Choosing a faith

Carrier's views are outside the mainstream of *Christian* scholars, not historical scholars. There are very few non-believing historians making Christ the focus of their studies. My guess is that a very high percentage of historians making Christianity central to their work are Christians.Even when researchers are all studying the same thing they make significant errors. Wegener's continental drift theories were rejected for decades. Alvarez's asteroid collision theory was also rejected for a very long time. In both cases scientists clove to traditional views because of the absence of evidence to the contrary, not because of positive evidence.That is to say that the absence of evidence means the conclusion should be, "I don't know," not "I adhere to the same views as my predecessors," which is a form of the fallacy of Appeal to Authority.I don't think you should read a book by Carrier. First of all such a request runs against the Forum Guidelines, but more importantly I think those here who hold the same or similar views are having little difficulty expressing them.--Percy

You just restated, though at greater length, your approach of only accepting the parts of the Bible you like. I know your answer is that you accept both the good and the bad of the Bible, but you have not been able to defend this claim, and you have often explicitly rejected bad parts of the Bible, e.g., from Message 27: Moving on: The entire emphasis of Christian thought throughout history has been on the afterlife. "Christianity according to GDR" is not a Christianity that many Christians would recognize. The people I know who are involved with Goodwill and soup kitchens aren't particularly religious.Just because Christianity was your path to what you feel is a better place doesn't mean that Christianity is everyone's path to a better place. You're looking for universal truths, but all you're finding or will find is GDR truths, things that are true for you and work for you. You have no idea what that might look like because you have no evidence. The "lack of evidence" theme runs strongly through almost all your ideas.--Percy

Wasn't me.--Percy

Now you're just playing word games with "worship". We all know what worship means in a religious context. I still recall the first time someone used this on me. "Oho, Percy," said Fred Williams of The Evolution Fairytale, "so it is evolution that you worship." You wrote this a couple weeks ago, so it should seem new as you reread it now, and it should be self-evident how this is still a non-answer. You're selecting which portions of the Bible to accept based on what you see in Jesus, but what you know about Jesus is from the Bible. That's as circular as can be. You're only fooling yourself if you think your 2 Timothy argument is analogous or relevant. I see Christianity, too, if by that Lewis means Christians and Christian churches and Christian iconography and Christian books and so forth. There is no doubt that Christianity exists. But how is any of that evidence of the truth of Christianity?But if "seeing Christianity" is just a synonym for believing it then he's just saying the same thing in two different ways.And what does "By it I see everything else." What is it he is seeing that he can't see if he wasn't "seeing Christianity"? We've already established that atheists experience empathy and altruism just like Christians. Why are you writing things that you know make sense to no one else? You've got your beliefs and they work for you. Why is it worth your time trying to convince others of the truth of what you believe? Do you also understand the degree of empathy of those causing the suffering? Okay, but that's you. No one would argue that you shouldn't feel that way. Why are you arguing that because you feel this way it is evidence for what you believe? You've said this before, and my answer is the same: Why do you keep making claims that evidence exists?--Percy

But now you're back to claiming you have evidence. You have both claimed to have evidence and to have no evidence. The flip-flopping is driving people crazy, or at least me. I think everyone's fine with what you believe religiously. It's your belief that there's evidence for what you believe that people take issue with. This is just a mindless tit-for-tat attempt of, "He accused me of raising the same issues, so I'll accuse him of asking the same questions."What's actually happens is that we raise an issue, you provide an answer, we point out problems with the answer, and you complete the cycle by saying things that begin with phrases like, "I just can't believe...", and then you give the same answer again. Your answers have no foundation of evidence. For example, if I again state Jesus likely didn't exist, you'll begin citing what you believe is evidence he did exist, despite acknowledging on numerous occasions that you have no evidence.I don't get you. Even though this discussion hasn't changed your beliefs, even you have to recognize how inconsistent you've been about evidence.--Percy

The Bible is not a "historical account." It's a mishmash of fact, history, religion, fantasy, and fallacies that people thought true over 2000 years ago. You're correct about confidence depending upon cross-confirming accounts, but there are no such accounts for the religious stories in Bible, including the accounts in the NT.And historical evidence is not just written accounts. It also includes archeological evidence. For example, the absence of archeological evidence for temple constructions from when Solomon was presumed to have ruled have raised serious doubts about the dating in the Bible, and even of the reality of Solomon himself.Historical evidence also includes oral accounts. Much of what we know of American Indian history comes from oral accounts.It also includes writings that were never intended as a historical record, such as stories, novels, plays, poems, advertisements, etc.Concerning the gospel stories, there are no confirmatory accounts. Concerning Jesus's existence, there's nothing contemporary despite the amazing claims in the gospels which had they really happened would have sent every literate person of the period scrambling for their writing instruments. I think you missed Tangle's meaning. I saw him saying something different, that when you say something like "most scholars" you really mean "most Christian scholars." The study of Christian history is strongly dominated by Christians, who are unsurprisingly very credulous of its claims. Non-Christian students of Christian history, whose numbers are far fewer, unsurprisingly arrive at different conclusions.I'm sorry you put yourself through the pain of reading Dawkins if it was The God Delusion. It's just a lengthy screed.--Percy

Or it could have been this or it could have been that or it could have been the other thing. You have no evidence by which to narrow the possibilities. And you continue to ignore the obvious possibility, that this is just what people promoting religions have done since time immemorial, make things up. He might be referring to Jesus's prophecy of the destruction of the temple:

quote:

---

“Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
  —Matthew 24:2

---

--Percy

Actually it's a reference to what had already happened, the destruction of the Temple and the retreat to the stronghold at Masada.--Percy

A scholar outside his field is just another layman. Dawkins is brilliant and his span of knowledge is vast, but while true polymaths do exist I don't think many would consider Dawkins one of them. His comments on religion have always, at least to me, seemed driven much more by irrational hatred than by intellect.Fred Hoyle, if you've heard of him, is a good example of the pitfalls that lie in wait of geniuses who step too far outside their field of expertise.--Percy

On a positive note, at least you're not predicting the second coming.The church is no more connected to their presumed divine than it ever was. Hence, any changes will be man-made and completely unrelated to any divine reality, should such exist. If this discussion has taught you just one thing one would hope it would be that "IMHO" is equivalent to "I have no evidence-based rationale for what I'm about to say." Yes indeedy. And you're not half bad at it. The conundrum is why you can't take the next step and see that all your thinking is arbitrary with respect to the Bible, and driven from within with respect to yourself. --Percy

The clear conclusion is that there is a God and he is punishing you. If you mean evidence of the supernatural then no, I don't think there's any evidence for the supernatural anywhere in the world, and especially not in any of the world's religious books which are well known for their fantabulous claims. Why do you think we'd agree on that? Christian scholars keep pushing for absurdly early dates, but the earliest possible date of an actual NT fragment is the first half of the second century. Lord knows that no one ever writes anything false that they intend to be believed. Lord knows that when many people believe true something that is false that that makes it true. The world is flat. Zeus lives on Mount Olympus. Trump won the 2020 election. Covid's a conspiracy. You seem to be saying that a person believing something is evidence it is true, and that the more people who believe it the more likely it is true. But I gave four examples of false things believed by millions. What you seem to want is a special definition of evidence for Christianity where evidence is based not on what has been established as being observed but upon what people believe was observed.This is apropos:

quote:

---

If you'd come today, you would have reached a whole nation.
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication.
  —Jesus Christ Superstar

---

That's the way of gods, isn't it. Their acts and miracles just never take place anywhere they can be confirmed. You'd think that in a world of eight billion people that God couldn't commit the tiniest miracle without someone noticing in ways that leave no doubt, but instead we're left with images of Jesus on toast and crying statues of the Virgin Mary. You said you could use bad things as evidence of God as easily as good things, and I've been providing specific examples of bad things. And I only began listing bad things because of your claim that you could use them to argue for the existence of God, but now you're arguing the opposite, that bad things are evidence against God. Make up your mind. You're must be thinking of some other argument you made to someone else. You were pretty clear in claiming you could make equally good use of good and bad as evidence for God. That would be a distraction and completely unnecessary. It's not necessary to my point for you to believe evidence for the evolutionary origins of altruism exists. For the sake of discussion let's assume there is no such evidence, that it's just one more thing about the real world that science can't explain.But throughout time religion has made an industry of resorting to not yet understood phenomena as proof of the divine, but the entire history of science is one of explaining the previously unexplained, and so religion has had to keep shifting to new claims. If it were really true that we do not at present understand the evolutionary origins of altruism, do you really want to bet your proof of God on the chance that science will never find the explanation?An example of religion resorting to citing what science doesn't yet know as an argument for the divine is the missing neutrino problem. I won't get into detail, but in essence they argued that the missing neutrino problem meant that science was wrong about fusion at the center of stars. Therefore the universe was much younger than science thought, about 5000 years old just as the Bible says, meaning that the Bible was literally inerrant. Yes, it was the creationists. You're using the same style of argument as the creationists. No it's not. This is you being disingenuous and trying to change the focus to nuts and bolts. It's a fact that you look to God for your "why" about the innocent deaths when there's no sign of the supernatural anywhere. I don't think our ideas differ at all. God as a meme. Sure, I'm on board.--Percy

To quote Juliet, you're as inconstant as the moon. In this quote you're arguing that the Bible *is* evidence for the supernatural, but quoting as accurately as memory allows from one of your prior messages, you said, "I know I have no evidence."You seem to be well aware that you have no evidence, but when something specific comes up like the existence of Jesus or the supernatural then your rationality takes a hike and suddenly you're sure there's evidence. Subjectively choosing what to believe based upon personal preference is the opposite of objectively assessing evidence. In fact, what you're doing is antithetical to any rational process. You're choosing your beliefs first and then seeking evidence for them by selectively choosing Biblical passages. In a rational process you gather and assess evidence before reaching conclusions. Julius Caesar did fight the Gallic Wars about 2000 years ago, roughly a century before the time of Jesus. We know a great deal about the Gallic Wars from actual historical evidence. Caesar wrote a book, full of exaggerations and boasts, but still very useful. The war's success drove Caesar's wealth, fame and power, allowing him to make himself a dictator and ending the Roman republic. These real events were recorded by multiple people. We have multiple cross-confirming accounts. There are actual artifacts evidencing the war in museums today, and probably many more lying undiscovered in the ground.But concerning the historical evidence for Jesus, there's only a paucity of references made at least decades later that indicate there might be a real person beneath all the religious twaddle. No objective evidence of any historical event? Are you daft? One characteristic you share with the Trump nuts is the ability to utter the absurd without shame or remorse. I don't get you.A rebuttal to such a goofy claim shouldn't even be necessary, but I'm a sucker for stating the obvious. For evidence of historical events (mostly the mundane) visit any history museum, archeological site or ancient ruins. Here's a shot I took in Greece. This is Athens, but these particular ruins are Roman. What do you know, objective evidence that Rome conquered and occupied Greece: And in many Italian museums you'll find Greek statues unearthed in Italy because they had been plundered from Greece a couple millennia before. Whether the evidence is written or artifactual or some combination, strong cross-correlative evidence results in consensus, something that happens a lot concerning actual history, while weak evidence results in huge fractures of opinion, which is exactly the case with religion. There are multiple major religions, and almost every religion is divided into sects and sub-sects. The lack of evidence precludes any concensus. I didn't miss your point. You never stated it. And if that was what you really intended to say, why didn't you say it that way the last time you brought it up or at least this time. And anyway, there's also no need to state the glaringly obvious. And it ends with a retelling of McLaren's call for Christians to let religion help them become the best people they can be. If religion helps you be a better person then I'm sure everyone here thinks that's wonderful. But you becoming a better person has nothing to to with the lack of credibility of your religious book as a historical account of the life and death of Jesus.--Percy

GDR appears to have abandoned this thread about a week ago, so I am, too.--Percy

I think GDR's the one who should watch this. Ehrman says all the things we've been telling him about history in this thread. Ehrman focuses on the resurrection, but the principles he describes apply to everything in the past, which includes all aspects of Jesus's life, including his very existence.--Percy

It might just be me, but the more that discussion rolled along the more he seemed to echo creationist behavior where old arguments are endlessly recycled as if never been rebutted before.I've pointed out countless times in creationist threads that their presentation of an old argument is never followed by, "Now I know that your response is..." and then go on to address that response. Instead they act like it had never been discussed before.--Percy