Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Are Christians Afraid To Doubt?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 269 of 300 (393101)
04-03-2007 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by anastasia
04-03-2007 2:19 PM


What do you WANT to see in order to believe? Does it take a million clones before you could believe in the possibility that one message is preserved?
Yes, exactly. If God was preserving his message, there would be one Bible, one Church, and absolutely no inter-Christian warfare over doctrinal issues.
But what happened to the Christian church and the Christian message is absolutely identical to what happens to organizations based on any other message; once the "message-giver" is no longer around to continually clarify his message, doctrinal issues result in schism. It happened in Scientology, for instance, after L. Ron Hubbard died. It happens in every religion, over time.
And if God were maintaining supernatural lockdown on the fidelity of his message, as was claimed, it wouldn't be happening in Christianity. Clearly, he's not doing that. (I believe he's not doing that because there's no such thing as God, and therefore God can't do anything.)
Why does the number of wrong answers rule out the right one?
Because that's what it means to preserve a message! A message that no one hears is not preserved. Sending a message requires someone to send it and someone to receive it. If all you get on the other end is static - from the interference of random signals - then the message wasn't received, and it's lost forever. That's a basic truth of what it means to preserve a message.
Oh my goodness, you have too many choices, poor thing.
Indeed. A God who was maintaining message fidelity would prevent those other choices, so that it would be obvious which message was the "right" one. That's what it means to preserve a message.
To the contrary, you have many diffent sects and Bibles, and the similarities amoung those who believe, no matter WHAT Bible they use, is quite striking when put next to the differences.
To the contrary - there's almost nothing that unifies their disparate belief systems. Churches that support homosexuality. Churches that oppose it. Churches that stress the divinity of Jesus. Churches that reject it. Churches that ordain women. Churches that refuse to. Churches that preach that all can be saved, by their own volition. Churches that stress that only God's elect will be saved. Churches that stress free will. Churches that teach free will is an illusion.
I've heard it all. Man, have you ever talked to Jar around here? He's got all kinds of crazy ideas that I've never heard from a Christian church, and yet he's still a Christian. Isn't he over here somewhere telling you how the Passion isn't even integral to the Christian experience? It seems as though there's nearly nothing you can agree on.
This gives credence to MY belief that God's message is living in people, not in books.
The fact that nearly every Christian has their own interpretation of God's "timeless, unchanging" message is proof that it isn't living in people, either.
This number of different people believing is also something which is found in the Bible, that all nations will be taught, and that all believers will not be found 'correct' at judgement.
All will not? In other words, no believer has the accurate version of God's message?
Isn't that what I've been saying all along? Maybe you misspoke.
As far as incredulity goes, aren't you also guilty of 'I don't know how anyone could possibly believe in this junk?'.
I've never said that, and I challenge you to produce a direct quote. It's no mystery at all to me how people could believe this junk; I recommend for starters that you review the post I just made to CTD (the one with the lines.) The emerging science of human cognition is providing a lot of answers for why people choose to believe things that are obviously false.
You have given no indication that your position is founded on anything 'real'.
Are you saying that there aren't more than 11,000 different Christian denominations worldwide? That there aren't two dozen or more individual, contradictory translations of the Bible, in English alone?
Are you saying those things aren't real? I've got a couple of those different translations sitting around the house. Are you saying I'm being delusional, that there's only one Christian denomination and only one English translation of the Bible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by anastasia, posted 04-03-2007 2:19 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by anastasia, posted 04-03-2007 3:14 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 270 of 300 (393102)
04-03-2007 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by anastasia
04-03-2007 2:27 PM


Well then you are not looking.
No, I'm looking. The Bible verse is a message to Abram, about the formation of the Hebrew nation of Israel and the glorification of the Israelites. The Magnificat is about the glory of God.
They're not about the same thing. You appear confused because they both mention "Israel."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by anastasia, posted 04-03-2007 2:27 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by anastasia, posted 04-03-2007 2:59 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 274 of 300 (393150)
04-03-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by anastasia
04-03-2007 2:59 PM


dupe post
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by anastasia, posted 04-03-2007 2:59 PM anastasia has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 275 of 300 (393151)
04-03-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by anastasia
04-03-2007 2:59 PM


This 'message' of God is proven to have been preserved up to the time of the NT and even in our time.
Of course, the much more likely explanation is that the author of the Magnificat had access to a Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by anastasia, posted 04-03-2007 2:59 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by anastasia, posted 04-03-2007 6:26 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 276 of 300 (393153)
04-03-2007 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by anastasia
04-03-2007 3:14 PM


Ok, so Catholicism has one Bible, one set of beliefs.
???
On what planet is that even true?
There is not static for everyone.
Oh, right. I keep forgetting - everybody makes the exact same claim of getting the straight dope direct from God, but you're the only one for whom that claim is actually true. Everybody else is either lying or mistaken.
No, only some god you are dreaming up. Why would I want God to make things so obvious?
I'm not saying that you do want that. But you don't get to make two contradictory claims simultaneously. You don't get to claim that God has preserved his message eternally for your personal reception, and then wonder why anybody would suspect God of preserving his messages when that's clearly the boring outcome.
It doesn't make any sense. If you don't want God to make things so obvious, then stop telling me that God has taken steps to make things so obvious. I don't even believe in God. I can only take your word on what you believe he's doing, so when you talk out of both sides of your mouth as you're doing now, it only makes you look more ridiculous.
All will not = not all will.
No, it doesn't. If you meant the latter, it's not the same as the former. "All will not" means "none will." "Not all will" means "some won't." (You'd think they never teach grammar or predicate logic these days.)
So people can choose to believe?
Did you go back and read the post I was talking about? Allow me to link to it:
Message 259
I mean, I assumed you had read it; you replied to it, after all. Go back and read more closely, this time, and follow the link to the Asch conformity experiments. Learn something about why people would believe in something they can see with their own eyes isn't true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by anastasia, posted 04-03-2007 3:14 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by anastasia, posted 04-03-2007 6:21 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 279 of 300 (393171)
04-03-2007 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by anastasia
04-03-2007 6:21 PM


I never even said that this straight 'dope' is observable to anyone.
If no one knows God's "true" message, then you can't exactly claim that it's been preserved, now can you?
You still can't prove that your pessimism has anything to do with reality.
Anastasia, it's not my pessimism that says that there's 11,000 Christian denominations worldwide; that's a fact. It's not my pessimism that says that there's 2 dozen different translations of the Bible, that's also a fact.
These are facts, not pessimism. They appear to be facts you're not even willing to face. You're just putting your fingers in your ears.
Your confusion doesn't make it go away, the world's confusion doesn't make it go away. That is what preservation is, isn't it?
If it's confused, then it's not preserved, now is it?
Who in their right grammatical mind would say 'all will not' when a nice simple word like 'none' exists?
Why are you asking me? You're the one who wrote it. If you don't know what your own writing means, I'm not the one to ask.
All (children) will not play ball today.
Not all (children) will play ball today.
If you think this is a fair substitute for;
No children will play ball today.
well, it isn't.
I can't imagine why you're having such difficulty reading statements in plain English. Take it from an English major, if you must - "All (children) will not play ball today" is synonymous with "No children will play ball today", and means something very different than "Not all (children) will play ball today."
Your relentless contrarianism is becoming ridiculous. Now you're disputing statements in plain English? You're really starting to look silly.
But that has nothing to do with Christianity.
I don't see anything in the research that says that it didn't apply to Christianity, and I'm not prepared to accept that just on your say-so. Why should I believe you? Again, this is just more of your relentless, ridiculous contrarianism. Whatever I say, you're convinced it must be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by anastasia, posted 04-03-2007 6:21 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by anastasia, posted 04-03-2007 8:47 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 281 of 300 (393198)
04-03-2007 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by anastasia
04-03-2007 8:47 PM


If there is a God, and if He has a message, it stands to reason that the almighty God would be able to preserve the message.
Sure, I suppose so. Since he clearly didn't preserve anything, I guess you just single-handedly disproved the existence of God. Congratulations!
The only thing they do is make it harder to find one message. They don't make it disappear.
If it's so hard that it's impossible, then indeed, they did make it disappear. Just like the Ark disappears into the Office of Naval Intelligence at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Allowing it to be all but impossible to recover the original message is not what I would expect from a God who was supposed to be making efforts to preserve the message. That's what I would expect from a message that was mutating through transmission, like a game of Telephone. In other words the proliferation of competing messages supports my view.
Luckily, I read with my eyes.
Well, take your fingers out of those, too.
Well, you said people can believe things that they see with their own eyes and know to be false. This does not apply to Christianity.
Because you say it doesn't? Let me lay it out for you - I don't believe you. In fact it seems obvious that it does apply; that the central claims of Christianity are accepted by many simply because everyone they know accepts them - indeed, proclaims them with great vigor. Anybody can see that the basic historic claims of Christianity, supported by no contemporary accounts, are ludicrous on their face. Water to wine? Coming back from the dead? Traveling around inside whales? They're as ridiculous as asserting that all three of those lines are the same length.
If it does, I don't 'see' anything that I know to be false.
Neither did the people in the example. That's the important thing to keep in mind. When, after the trial, they were asked why they made such an obviously incorrect answer, they blamed their vision. They were certain that they had "seen" what everybody else said they were seeing, even though it was impossible for them to have done so. The consensus view actually determined what they remembered seeing. So, of course you wouldn't "see" anything you knew to be false. You've been conditioned to see it as true.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by anastasia, posted 04-03-2007 8:47 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by anastasia, posted 04-04-2007 1:06 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 283 of 300 (393243)
04-04-2007 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by CTD
04-04-2007 12:47 AM


Re: Logic ain't all that
Either way, the premise that we can rely on answers because we used logic to obtain them is clearly falsified. Knowledge obtained in this way is very much subject to error.
I wouldn't say that it's subject to error; it's more accurate to say that it doesn't mean anything, because logic is only valid in so far as its axioms are.
What's definitely subject to error is intuition. Surely you must recognize this? For instance, apply your intuition here:
and tell me which of these two tables is the longest, and which is the widest.
Then get out a ruler and measure them.
It's impossible to look at these tables and not perceive that the leftmost is the longest and the rightmost is the widest, but if you measure them you'll see that they have the exact same dimensions.
This is just one instance where intuition fails (or can be tricked.) Certainly our intuition is as good as heuristic learning would allow, but intuition is very limited and biased to personal experience. When logic or observation or experimentation suggest conclusions that we find contrary to intuition, we should be very cautious about rejecting them on that basis. Our intuition is often a poor guide indeed. Or as Sam Harris says:
quote:
We now know a fair amount about how bad our intuitions can be--with respect to causality, probability, logical dependence, and a wide range of other parameters that determine our commonsense (and erroneous) view of the world. Spend a little time thinking about the Monty Hall problem, and once you understand it, witness how difficult it is to explain to someone who has never thought about it before. Even profoundly simple situations can confound us.
Andrew Sullivan and Sam Harris blog on the Bible, Islam, Jesus, Religion, Faith, and Death - Beliefnet
I'm with you on logic, CTD. It's not of unlimited value, and I certainly wouldn't set logic above conclusions drawn empirically from observation of the real world. But as a basic sanity check against failures of intuition, it can't be denied.
But ultimately, scientific inquiry into the condition of the universe is the best tool we have for truth-gathering. Certainly not intuition. Certainly not making things up because they make us feel good.
And lest we think logic is perfect, where did we get it?
I know a number of mathematicians who would inform you that the rules of logic were not invented, but rather discovered. (I think the idea that right ideas sit out there somewhere in Platospace waiting to be discovered is somewhat ridiculous, myself.) Logic is a language, like any other, only with a much stricter grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by CTD, posted 04-04-2007 12:47 AM CTD has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 285 of 300 (393248)
04-04-2007 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by anastasia
04-04-2007 1:06 AM


There is that possibility that the words of God are living right under your nose.
Since they can't be discerned, they clearly weren't preserved.
It's not like a game of Telephone. It is like many.
You're right. It's more like a game of Pyramid telephone, where the original speaker whispers to two people, and each of those two whisper to two others, and so on.
Tell me - have you ever played any game of telephone where the message at the end was the same one you started with? Isn't that the point of the game, that it never works out that way?
You're telling me that God made it so that it did; but clearly he didn't, because at the bottom of the pyramid (where we are) we've got thousands of different messages. If he had preserved his message, it would have been preserved in every telling. Therefore everyone at the bottom of the pyramid would have recieved the same message, because God preserved it at every step.
That clearly didn't happen.
Anyway, water to wine...that would sound to anyone living a few centuries ago much more plausible than would evolution of species and a big bang, complete with life forming from non-life.
I doubt it. Even at that time, people knew they could change animals and plants by selective breeding. And that's all evolution is - the recognition that the same force is at work in the natural world, too.
But water to wine? Wine is made from grapes, not from water. Everybody knows that. (I guess you have to water the grapes but you know what I mean.)
What is the big deal about making water into another liquid? What is so ridiculous about being swallowed by a whale? There are much stranger things that happen every day.
No, there's not. People don't change water into wine, and people don't ride around in whales. Those things don't happen.
Anyway, I only started this thing because I think it is fair to defend the poor folks who feel that the Bible is the Word of God from your pessimism.
Well, here's an idea. Instead of calling me names, why don't you try defending those folks by providing evidence that they're correct? That's usually how we do things around here. Not that it hasn't been fun, telling you what words mean in plain English and showing you line drawings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by anastasia, posted 04-04-2007 1:06 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by anastasia, posted 04-04-2007 12:32 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 293 of 300 (393303)
04-04-2007 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by CTD
04-04-2007 2:05 AM


I confess there is no evidence which circular reasoning cannot reject.
I don't know what you're talking about. You seem to have mistaken my reasonable skepticism for complete intractability. Please, don't confuse the complete impotence of your arguments with some failure to be reasonable on my part.
Have you any plausible scenario by which the martyrs who testified to the resurrection of Jesus were deceived?
Sure. They belonged to a religion based entirely on falsehoods, and only believed because everybody else they knew believed. (Go back to the Asch conformity experiments.)
It's not like there are any corroborated eyewitnesses to the resurrection. Indeed, it's all but impossible to say that many of these martyrs actually existed.
My observations give me no evidence with which I might honestly dispute this statement.
But, of course, you'll go on believing anyway, long after the rational basis for belief has fallen out from underneath you. And I'm the unreasonable one. Got it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by CTD, posted 04-04-2007 2:05 AM CTD has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 295 of 300 (393345)
04-04-2007 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by anastasia
04-04-2007 12:32 PM


Don't assume that everyone has your lack of discernment.
With 11,000 individual Christian denominations? I don't have to assume anything. It's obvious that nobody can correctly discern the message.
Why should your woulda coulda's have anything to do with what God does?
Ah, right. "God works in ways we can't understand."
Funny, though - that didn't seem to stop either you or CTD from purporting to know exactly what God set out to do and how he did it. How come the argument from ineffability is only trotted out to oppose my arguments? How come God's ineffability doesn't stimulate a little humility on your part? When it comes to God and his messages, you seem to be of the opinion that you know perfectly what God would and wouldn't do.
You would have a picture where there was a pyramid game, the RCC and the Jewish people, a few others have been 'playing' the longest, and the vast majority of these other sects created a new message and started their own games. They are hoping that they have it right by accident.
Sure. But the basic principle of Telephone is sound. (And each of the conditions you mention only makes it worse for you.) Telephone works because of the weakness of the basic Telephone duple - I speak a message that you hear. But you don't hear it quite the way I spoke it, and you don't quite remember it the way that you heard it.
You could do it in writing, too, if each element in the chain or pyramid had to re-write the original message.
As, you know, they had to do before the days of printing presses and photocopies. Telephone definitely applies to what we're talking about.
We are a long way from there in Christianity.
Right, right. Because you say so. Of course, from what I can see - as an ex-Christian - that's exactly where you are. Caught up in a "faith-based illusion."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by anastasia, posted 04-04-2007 12:32 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by anastasia, posted 04-04-2007 2:24 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 297 of 300 (393352)
04-04-2007 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by anastasia
04-04-2007 2:24 PM


It just gets boring to hear how 'God can't be real' because of YOUR personal logic.
You keep acting like this is all in my head, but the things I've told you are real facts about the world you live in. If you don't believe that there are so many translations of the Bible, go to a bookstore and see for yourself. If you don't believe that there are so many different denominations, look it up yourself.
If you don't believe me when I say that there's almost nothing that they have in common, then read about what they believe. These aren't things I'm making up in my head.
You must feel the same way when you hear someone say 'God MUST be real because of MY personal logic'.
Except then I show them the evidence that suggests that they're wrong. I listen to their logic and try to show them the flaws. And when, inevitably, they throw their hands up and tell me they were mistaken to think they could justify their faith with logic, I leave them alone. I can't reason someone out of a belief they don't think is reasonable.
Of course, even then I can't win, because Phat rolls up in here to tell me what an asshole I am for thinking he's unreasonable. And then the circle goes around again.
What are you doing, though? Telling me it's all in my head? I've gone out and sought out the facts that corroborate my views. What have you done besides imply that I'm making it all up? Nothing that I can see.
It is not about who is right, but about accepting the possibility that we are wrong.
I've accepted that possibility, and given you ample opportunity to show that I am with the production of evidence that supports your view. You've done nothing but ignore my view and my evidence, and certainly provided none of your own. Do you really think, when one side has evidence and the other is dissembling, that it's unreasonable for spectators to arrive at a conclusion about who is most likely right and wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by anastasia, posted 04-04-2007 2:24 PM anastasia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by ICANT, posted 04-04-2007 6:24 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 299 of 300 (393387)
04-04-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by ICANT
04-04-2007 6:24 PM


Re: Re-Numbers
I did my source says 1,200 denomintions in the US and worldwide 34,000 seprate Christian groups.
Thanks for another data point. The counts do vary widely, largely since there are so many "micro-denominations" that are difficult to track in surveys.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by ICANT, posted 04-04-2007 6:24 PM ICANT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024