one obeyed the "law" perfectly and out of whole cloth come up with Christianity.
We now know facts about biology and psychology that if Jesus knew, would have caused him *not* to proclaim himself to be Messiah.
I know Boolean algebra! I live near a Borders. If you have any meaningful response, by all means give it.
THN,
ReplyDelete"Your response is ridiculous. Jesus obviously had less knowledge than we did."
He had less knowledge than we did about whether he was God? How would you prove that?
And, so Jesus didn't suffer from the God delusion meme but we do? Is this evolution in reverse?
I don't get it, knowing how to use a TV and a microwave means that you can't be "honestly mistaken" about being a God....especially the God of *Israel.* You seem to not understand the context Jesus grew up in.
"Given what he knew when he was alive, it may have been the most logical conclusion for *him* to conclude he was divine."
How's that go? From what premises did he draw his conclusion? Offer a plausible naturalistic story.
"Ie. he may have read Job and concluded only a transcendent being could have been responsible for the creation (mistaking a poetic response to reality for a scientific explanation)."
But he was *immanent*. Physical. Flesh and blood. And, he held that the Father and He were distinct. How did that arise in a monotheistic culture? Surely he read other verses which read: "God is not a man." To believe that *a* God exists is a bit different than believing that *you're* the God.
Read Job yourself. Do a word search for 'man' in that book. Seems eithger he only read your one verse, or he had serious defeaters for his God delusion.
Your story isn't making sense.
"He may have read the Pentateuch and realized no one obeyed the "law" perfectly and out of whole cloth come up with Christianity."
I don't see how you get from that to "Before Abraham existed, I did."
We're not asking how he "came up with" Christianity.
And if he read job he would have known than no man can be perfect, whence the belief that he was.
He had to believe this, or else he would not have believed himself *God.*
If you are serious, then you think he believe he obeyed *all* the OT laws, and his expansions in the NT, *perfectly.* Was he "honestly mistaken" about that, too?
And, I thought religious people are deluded. Oh, it's only 20th century religious people who are deluded. Right. Gotcha.
"We now know facts about biology and psychology that if Jesus knew, would have caused him *not* to proclaim himself to be Messiah."
He proclaimed himself to be *God.* That's the debate.
Anyway, why can Jesus be "honestly mistaken," and *I* can't?
You're not getting my argument.
Fine, you want to say that Jesus may have been honestly mistaken, then what about me? dawkins says I'm a loon.
Your response was ridiculous.
Thnuhthnuh writes:
ReplyDelete"We now know facts about biology and psychology that if Jesus knew, would have caused him *not* to proclaim himself to be Messiah."
What would these be?
Thnuh obviously has less knowledge than he thinks he has. Given what he knows, it's it may have been the most logical conclusion for *him* to conclude he was rational.
ReplyDeleteIe. he may have read a few key words in a comment and felt the need to respond (mistaking a few words for something he read on the Secular Outpost). He may have read a previous comment and realized no one was talking about what he was talking about and out of whole cloth came up with a completely irrelevant response.
We now know facts about Thnuhthnuh's biology and psychology that if Thnuhthnuh knew, would have caused him *not* to post such a stupid comment.
I know Euclidian geometry! I live near a polar bear. If you have any meaningful response, by all means give it.
But he was *immanent*. Physical. Flesh and blood. And, he held that the Father and He were distinct
ReplyDeleteLet me clarify: I'm not saying that on the face of it Job and the pentateuch would directly support him thinking about an incarnate God.
This is what I meant: Jesus may have believed reasonably in the existence of God on the strength of the teleological argument in Job 38 - 41, without being aware of other theories such as evolution, which were dependent on then inaccessible facts. If he also accepted Levitical sacrifice, he may have come up with an "epistle to the Hebrews" theory about the necessity of a perfect sacrifice, and thought of himself as that person.
IOW, if the culture offered no other intellectual options than the ones of his day, it would be reasonable to deduce a Christianity based on the *foundations* of what religion already existed, and thus reasonable for him to deduce he was the incarnate God/sacrifice. If he knew what we know about the physical world, coupled with the human tendencies to rationalize, and psychological disorders (which may account for prophetic writing, etc.), I think it's plausible that he would have discarded the *foundations* that he would have found so plausible in the 1C. Ie. it is possible he did not possess the "delusion" Dawkins speaks of.
But I don't think this is a necessary conclusion. I think it's likely the God passages (John 8:58, etc.) are later additions - so if you want to limit this to just the Dawkins quote, I've no disagreement with you.
THN,
ReplyDeleteYou're just *asserting*
No one is debating whether he *believed* these things. We're debating about whether he was "honestly mistaken" *about* those beliefs. Or, if he was insane for holding them, etc.
How does one "honestly mistake" that they are God incarnate, given his Jewish culture, *and* that he was *perfect.* Seems to me *one* disrespectful talk back to mum would prove otherwise. Seems to me *one* lust would have told him otherwise. Seems to me *one* coveting the neighbors new donkey would have told him otherwise. Seems to me *one* little white lie would have told him otherwise.
Then, have you read the Beatitudes? You seriously think he believed he kept *every single one of those commands*, though we *know* this is impossible to do, and he was "honestly mistaken" about said beliefs? Did't Hitchens' point out in "god is not Great" that a reason for the impossibility of Christianity was due to the impossibilityn of obeying the 10 commandments? So, he believed he did the impossible, and was "honestly mistaken" about this?
Throwing out wild *possibilities* doesn't make your "story" plausible, in the least!
"IOW, if the culture offered no other intellectual options than the ones of his day, it would be reasonable to deduce a Christianity based on the *foundations* of what religion already existed, and thus reasonable for him to deduce he was the incarnate God/sacrifice."
This is an *assertion.*
Why didn't many other Jews do it, if it was so reasonable? It's not like he based his beliefs off his being perfect (I've shown he couldn't have believed that due to "honest mistake"), it's not like he based them off miracles. or, was he "honestly mistaken" that he brought Lazarus back to life?
How did he deduce that he was incarnate from passages like: "God is not a man?" or did he not read that one?
Indeed, I thought all this stuff was made up much, much later. That's what most of your atheologians say, anyway. On the one hand, you're arguing that a develped hypostatic union was believed by Jesus, on the other some of your best thinkers say it wasn't developed until the 3rd or 4th centuries.
What do you mean *no other* intellectual optins. How about standard, orthodox Judaism?
How would the deduction go? Spell out some plausible premises and get to a conclusion.
And show he was "honestly mistaken" about those premises.
"But I don't think this is a necessary conclusion. I think it's likely the God passages (John 8:58, etc.) are later additions - so if you want to limit this to just the Dawkins quote, I've no disagreement with you."
Well, despite this *other* debate (i.e., Ehrman et. al. have been repeatedly corrected), you bring up the point I mention above. So, it now turns out you agree with me and my response to dawkins wasn't, as you bodly proclaimed, 'ridiculous.'
You've also not shown how Jesus can be "honestly mistaken" about *being God* and I can't be "honestly mistaken" that someone *other than me* is God. You're not dealing with the full breadth of my argument.
If he can, so can I. He also suffered from "the God delusion," which is a *virus* of the mind. This is an *ontological fact of the matter,* regardless of when he lived (assuming dawkins' presmises, of course). It seems like "hoenst mistake" wouldn't bea live option, especially when dealing with the deluded *par excellance.* Given everything else Dawkins has said, how he has no problem saying we are insane and looney, why didn't he just grab the dilemma by the horns: "Yeah, he was insane, so what?"? Seems odd, all this. And, you're not helping matters. That is, until you retracted.
Have a nice one!
"Certainly, if Jesus can be "honestly mistaken" about being God himself, how much more then (on Dawkinsian assumptions) can the theist be "honestly mistaken" in his belief that there is a God other than himself?"
ReplyDelete1. I don't think that Dawkins meant to say that Jesus could have been honestly mistaken about being "God incarnate" (your word, not his). That could have been a later theological accretion from his disciples. However, it is clear that Jesus was a religious leader who believed he had some sort of mission from God. In that sense it is possible that he was "honestly mistaken."
2. You are using the word "theist" and talking about Jesus Christ in the same sentence. Christians are theists, but not all theists are Christians. Now Dawkins claims that all theists are delusional on the basis that their belief in God is unjustified by any substatial rational arguments or evidence. I agree with him.
However, for somebody to believe in traditional Christian doctrine is on a completely different level of delusion than the person who believes in God. Besides from the argument from evil, christian believers either ignore or do not seriously deal with the many problems with Christianity - belief in a young earth (~6000 years), contradictions within the bible, moral atrocities committed by Yahweh, historical inaccuracies, etc. Unlike Dawkins, I can respect people who believe in God. I personally would not use the word "delusional" for theists (however, I would find that word appropriate to evangelical/fundamentalist community). Dawkins is very radical on some issues (for example, treating instances of parents giving their children religious education as child abuse) , and other people among the "new atheists" (your term) have called him out on these things.
Lyosha,
ReplyDeleteYou're simply ignorant of this entire discussion.
1. Dawkins is responding to Lewis who tries to make the argument that the best assumption is to believe that Jesus really was *God*
Thus Lewis, "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.'"
So, simple use of the logical part of your brain would conclude that since jesus thought himself carne, and himself the God of the Jews, then he thought himself God *incarnate.*
So, your #1 doesn't work. the context is Dawkins' response to *Lewis's* argument. Have we got that clear, now?
2. If all theists are delusionsal, and if all Christians are theists, then all Christians are delusional. I'm just asking why if Jesus can be "honestly mistaken," then why can't we.
I'm saying, Dawkins' options for explaining the Christians belief are "ludicrously inadequate" *on his own temrs.* On his own response to Lewis.
3. I don't have all the time in the world. So, save your goal post shifting, and side debates for another time.
Excuse me now while I go laugh at your statement that Christians haven't "dealt with the arguments." Wow, there's "contradictions" in the Bible? Thanks for letting me know. God did mean things in the Old testament? That's not supposed to happen. He's supposed to be nice, tame, and wuving with a humanistic wuv. Now I wish I would have read the Old testament. Would have saved me years of church, and all that boring stuff. I'm gonna go deconvert now.
Give me a break.
lyosha07 said:
ReplyDelete---
I don't think that Dawkins meant to say that Jesus could have been honestly mistaken about being "God incarnate" (your word, not his). That could have been a later theological accretion from his disciples.
---
And I could be Elvis.
You said:
---
You are using the word "theist" and talking about Jesus Christ in the same sentence. Christians are theists, but not all theists are Christians.
---
But Dawkins is the one who brought up Jesus specifically. Thank you for paying attention to context, it serves your argument so well.
You said:
---
Now Dawkins claims that all theists are delusional on the basis that their belief in God is unjustified by any substatial rational arguments or evidence. I agree with him.
---
A) Christian arguments are rational.
B) Dawkins definition of what is delusional is itself delusional.
C) By extent, since you agree with Dawkins you are likewise delusional.
Now that we have that out of the way...do you have any actual arguments?
You said:
---
I personally would not use the word "delusional" for theists
---
Except you just did when you said you agreed with Dawkins using the term.
Paul Manata said:
ReplyDelete"You're simply ignorant of this entire discussion.
1. Dawkins is responding to Lewis who tries to make the argument that the best assumption is to believe that Jesus really was *God*
Thus Lewis, "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.'"
So, simple use of the logical part of your brain would conclude that since jesus thought himself carne, and himself the God of the Jews, then he thought himself God *incarnate.*
So, your #1 doesn't work. the context is Dawkins' response to *Lewis's* argument. Have we got that clear, now?"
Notice that Dawkins does not take for granted the idea that Jesus thought that he was god, as you do. As I said, that could have been a later theological accretion. Thus it is possible to say that Jesus was both a great moral teacher (in certain things) and was nevertheless honestly mistaken about God. Lewis' trilemma thus takes for granted that the historical Jesus believed in his divinity. I do not doubt that there are many people in the world who think that they are on a mission from God and who are honestly mistaken.
" I'm just asking why if Jesus can be "honestly mistaken," then why can't we."
I'm not saying that you aren't honestly mistaken. However, you have much less of an excuse to believe in the Christian God than Jesus did. Modern science has disproven the Bible. Biblical criticism has exposed flaws within the text. Jesus didn't have these things in his time.
"Excuse me now while I go laugh at your statement that Christians haven't "dealt with the arguments." Wow, there's "contradictions" in the Bible? Thanks for letting me know. God did mean things in the Old testament? That's not supposed to happen. He's supposed to be nice, tame, and wuving with a humanistic wuv. Now I wish I would have read the Old testament. Would have saved me years of church, and all that boring stuff. I'm gonna go deconvert now."
1. Yes, there are contradictions in the Bible. There are plenty of online resources that I could point you to if you would like to educate yourself on the matter.
2. I'm not asking that God be like a warm cuddly bear. I'm asking that he be moral. A God who orders the destruction of entire populations and who predestines people to hell is not a moral being.
Peter Pike said:
"But Dawkins is the one who brought up Jesus specifically. Thank you for paying attention to context, it serves your argument so well."
Okay.
I brought up the fact that Dawkins considers all theists to be delusional, and not just Christians. The God Delusion is not just addressed to Christians, after all. I did not bring this up to advance any "argument", it was just a minor error detail that I thought I should make clear. Moreover, I cannot see what in this minor point you would feel compelled to express disagreement with, excepting the fact that when you wrote your comment you were angry and unthinkingly lashed out at everything I said. I notice that that is a common staple of your argumentation, Peter, and it makes it exceedingly difficult to stay on topic in a discussion with you.
Moving along.
When I claimed that the belief in Jesus' divinity was a late theological accretion (and thus making it possible that Jesus was honestly mistaken about his mission) You said:
"And I could be Elvis."
I did not make an argument for my claim, Peter, because all I am interested is defending Dawkins' refutation of Lewis' trilemma. Lewis argued that Jesus could not have been honestly mistaken, sane, and a mere man at the same time. I am not giving a historical argument about the human origins of belief in Jesus' divinity (I will leave that up to historians). I am arguing that Lewis' trilemma is invalid.
You said:
"---
Now Dawkins claims that all theists are delusional on the basis that their belief in God is unjustified by any substatial rational arguments or evidence. I agree with him.
---
A) Christian arguments are rational.
B) Dawkins definition of what is delusional is itself delusional.
C) By extent, since you agree with Dawkins you are likewise delusional.
Now that we have that out of the way...do you have any actual arguments?"
We could argue about Christianity, but in my post I was not expressing an argument so much as expressing a profession of (lack of) faith. I have valid reasons for my atheism, and I would be happy to discuss them. In fact, I have provided arguments against Christianity and theism numerous times on this board. On the most recent thread where you and I interacted (now its buried somewhere in the archives) I refuted one of your posts. You did not respond. I am willing to argue for atheism and have done so on numerous occasions on this blog.
"Except you just did when you said you agreed with Dawkins using the term.
I prefer not to use the word "delusional" in ordinary conversation with theists, as it does cause offense. However, I belive that the term is accurate.
I just read the following earlier this evening, prior to my skipping over to Triablogue to check out the latest. Since this post mentions C.S. Lewis's trilemma, and this other commenter discusses C.S. Lewis's trilemma, I thought it would be appropriate to quote it for this thread.
ReplyDelete"let me pick a well-known illustration that I think proves my point about Lewis and his seemingly blissful ignorance of NT scholarship.
As any lover of Lewis knows, one of his powerful apologetic arguments, especially developed in “Mere Christianity,” is his argument for the divinity of Christ that says that in light of the Master’s explicit claims to be divine in the Gospel of John, Jesus either had to be “a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord.” Those are the only logical options. Or as some paraphrase it, in the light of those Johannine claims like “I and the Father are one,” he had to be either “mad, bad, or God.”
Now I used to find that mode of reasoning very helpful. It’s a great way to counter the typical unbeliever’s assumption that Jesus was just a remarkably holy man and a great relgious and moral teacher. And Nicky Gumbel still uses that same argument in his Alpha tapes, especially the talk on “Who is Jesus?” Unfortunately, however, the initial premise on which it’s based is badly misleading, and this undercuts the whole argument for anyone familiar with NT scholarship. And that initial premiss on which it all depends is that the historical Jesus did in fact explicitly and openly claim to be divine.
Alas, I regret to say that practically no one who is well versed in NT scholarship would make such a bald, unnuanced claim. That is, from a historical (as opposed to theological) standpoint, it’s highly unlikely that Jesus made such open claims to divinity during his earthly ministry. There is virtually NOTHING in the Synoptic Gospels that supports such an idea. And this was already known and a staple of New Testament scholarship back in the 1940s when Lewis gave the radio talks during WWII from which Mere Christianity is compiled.
Now don’t misunderstand me. I’m not denying the Lord’s deity for one moment. And I think there are many things he said and did that IMPLY his divinity. Oh, yes, certainly the implication is there. But that he made such an explicit claim to it in his pre-Easter life and ministry is highly unlikely. For one thing, it would probably have provoked his execution much earlier. And it completely contradicts the pattern in the Synoptics (especially clearly in Mark) where Jesus forbids people to tell others who he is and that he is the Messiah.
Now the whole issue of how the Fourth Gospel relates to the other three is one of the classic problems in New Testament scholarship and it’s quite complex, much more so than most laity realize. Again, I hope readers won’t jump to false conclusions here. I am NOT denying the historical value of John’s Gospel. But my point here is the modest one that anyone who was very familiar at all with biblical scholarship just wouldn’t make the kind of simplistic claim that C. S. Lewis did when he made that “liar, lunatic, or Lord” argument.
But I hasten to add that this does NOT mean that I go so far as the infamous agnostic NT scholar Bart Ehrmann (who teaches at the U. of North Carolina) who says that Lewis overlooked a fourth option, i.e., besides being a liar, lunatic, or the Lord, the whole idea that Jesus claimed to be God is a “legend.” Nice alliteration, Bart, but this is also an exaggerated and misleading way of putting it, precisely because Jesus did do and say things that IMPLIED he was much more than human. And what are some of those things? Well for instance, presuming to forgive sins that only God can forgive (as in Mark 2), praying to God as “Abba” and publicly speaking of God as “MY Father” (implying a unique relationship but not necessarily divinity, cf. the ancient kings of Israel who were also called God’s son, as in Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7 etc.), and daring to re-interpret the Mosaic Law in quite radical ways ("he speaks WITH AUTHORITY and not as the scribes") and so on.
The trick is to maintain the right balance here. The first three gospels are indeed very different from the fourth one, but the gap between them shouldn’t be widened into a chasm and exaggerated either. Unfortunately, the whole sbject is too complicated for me to do justice to it here in a short post.
I know I may have just opened up another controversial topic, perhaps a whole Pandora’s Box by bringing up the contrast between John and the other gospels, and so I hasten to add that my aim is NOT to undermine anyone’s faith. And I’m sorry if anyone takes offense that I’ve just called into doubt one of their favorite arguments for persuading unbelievers that Jesus is truly God as well as truly human. I think the familiar argument of C. S. Lewis (and Nicky Gumble etc.) can be restated more accurately, and then it still holds up. But to simply read John and take its statements at face value as HISTORICALLY true is to make a false and simplistic (though natural) assumption about the KIND of book the Gospel of John is. In other words, it’s to make a mistake in assuming what sort of genre it fits in.
So, lest I be misunderstood, let me again affirm that all those “I am” statements in John and the other passages that clearly assert his divinity (which is clear from John 1:1 on all the way to Thomas’ declaration after the resurrection: “My lord and my God") are THEOLOGICALLY true. Of course, they are. But as I said repeatedly in my posts above, not everything in the Bible that appears “history-like” on the surface is to be taken literally as sober historical reporting (especially in the modern sense of the attempt to do objective journalism). And if that seems uncomfortably unsettling and to make things unnecessarily complicated, I can only say in reply, “Well, yes, I admit it makes me uncomfortable too, but that is the kind of book God has chosen to give us.” Take up the matter with Him. Please don’t shoot the messenger."
From: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/10605/#195358
That may be an interesting debate, but of course it is irrelevant to my very specific critique of Dawkins. My post had more to do with *Dawkins* than with Lewis. My post takes *Dawkins's* arguments and turns them against him. My post actually doesn;t make any statements, either way, about the validity of Lewis' argument.
ReplyDeleteAs far as his claims, they are ironic. Ironic because *he* appears to be the ignorant one about the NT and Jesus' claims to divinity.
Maybe the reason we don't understand the Dawkins is because we don't intuitively *grasp* philosophy the way he does.
ReplyDeleteThe Dawkins has left us in the dust!
I feel ludicrously inadequate!
The Dawkins is so highly evolved that us fundies look to him like monkeys leaping around, throwing fruit at each other.
Lyosha said:
ReplyDelete---
I brought up the fact that Dawkins considers all theists to be delusional, and not just Christians.
---
Which was completely irrelevant to the particular quote being examined.
You said:
---
I did not bring this up to advance any "argument", it was just a minor error detail that I thought I should make clear.
---
I'm fully aware you had no argument. But tell me, how does it help your cause any if you just make assertions knowing full well you're not making an argument, and then pretend offense when someone points out you didn't make an argument?
Finally, as mentioned above, the particular Dawkins quote being referenced specifically dealt with Jesus; thus, there was no "error" to restrict ourselves to that comment. It's not as if Paul was dealing with the entirety of The God Delusion.
But nice attempt at goal post shifting to try to make it look like what you said was relevant.
You said:
---
Moreover, I cannot see what in this minor point you would feel compelled to express disagreement with, excepting the fact that when you wrote your comment you were angry and unthinkingly lashed out at everything I said.
---
This just shows your amazing ability to shift goal posts yet again, as well as giving us a wonderful illustration of psychological projection. I already gave the reason that I made my comments: your non-argument assertion was irrelevant to the discussion.
BTW, I can't help if you feel someone correcting you means that person is "angry."
You said:
---
I notice that that is a common staple of your argumentation, Peter, and it makes it exceedingly difficult to stay on topic in a discussion with you.
---
Let's see...
Paul says X.
You say Y.
I point out that Y isn't X.
You say I'm changing the subject.
Riiiight.
You said:
---
I did not make an argument for my claim, Peter, because all I am interested is defending Dawkins' refutation of Lewis' trilemma.
---
Yes, and I did not make an argument for my claim because all I am interested [in] is showing making claims without arguments doesn't defend anyone's refutation against anything.
You said:
---
I am arguing that Lewis' trilemma is invalid.
---
Except you've admitted you offered no argument; you just gave claims.
You said:
---
We could argue about Christianity, but in my post I was not expressing an argument so much as expressing a profession of (lack of) faith.
---
In other words, you told us what we already knew: you're an atheist.
What's the point of that? Everyone here already knows you lack faith. I don't believe anyone is, to use the word in vogue, delusional enough to waste their time giving lots of claims without argumentation for the sole purpose of expressing an obvious truth that we already know.
But here's a pointer for you: the next time you want to express your lack of faith, just say: "I lack faith." That way no one can possibly mistake your long posts as an attempt to actually say something useful and necessary to interact with.
You said:
---
On the most recent thread where you and I interacted (now its buried somewhere in the archives) I refuted one of your posts. You did not respond.
---
Given the difficulties in discerning when you're emoting, when you're making bare claims, and when you're "arguing" (all of which look identical when you do it, but which you can nuance out depending on the level of criticism you receive), it ought not be surprising to you that something you wrote went "unchallenged."
You said:
---
I prefer not to use the word "delusional" in ordinary conversation with theists, as it does cause offense. However, I belive that the term is accurate.
---
In which case you must actually prove why it is accurate.
My post had more to do with *Dawkins* than with Lewis.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. Sorry for the too-quick-of-a-scan reading on my part. My comment was off-topic. Mea culpa.
As far as his claims, they are ironic. Ironic because *he* appears to be the ignorant one about the NT and Jesus' claims to divinity.
Heh, heh. They just don't graduate Ph.D's in theology like they used to. ;-)
Lyosha,
ReplyDelete"Notice that Dawkins does not take for granted the idea that Jesus thought that he was god, as you do."
That is irrelevant to my argument. Re-read my post before commenting.
And, The Dawkins says that Jesus could have been "honestly mistaken.' Okaaaaayyy, "honestly mistaken" about *what?* Well, HIS CLAIMS TO DIVINITY!
If Dawkins wants to argue that the Bible is unreliable, Jesus' divinity was a later invention, etc., THEN HE DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO ADDRESS THE LEWIS ARGUMENT.
You don't need an "4th" option, because Lewis' whole position is a NON-STARTER, then.
But, The Dawkins doesn't do this here. Why? Because he's trying to answer Lewis on his own terms.
Really, that you can't get all this is rather disturbing.
"As I said, that could have been a later theological accretion. Thus it is possible to say that Jesus was both a great moral teacher (in certain things) and was nevertheless honestly mistaken about God."
You're shifting the goal posts. You're not defending The Dawkins anymore. The Dawkins claims Jesus could have been "honestly mistaken" about BEING God HIMSELF. With your move, Dawkins just needs to say that Jesus NEVER THOUHT HE WAS GOD. *That* would be a better response than saying he was "hoenstly mistaken" about being God. But as it stands, he is trying to say that Lewis's options are "ludicrously inadequate." *What* "options?" Well, for those that EXPLAIN his claims to divinity. Really, this is simple stuff.
"Lewis' trilemma thus takes for granted that the historical Jesus believed in his divinity."
Right. Jesus said certain things. He made certain claims about himself. Based on that, then, the argument is: what best accounts for those statements. But, if Dawkins were making YOUR argument, then he would have simply said that Jesus never said those things. But The Dawkins didn't. He was answering Lewis on Lewis' own grounds. Your goal shifting and careless handling of Lewis, Dawkins, and me, make the discussion difficult.
" I do not doubt that there are many people in the world who think that they are on a mission from God and who are honestly mistaken. "
You keep wanting to ignore that Jesus CLAIMED to be God. It's not that he was just on a "mission."
Now, if you want to debate *that,* debate textual criticism, debate the reliability of the Gospels, etc., then that's *another* debate. But right now we're trying to deal with Lewis and Dawkins, not your goal post shifting. But right now we're saying what accounts for his claims.
It's one thing to think you have God's revelation, read that you are to kill all infidels, and then think your suicide mission is a mission from God. It is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING to say that you have existed for thousands of years, that you will judge the world, that you will decide who goes into heaven or hell, that you will come in the clouds to judge people, that you were the shepherd, the bridegoom, the rock, etc., in a Jewish culture where you knew that it had only been YAHWEH who had claimed he was that to the Jewish people, etc., etc., etc.,...
I'd recommend "Putting jesus in His Place" as well as "How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God" for excellent arguments showing that the irratiuonal stance to take is that Jesus wasn't claiming he was God.
Lewis also wrote at a popular level. But we could, to fulfill analytic idolatry :-), put it this way: Either Jesus was God or he was not; if he was not, either he knew that he was not or he did not know that he was not.
We can then ask what view fits best with the data we have...ALL the data. This includes the historical context of Judaism, which brighten many of the claims which otherwise would remain dark if we only read in a 21st century main frame. We could ask why he simply didn't correct the Jews when they said he was claiming to be God. Why would you let a misunderstanding perpetuate? But, of course, you could deny that the Gospels are a reliable wittness to all this; but in that case, we've *left* the context of my post and you'd be making irrelevant comments to the stated intention of my post.
"I'm not saying that you aren't honestly mistaken. However, you have much less of an excuse to believe in the Christian God than Jesus did. Modern science has disproven the Bible. Biblical criticism has exposed flaws within the text. Jesus didn't have these things in his time."
Well, I don't think the state of the debate is where you think it is. Your claims would simply be sliced and diced if you were forced to put them into rigerous argument. This is why even top-notch agnostics, like Graham Oppy, don't agree with your postmillennial, triumphalist spirit. Your comments simply show how ignorant you are.
At any rate, in a Jewish culture, I'd say the prevailing notion, and even deductions from the (what was believed to be) isnpired Old Testament, militated *against* the idea that the thrice holy, transcendant God os Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, could be a *man,* let alone someone like Jesus. Not only that, but that he would *die*! And, as I argued above, I think the experiential evidence of imperfection would be almost stronger than anything you (think you) have going today. First hand subjective experiences, immediate mental reports, are among some of the strongest evidence we have. Surely Jesus had to know that he violated the laws of God in some way, not to mention his own braoder explanations in places like the sermon on the mount. This would provide evidence that he *wasn't* God...*strong* evidence. So, I deny your claim on many levels.
"1. Yes, there are contradictions in the Bible. There are plenty of online resources that I could point you to if you would like to educate yourself on the matter."
Yes, I'm quite aware of them. Unlike you, I actually read much of the opposing literature. I've read my Oppy, my Martin, my Smith, my Drange, my Rowe, my Joshi anthologies, my Carrier, my Lowder, my Grayling, my Ehrman (and am reading his newest on the PoE), my Fales, my New Atheists (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett), etc., etc., etc. I've also publicly debated atheists. The record is public. I'm well aware of almost all your arguments. I've only grown stronger in my convictions. Sorry if that gets under your skin.
"2. I'm not asking that God be like a warm cuddly bear. I'm asking that he be moral. A God who orders the destruction of entire populations and who predestines people to hell is not a moral being."
Says you with your simplistic rendering. Why not include *all* the relevant data. For example, I dont think you think it is wrong for our country to punish criminals. To put thiefs, rapists, murderers, extorters, drug dealers et. al, behind bars, for example, if a good thing. But imagine, if you can take your blinders off, that *all* of the Christain story is to be taken into account. On our position, God is punishing criminals in his universe. So to me it sounds as if you're saying that the just punishment of cosmic criminals is 'immoral.' Now, you may not *agree* with a lot of the details, but your simplistic rendition is about as worrisome as a cloudy day, for the theist.
But perhaps you have an external standard of morality. One which you judge God's actions by. Then you'd need to promote it. I've done my fair share of reading in the field of ethics, and you should know that it's a wasteland out there. There's no agreed upon secular ethic. And I'll just lay one secular ethicist off of another in order to critque your position.
So you must understand, from where I'm standing, your tired quips aren't enough to bother me into thinking you have anything like an "argument" against my faith. I'm more worried about the qucik drying cement I put under a loose brick will hold in the rain than I am your "arguments."
TUD,
ReplyDelete"Heh, heh. They just don't graduate Ph.D's in theology like they used to. ;-)"
No, it's juts that having a Ph.D isn't a guarantee that you're right, or that you haven't bought into a certain bias.
I mean, look at Ehrman's great knowledge on textual criticism qua academic discipline, then go read his arguments in MJ and other places.
Examples like this can be multiplied.
No, it's juts that having a Ph.D isn't a guarantee that you're right, or that you haven't bought into a certain bias.
ReplyDeleteI sooooOOOOO agree!
In fact, I got lambasted once for writing the following:
"Trash with a Ph.D, after all is said and done, is still trash.
I was uncharitably misinterpreted, and despite my clarifications to their misinterpretations, they refused to understand the point of my statement above.
What they thought I was saying was that the professor-scholar with the 10 yards long c.v. and a bursting publication queue was trash. That he personally was trash.
In my clarifying statements, I wrote something like:
"I'm saying that a poor argument, even if it's advanced by someone with a Ph.D, doesn't validate and make the argument any better just because the arguer has a Ph.D. After all is said and done, when you evaluate an argument on its own merits, and it comes out as a poor argument, then it's a poor argument regardless of the credentials of the one making the argument."
So because of that experience, I no longer write, "Trash with a Ph.D, after all is said and done, is still trash."
People erroneously assume that I'm calling the person "trash". They fail to understand that I'm saying that if the argument is trash, it doesn't matter whether the arguer has sterling credentials.
TUD,
ReplyDelete"So because of that experience, I no longer write, "Trash with a Ph.D, after all is said and done, is still trash."
Except you just did, twice!
If you want, I will remove your comment forever so as to get rid of any incriminating evidence.
:-)
Thanks for the offer Paul. But keep my comment anyways.
ReplyDeleteI may resurrect that saying of mine just in case I'm feeling particularly peeved and belligerent when God's Glory is being mocked by some elitist, arrogant, prideful theologically liberal revisionist who's making some poor arguments to advance his historical and theological revisionist agenda.
Eg., I've had conversations with an Ivy-league ABD in biblical studies who supports abortion, and to support his pro-abortion views he continues to trumpet his proficiency in mainline modern biblical scholarship.
He wrote, "I am a Christian and I support abortion."