I invite you to pick apart Christianity

[Totenkindly]

I have heard a Christian religious scholar essentially admit the miracles are probably just stories.

The degree of politicization that has happened within the debate about Christian historicity nowadays (which is reflected even in the microcosm of this thread) makes it hard to take the word of a Christian scholar on either side of the fence.

I'm going to do some more reading, but I've recently heard the idea that fundamentalism is a reaction to modernity and that actually before 150 years or less, the idea of the "taking the Bible literally" was a viewpoint few people held. I think we're so immersed in and influenced by the last 50-100 years of Western culture that it's easy to assume the beliefs held now were the ones that were always held for centuries... and then get defended as such when it's actually a fairly new arrival. I certainly know the propensity for conservative culture to circle the wagons, protect the boundaries, and not allow new information inside the borders contributes to this sense that things have always been this way and will continue to be; I found it an eye-opener to get outside of my own microcosm and realize the diversity in thought and belief even within one particular religion over time. it puts everything in context.

Impossible to prove or disprove.

True.

Heh, Edgar has just demonstrated that a straw man argument becomes logical as long as you attach a picture to it.

It wasn't much of an argument, merely a mirror in which we can better see the people around it by how they react to it. (At least I hope that was his point.)

Ahh yes the usual shtick: if you dislike something about Christianity, blame St. Paul.

Poor Paul. All that work, all that abuse at the hands of the Romans, and now he's become everyone's whipping boy... again.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm not saying that this event didn't have an effect, but on the other hand I think it's a bit naive to think that the beginning and end of all of Christianity is stated in The Da Vinci Code. Christianity has had a good 16-17 centuries since Constantine. The Protestant bible has 66 books in it. The Catholic bible has a few more, and certain orthodox faiths have a couple extra books (depending on which one you are talking about). However if you take the intersection of all these canons you get the same 66 books that are in the Protestant bible.

I think it would be more interesting to follow the evolution of memes over long periods of time within cultures.

Right now, this sort of thinking might sound reasonable, and it's too close to home because some of us are immersed in it. I think the telling point would be to track some DIFFERENT item over a long period of time and note how it changes and develops and evolves... all while the bulk of the people are trying to interact authentically with it (plus the few malevolent bad apples that seek to actually twist and manipulate it to their own ends).

You are claiming this process justifies that the current Bible all be taken authentically, as you believe it to be. If we find other items where the later result doesn't mesh with the starting point, even while the process itself was natural and just involved innocent transmission, then it sort of shoots that assumption in the foot. I don't even think some of us have really bothered to consider HOW long 300-400 years is. The United States has not even been in existence for 250 and the country is very different in attitude and outlook and understanding and approach. I mean, even the political parties that we know today under have changed roles a number of times, even when their names were the same.... but we still read our modern context back into things.

So from this we can conclude a couple of things. 1) People are not just blindly following the will of Constantine. The canon has been examined by various faiths and that is why they differ a bit depending on which part of Christianity you are referring to.

No, Constantine just consolidated and trimmed the hedge, so to speak -- formalizing what had grown to be an informal canon. But of course, the canon had evolved and developed by then into what got codified... so what was the natural selection process earlier like? (I find it ironic, btw, to consider that social natural selection is what produced the current canonical meme.)

We can't just assume that because the end result was just codifying much of what was accepted by that time that the earlier process was kosher and fair. There was a ruthless competition of ideas, most of which few (if any of us) can ever learn or detail.

2) Even with these differences the similarities far outweigh the differences. The scripture has been scrutinized by Christians over the ages, and they've decided they like what's in there and want to keep it.

Vague appeal to unknown experts = lots of assumptions. Lots of sincere people have studied it and the current Bible exists the way it does because people agree... but you know as well as I do (being members of a personality theory site) that everyone has a different definition for what "credibility" is and how much that determines what survives to reach the end of the pipeline. You'll note which sorts of people typically end up on which sides of the argument... and where that doesn't happen, you'll note a particular background of training/immersion as children in the POV they've been holding.

 

[Sniffles]

I'm going to do some more reading, but I've recently heard the idea that fundamentalism is a reaction to modernity and that actually before 150 years or less, the idea of the "taking the Bible literally" was a viewpoint few people held.

More than a few times I've pointed out that Christianity grew out of the allegorical traditions of Hellenic Judaism.

I think it would be more interesting to follow the evolution of memes over long periods of time within cultures.

All things change and develop. The question is on what basis do they change and develop. Not all forms of change and development are equal.

 

[Eric B]

The degree of politicization that has happened within the debate about Christian historicity nowadays (which is reflected even in the microcosm of this thread) makes it hard to take the word of a Christian scholar on either side of the fence.

I'm going to do some more reading, but I've recently heard the idea that fundamentalism is a reaction to modernity and that actually before 150 years or less, the idea of the "taking the Bible literally" was a viewpoint few people held. I think we're so immersed in and influenced by the last 50-100 years of Western culture that it's easy to assume the beliefs held now were the ones that were always held for centuries... and then get defended as such when it's actually a fairly new arrival. I certainly know the propensity for conservative culture to circle the wagons, protect the boundaries, and not allow new information inside the borders contributes to this sense that things have always been this way and will continue to be; I found it an eye-opener to get outside of my own microcosm and realize the diversity in thought and belief even within one particular religion over time. it puts everything in context.

I would think that the Catholics and Reformers all along took the Bible literally, overall (Hence, the persecution of astronomers for saying the world was round, or not at the center fof the universe). Doctrines like the Virgin Birth, Flood, and all the miracles were generally held literally.

Fundamentalism arose over the strictly literal interpretations of Genesis (young earth) and perhaps also Revelation, which may not have always been taken literally like the other doctrines (especially not the eschatological positions). At least, those were the distinctive doctrines they emphasized. And then, with the modernists questioning those other "essential" doctrines, that was when fundamentalists arose and said enough was enough.

The question I've been pondering, as far as eschatology, was how literal it was taken back among the original audience. Especially all the "new world"/"destruction" language, which was supposed to be something occuring "soon". Just on that one point, the entire of understanding of everything else in the Biblefor the centuries afterwards, possibly changes.

 

[Totenkindly]

More than a few times I've pointed out that Christianity grew out of the allegorical traditions of Hellenic Judaism.

Good, thank you.

All things change and develop. The question is on what basis do they change and develop. Not all forms of change and development are equal.

Well, yes.

 

[Sniffles]

I would think that the Catholics and Reformers all along took the Bible literally, overall (Hence, the persecution of astronomers for saying the world was round, or not at the center fof the universe). Doctrines like the Virgin Birth, Flood, and all the miracles were generally held literally.

You're wrong on all accounts. Catholicism has never upheld a literalist interpretation of scriptures, nor did it persecute astronomers for saying the world is round. That notion was invented out of thin air in the 1830s.

 

[Edgar]

You're wrong on all accounts. Catholicism has never upheld a literalist interpretation of scriptures, nor did it persecute astronomers for saying the world is round. That notion was invented out of thin air in the 1830s.

So Galileo stayed in his house because he liked it and not because he was under a house arrest?

 

[Totenkindly]

So Galileo stayed in his house because he liked it and not because he was under a house arrest?

Regardless of his scientific beliefs, is it true that Galileo pretty much instigated the whole conflict in a way that demanded his imprisonment, so that his ideas would get more notoriety? (Yes, I'm too lazy to look it up, but maybe someone here has heard this before.)

 

[Sniffles]

Regardless of his scientific beliefs, is it true that Galileo pretty much instigated the whole conflict in a way that demanded his imprisonment, so that his ideas would get more notoriety? (Yes, I'm too lazy to look it up, but maybe someone here has heard this before.)

I dealt with the issue here:
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...nsidered-part-conversation-15.html#post618660

 

[Oberon]

Why are you so sure that at some point, we won't be able to explain all natural phenomena?

Maybe because attaining such knowledge would be utterly unprecedented?

 

[onemoretime]

Maybe because attaining such knowledge would be utterly unprecedented?

Three hundred years ago, think about the knowledge we have nowadays that would have been considered utterly unprecedented... and humans had been around for 250,000 years at that point.

 

[Sniffles]

Why are you so sure that at some point, we won't be able to explain all natural phenomena?

Because I recognise several things: 1) the immense engimatic complexity of the universe and 2) man's limitations in understanding it

The more you know about the world, the more aware you become of how much you DON'T know. As Socrates put it, the wise man is one who knows he's ignorant.

Three hundred years ago, think about the knowledge we have nowadays that would have been considered utterly unprecedented... and humans had been around for 250,000 years at that point.

"We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount....The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
--General Omar Bradley

 

[Oberon]

Three hundred years ago, think about the knowledge we have nowadays that would have been considered utterly unprecedented... and humans had been around for 250,000 years at that point.

And how much closer are we to "knowing it all" than we were a quarter million years ago?

You have no idea and neither do I.

I repeat: Coming to know everything there is to know is an unprecedented event. We've never done it before. We don't even have a measure by which to judge how close we are. Under the circumstances, it's a much safer bet to say it will never happen than to be assured that it will.

 

[Sniffles]

And how much closer are we to "knowing it all" than we were a quarter million years ago?

You have no idea and neither do I.

Although deeply anti-religious, Nietzsche was equally skeptical of those who claimed science could provide all the answers too. He remarked that while our "descriptions" of the world have become more complex, our actual "understanding" of it is on the same level as back in Plato's day.

That's a good way of putting it IMO.

 

[Totenkindly]

Because I recognise several things: 1) the immense engimatic complexity of the universe and 2) man's limitations in understanding it

The more you know about the world, the more aware you become of how much you DON'T know. As Socrates put it, the wise man is one who knows he's ignorant.

I'm so confused.

A lot of conservative religion claims we can know immutable things about God, a nebulous entity; that this understanding comes immediately through revelation in all of its complexity and certainty; and that this is good enough to impose one's beliefs on others via political and social context.

Yet empirical science, which can be falsified and observed and tested and has also shown a historical pattern of increasing (and valuable) knowledge by the perpetuation of this empirical pattern of testing, is immediately placed under the "untrustworthy" rule because it can't possibly understand the world in all its complexity?

I don't think that's what's being said anyway.

• Science never has to "understand everything" nor even claim that it must. It is merely a process that is used to explore and understand (and potentially manipulate) the world.
  
• Religion is what insists that it "knows the truth" up front, usually via special revelation, so no testing or exploring is actually necessary. There's no reason to explore, except to justify what is already believed and accepted.

"We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount....The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
--General Omar Bradley

Yeah, whatever. That's at one extreme, the religious zealots are at the other, and the truth rests somewhere in between.

 

[Oberon]

Yeah, whatever. That's at one extreme, the religious zealots are at the other, and the truth rests somewhere in between.

I think the truth probably lies off in some direction none of us ever expected.

Reality isn't bound by our compromises, you know.

 

[ajblaise]

I'm so confused.

A lot of conservative religion claims we can know immutable things about God, a nebulous entity; that this understanding comes immediately through revelation in all of its complexity and certainty; and that this is good enough to impose one's beliefs on others via political and social context.

Yet empirical science, which can be falsified and observed and tested and has also shown a historical pattern of increasing (and valuable) knowledge by the perpetuation of this empirical pattern of testing, is immediately placed under the "untrustworthy" rule because it can't possibly understand the world in all its complexity?

I don't think that's what's being said anyway.

• Science never has to "understand everything" nor even claim that it must. It is merely a process that is used to explore and understand (and potentially manipulate) the world.
  
• Religion is what insists that it "knows the truth" up front, usually via special revelation, so no testing or exploring is actually necessary. There's no reason to explore, except to justify what is already believed and accepted.

+1.

It's very hard to come up with a coherent and rational criticism of the scientific method, because it's a completely rational process.

 

[Sniffles]

I'm so confused.

A lot of conservative religion claims we can know immutable things about God, a nebulous entity; that this understanding comes immediately through revelation in all of its complexity and certainty; and that this is good enough to impose one's beliefs on others via political and social context.

Yet empirical science, which can be falsified and observed and tested and has also shown a historical pattern of increasing (and valuable) knowledge by the perpetuation of this empirical pattern of testing, is immediately placed under the "untrustworthy" rule because it can't possibly understand the world in all its complexity?

I don't think that's what's being said anyway.

• Science never has to "understand everything" nor even claim that it must. It is merely a process that is used to explore and understand (and potentially manipulate) the world.
  
• Religion is what insists that it "knows the truth" up front, usually via special revelation, so no testing or exploring is actually necessary. There's no reason to explore, except to justify what is already believed and accepted.

Science is a tool, based upon empirical observation and experimentation. It cannot determine metaphysical truths, which is the realm of religion and philosophy. The notion that science is the ultimate source of truth is called Scientism, which in the end is still a philosophical perspective about science.

Empirical study and religious revealation are not necessarily opposites. After all, the natural world is a creation of God - so the study of it can help us understand further the nature of God's work. This was certainly the perspective of many of the Medieval Scholastics, and according to scholars like Lynn White this theological perspective actually helped give birth to theoretical science altogether - since it involved smashing the old pagan conceptions of animism and demythologising the natural world.

This also leads into issues concerning Occasionalism, which I touched upon briefly earlier in the thread; namely that it's not advanced much within Christian circles.

 

[Sniffles]

+1.

It's very hard to come up with a coherent and rational criticism of the scientific method, because it's a completely rational process.

Circular Reasoning?

 

[onemoretime]

And how much closer are we to "knowing it all" than we were a quarter million years ago?

You have no idea and neither do I.

I repeat: Coming to know everything there is to know is an unprecedented event. We've never done it before. We don't even have a measure by which to judge how close we are. Under the circumstances, it's a much safer bet to say it will never happen than to be assured that it will.

What's to say that it's impossible? Hell, traveling to the moon was impossible 75 years ago - and people were only barely beginning to understand that it was workable. Why set these limits for yourself?

Although deeply anti-religious, Nietzsche was equally skeptical of those who claimed science could provide all the answers too. He remarked that while our "descriptions" of the world have become more complex, our actual "understanding" of it is on the same level as back in Plato's day.

That's a good way of putting it IMO.

How would you define "understand"? We understand the world in much more complex ways than Nietzsche had available to him - there was no relativity theory nor quantum theory in those days. The idea of chemistry being applied physics was only barely in its nascence.

I have to think that this comment is less relevant than it was in his day.