"The God who wasn't there"

[MechAg94]

E=MC^2  ?

[41magsnub]

I do not share any of the beliefs of Christians, apart from a core belief in objective morality.

Yet I do not find it in any way alarming that people believe Jesus might return, or whatever else people believe I don't agree with.

Exactly my position.  In my opinion if somebody wants to waste their time in prayer, it is their time to waste and if it provides some comfort to them then good deal.  I respect their beliefs as long as I am not forced to participate in them.

[Nick1911]

E=MC^2  ?

Right, so matter and energy are, after a fashion, interchangeable.  We'll run with that.

Okay cool.  The first law of thermodynamics; the conservation of energy.  Like matter, energy can't be created or destroyed either, yes?  So the total sum of matter and energy in the universe, while it may shift one way or another (as governed by E=MC^2), is a constant - which leads back to square one.

Exactly my position.  In my opinion if somebody wants to waste their time in prayer, it is their time to waste and if it provides some comfort to them then good deal.  I respect their beliefs as long as I am not forced to participate in them.

This is a very good stance to adopt.  Each to his own.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

"I swear, I'll never understand or be able to accept religion.  undecided   The concepts are just flat out foreign - almost surreal - to me."


the older you get the less you'll use never, darndest thing

[Nick1911]

the older you get the less you'll use never, darndest thing

Perhaps.  Time will tell, I suppose.

[freedom lover]

Perhaps matter always existed in some form or another

I know I don't have enough faith to believe that. I think that everything had to have a beginning, and the only way for it to get there would be an extremely powerful god, who would obviously transcend matter.

In the end it all boils down to faith. You can't prove everything. I have no idea where god came from, and I can't explain how he would transcend matter, or how he would create it. I simply don't have enough faith to believe that something could come out of nothing, or that something physical and changeable like matter could have always existed.

[Perd Hapley]

I'd be interested to know what, or who, has them convinced that there was no actual, living Jesus of Nazareth.  So far as I know, his existence is not seriously disputed.  Which is not to say that His deity or the things written about Him are not disputed. 

And I do find it amusing that the person who wrote the article thinks that The Second Coming equals fundamentalism. 

[ArfinGreebly]

Thermodynamics is fine as far as it goes.

Physics is also fine . . . as far as it goes.

Among all the "random" data that eddies about us, there are those data to which we cleave and use to stabilize all the other -- apparently random -- data.

I, too, have such data.

One datum of which I am completely certain is that the human condition extends beyond what is physical.  Said differently, there is an aspect of humanity that cannot be explained by physics (and, consequently, thermodynamics), and that aspect is non-physical, non-mortal, and directly affects the physical world.

Physics is a science developed in the absence -- one might say the denial -- of this datum.  Physics is not alone in this, as the other "hard" sciences share this attribute.

Consequently, there will be failures to predict in the world of physics (yeah, I'm picking on physics, 'cuz it's the most obvious).  Also there will be derivations that depend on assumptions made in the absence (denial?) of this datum.  The "Big Bang" comes to mind.  We're willing to suspend the laws of physics so that we can have a theoretical starting point.  It's kind of a, "look, we have to start somewhere, and these orbital calculations won't wait while we solve the 'angels-per-pinhead' problem, so let's just start with a Big Bang, okay?  Can we just take that as read, and get on with the math?"

And I'm okay with that, as far as it goes.

It is, however, rather too easy to forget that humanity is not some great algae experiment gone wrong.

There is somebody home.  Individually.  For everyone.

And until physics can address that, we're gonna have assumptions that we know are broken but we use them anyway, and from time to time we will get results that don't map to anything we already think we understand.  And those results will be largely dismissed and relegated to some knowledge scrap heap, until decades later when Olaf Sauerkrautsson goes, "Hey, you guys remember that anomaly back in 1997, with the unpredicted field measurements?  Well, you won't believe this, but . . ."

And so it goes.

Religion?  It does a good job, generally, as the carrier for morality, but it also carries clues to aspects of humanity and reality that science is loathe to contemplate.

I mean, here you are, a scientist, and some crackpot wants you to take into account something that can't be seen, can't be weighed, can't be measured, but which can directly impinge on the physical world.  Right.  That's sure gonna happen.

Hey, I have an idea!  Let's call it magic!  'Cuz that's kind of what you're asking this poor scientist to do.

And yet . . .

There is something there.

There is somebody home.

And science still hasn't been able to deal with it.

So I guess, for the time being, we're gonna have religion.

Who knows?  Once science figures out how to account for this "spirit" thing (call it a soul if you prefer), we may still have religion.  

Maybe religion will look a lot different.

Meanwhile, I say that we attempt to eliminate religion at our peril.

[Nick1911]

ArfinGreebly, fantastic post.

I've always wondered if someday science will be able to analyze the human brain - its self just a physical structure of molecules - and figure out exactly how consciousness work.  Can science deduce the human mind down to an algorithm?

I believe if and when that day ever comes, we'll have to ask ourselves some tough questions about religion, and the nature of humanity.

[De Selby]

ArfinGreebly, fantastic post.

I've always wondered if someday science will be able to analyze the human brain - its self just a physical structure of molecules - and figure out exactly how consciousness work.  Can science deduce the human mind down to an algorithm?

I believe if and when that day ever comes, we'll have to ask ourselves some tough questions about religion, and the nature of humanity.

That's an extremely interesting subject.

I personally don't believe it's possible to reduce it, even in theory, because the most important aspect of consciousness is the subjective experience, and not the brain function involved.  In fact, the only reason brain function is interesting is for what it can tell us about the subjective experience of the person we're studying.

For example:  You can't show someone an equation and say "see, that's what red is" and then expect them to have the whole idea of what the color red means.  You need to actually see red to get the full skinny on what it is for something to be red.

It's the same with consciousness-the experience of it is what is interesting, not the biological markers associated with it.  Hence, no scientific measure will ever be able to fully account for it, because scientific measures are by definition not subjective, and consciousness is in its essence entirely subjective.

[Ron]

ArfinGreebly, fantastic post.

I've always wondered if someday science will be able to analyze the human brain - its self just a physical structure of molecules - and figure out exactly how consciousness work.  Can science deduce the human mind down to an algorithm?

I believe if and when that day ever comes, we'll have to ask ourselves some tough questions about religion, and the nature of humanity.

Or what if they find that there is more than a bio/chemical machine to what humans are? What if they find that there is in fact an animated self conscience energy in the machine that could exist outside the machine?

I believe if and when that day ever comes, we'll have to ask ourselves some tough questions about the materialistic bias in science and the nature of humanity.

[Perd Hapley]

My only comfort will be my waving to the guys who produced this film, over the deep chasm between where I will be in Heaven and their place in Hell.

I don't dispute that you're going to heaven, or that they're going to hell.  But all the same...

[Iain]

I don't dispute that you're going to heaven, or that they're going to hell.  But all the same...

Yeah, anyway, I'm sure this film will be a no better and no worse contribution to the world than Expelled.

[Owens]

Came in late here but...
I usually won't post in religion threads other than to say which side of the lines I stand on. However, this just hit a button in me this morning.
Let me be plain when I say this: I am not attacking any other member on here.

This

The people who write these kind of books (Dawkins) and make these kind of movies think that their religion (atheistic, humanist, materialist etc) is so obviously correct that anyone who dares disagree must be a blithering idiot. Not agreeing with their dogma is proof, to them, of mental incompetance. And teaching your beliefs to your kids is child abuse. And the Bible is full of hate speech.

sort of hit me 'odd'. I have seen and heard this thinking from time to time, and the thing about it that I've seen, is that if a believer turns this same thinking around and says the same but opposite about the non-believer, the believer is now thinking wrong from the non-believers standpoint.  Same type of logic, but now it's wrong?.

As some say, I have done made arrangements for my fire insurance.
We are each free (in my opinion one of the greatest things God has done for us) to choose as we see fit and believe as we each see fit. However, my take on it in regard to the movie is:

Psalm 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Each must decide for themselves.
 

[Perd Hapley]

Yeah, anyway, I'm sure this film will be a no better and no worse contribution to the world than Expelled.

How is that a response to what I wrote?  Not that my comment was terribly expository.   

I'm just not sure that a religious person should feel "comforted" that others are going to hell. 

[Iain]

Sorry fistful. I was agreeing with you. I involuntarily winced when I read that in the OP. I should have written:

Yeah.

Anyway, I'm sure this film will be a no better and no worse contribution to the world than Expelled.

[Kyle]

Responding in no particular order:

I said the Gospels were written down from oral history. Paul's Letters are a different thing from the Gospels, technically. A Gospel is a different type of writing from a letter, and the two need to be understood in different contexts. So when I say the Gospels were the result of a community effort to transcribe oral history, I do not mean the same for Paul's letters.

Paul's letters were (mostly) written by Paul himself. Paul being a former Hellenized Jew convert to Christianity who lived in the first century AD.

Yes, I have read the Bible. Several times for my own purposes, plus at least once through for a Christian Theology class, once for a Biblical Literature class, once for a Christian Classics class, etc.

Yes, the Gospels are very inconsistent. Take "The Christmas Story" as an example. The pop culture Christmas story is often an interesting amalgamation of the Jesus narratives of both Matthew and Luke, trying to get them both to make sense at the same time. One example only.

I do not see why this is such a big deal to people. The whole Bible, Old Testament and New, is filled with inconsistencies and oddities. This does not mean that God doesn't exist, or that Jesus was a hoax. It just means that the book was written and redacted by human beings, many many human beings, very few if any of which witnessed the events they describe firsthand. A much fuller understanding of the Scripture can be reached if you just take a deep breath and say to yourself "God did not physically write this down himself, and I can deal with that."

"Have you ever actually read them? They do have their small contradictions, but just because some mention events that others don't, that doesn't automatically discredit them."

Like I said, yes I have read them. Why is it than whenever someone tries to have a critical discussion of the Bible people start freaking out and going into defensive mode? It is unnecessary. I am not a Christian myself, but I have a lot of respect for Christians and a fondness of the Christian tradition. Not trying to discredit. Trying to say that some parts of this movie might have interesting points to make (however if they do it Michael Moore style, it will probably suck).

"Paul did claim to have met Jesus in a supernatural experience on a road.  That is why he converted.  You are incorrect."

I am not incorrect. This is quite different from meeting Jesus in the flesh and hanging out with him while he healed the sick and drew out demons. Paul's focus is very different from the Gospels. He doesn't talk about Jesus' life or birth or death in the same way the Gospel writers do. It is much less important to him. Paul's letters are the earliest canonical Christian writings. The Gospel writers wrote after him. The Gospel writers are answering questions like "Who is this Jesus guy? Where did he come from? What did he talk about?" Paul doesnt really care about that stuff. He cares about questions like "What does it mean to be a Christian?" He forms the meat of Christian theology.

This is what gives birth to the "conspiracy theories" that Jesus never existed, Paul founded the religion and made up Jesus, etc etc.

Understanding context, and a critical reading of the bible doesnt make you some sort of blaspheming heretic.

[Racehorse]

"Quote
    * The early founders of Christianity seem wholly unaware of the idea of a human Jesus

Yeah, Peter, James, John-all of those guys-had no idea that Jesus was human or even that he existed. "




You DO realize that when the Bible says "The Gospel According to ____" that the individual's name in the title is NOT the name of the person who wrote the Gospel. The Gospels were written by groups of people  70-80 years after the death of Christ, written down from two generations of oral history. The Gospels are very inconsistent, if not outright contradictory.

You also must realize that the meat of Christian theology has it's roots in the letters of Paul, and that Paul never claimed to have met Jesus Christ, and he is not concerned with the life of Christ at all, but rather with the conduct of new early Christians. Paul's letters could easily exist outside of Christ.

Yes, I do realize that the titles of the gospels are not necessarily the name of the person who wrote it. Unless you're arguing that Peter, James, and John (only one of whom might have written a gospel, by the way) are fictional characters and that everything about their interaction with Jesus is fiction too, I don't see what that has to do with what I wrote.

If you are arguing that, it wasn't clear to me.

[Balog]

I have seen and heard this thinking from time to time, and the thing about it that I've seen, is that if a believer turns this same thinking around and says the same but opposite about the non-believer, the believer is now thinking wrong from the non-believers standpoint.  Same type of logic, but now it's wrong?

This is a very poorly constructed sentence, so I'm not entirely certain I understand what you are getting at. Are you saying that sometimes religious people fall prey to the same logical fallacy as the atheists I referred to? If so, I agree.

[Chuck Dye]

Ah, the "existence implies (demands) creator" argument.  Problem is, no one ever offers to explain the existence of the creator.  To me, the basic argument leads to the infinite onion,

existence=>creatorⁿ=>creatorⁿ⁺¹

and the question of whether this universe is the heart of the onion or merely (!) one layer with, perhaps, an infinity of layers within as well as without.  Also, who or what will create the layer stemming from our existence.

[Kyle]

I am not arguing that Jesus and his disciples never existed. I have no basis for that. There is no evidence AGAINST their existence. However, there is no concrete evidence FOR it, either.

Think about it like this. What about the characters in Homer's epics? Did they exist? Well, they must have, because they were written about and many people did believe in them for a very long time. Well, this is not a very strong argument for their historicity.

And if these Biblical characters did exist, there is little reason to believe that what we know about them is very accurate.

None of this is supposed to challenge anyone's faith.

Also, have you read many of the non-canonical Gospels? Some of these writings contain a lot of information about the life and deeds of Jesus, and contain even more contradictions. And there is really no reason that the information in these Gospels should be taken any less seriously than those that made the cut.

The main thing that I agree with from the original post is the bit about many Christians not understanding their own faith. There are so many people who take their religion very seriously who do not understand its origins very well, and don't care too. I think that is a shame because there is a rich and interesting history here if you take the time, effort, and I suppose the RISK to look at it. I say risk because I think a lot of people are a little shy about doing this because they are afraid it will shake their faith. But I believe that if your faith is solid, you'll be fine.  

And no, I would not make an ARGUMENT saying that Jesus never existed.

I do, however, argue that his historicity is up for debate.

[RaspberrySurprise]

The problem I tend to have with religions is that they allow infinite punishment for finite transgressions. I cannot think of anything that could warrant an eternity in a lake of fire, that could be done by mortal men. Even the worst of people upon the earth does not deserve an eternal punishment.

[makattak]

I am not arguing that Jesus and his disciples never existed. I have no basis for that. There is no evidence AGAINST their existence. However, there is no concrete evidence FOR it, either.

Think about it like this. What about the characters in Homer's epics? Did they exist? Well, they must have, because they were written about and many people did believe in them for a very long time. Well, this is not a very strong argument for their historicity.

And if these Biblical characters did exist, there is little reason to believe that what we know about them is very accurate.

None of this is supposed to challenge anyone's faith.

Also, have you read many of the non-canonical Gospels? Some of these writings contain a lot of information about the life and deeds of Jesus, and contain even more contradictions. And there is really no reason that the information in these Gospels should be taken any less seriously than those that made the cut.

The main thing that I agree with from the original post is the bit about many Christians not understanding their own faith. There are so many people who take their religion very seriously who do not understand its origins very well, and don't care too. I think that is a shame because there is a rich and interesting history here if you take the time, effort, and I suppose the RISK to look at it. I say risk because I think a lot of people are a little shy about doing this because they are afraid it will shake their faith. But I believe that if your faith is solid, you'll be fine.  

And no, I would not make an ARGUMENT saying that Jesus never existed.

I do, however, argue that his historicity is up for debate.

Actually, there is significant evidence of the existence of Jesus. If you wish to cast doubts, not only must you include Homeric heroes, you should also include Alexander the Great or Hannibal in your doubts of existence. Simply because many people have written about them is not a reason to accept their existence.

After all, how could any one person accomplish the amazing feats attibuted to these purported men?

As to the non-canonical gospels, there are significant reasons these were rejected: amongst them, the indications that these were actually written in the 2nd century and 3rd century. The original Gospels have indications they were actually written shortly after the time of Christ (within 50 years). Simply because the earliest extant copy exists from the second century is not an indication of the ORIGIN of the orginal. (There is debate about whether some portion of a copy of Luke exists in the dead sea scrolls from around late 30s A.D.)

I actually have studied a great deal about this and ancient literature in general.

We have more reason to believe the Bible, today, is what it was when it was written than we have to believe that the works of Caesar are anything like what he wrote.

Many Christians do not understand their own faith.

Many consumers don't understand their microwaves, either.

Simply because you don't know the history doesn't mean that it is false or that you are stupid.

You can reject the Bible, but to be consitent, you must reject ALL ancient writings for which we have no original manuscript.

[Kyle]

I did not say that Christianity was "false" or that its adherents were "stupid."

Your point about not having original, concrete evidence about Alexander the Great, etc, is way off base.

We know these people existed because of what they, and their contemporaries left behind. Have you ever heard of Alexandria? Perhaps the famous library there? The work of Alexander. There are thousands of ancient sources from Greece to India that talk about Alexander. "Today was interesting, this guy from Macedonia brought his army to our country and conquered us." Its not rocket science.

Is everything written about Alexander true? Certainly not. Did he really do ALL of the things that have been attributed to him? Probably not. However, he was a real person who obtained and ruled an empire at one point in history.

The problem here is that there are no "secular" records of Jesus. There are tons of writings which say "Jesus is the Son of God, this is what he did, become a Christian." There are, however, no first century records outside of this tradition to verify. There are no Roman records of him, etc.

This is probably because assuming Jesus did exist, he was probably a rather unremarkable guy in life. There were tons of itinerate Jewish preachers traveling around the Holy Land performing miracles and attracting followers at this time.

Many Biblical events are verifiable historically. The destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, the Persian occupation of Israel, the Diaspora, on and on.

Again, I am NOT arguing that Jesus never existed.

However, to say that the existence of Jesus has as much historical evidence behind it as the existence of Alexander the Great is just plain wrong.

[makattak]

Actually, the great library in Alexandria came after his time. Alexander had little time for creating relics to his reign as he was busy conquering.

In fact, all the great references to Alexander came AFTER him- by those who had followed him because he was so greatly revered.

As for THOUSANDS of sources, this too is mistaken.

http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php?page=alexander-the-great-2

About 99% of what we know about Alexander the Great comes to us through five original sources from Antiquity whose ancient works have somehow survived the ages in various more or less complete manuscripts: Arrian, Plutarch, Curtius, Diodorus and Justin. Some might like to add the late Antiquity Metz Epitome to these Big Five.

I chose Alexander and Hannibal both because of their rather extensive impact on history and their proximity to Jesus in time.

In all three cases, there is evidence that they exist- however, you accept the existence and exploits of Alexander and Hannibal without question (or with few questions). It is Jesus who gets the greatest skepticism: why is this?