At least Matt tried to consider a context....!

[2PhiloVoid]

Recently, popular atheist Matt Dillahunty released the following video. In it, he does his best to admit that in a tiny way he may have misinterpreted some little bit-bite of Scripture that deals with the perennial bug-a-boo we all know as 'prayer.' And as we also all know, this one bit-bite alone has caused all a lot of frustration if not heart-ache for many of us, and he attempts to explain why.

I must say that for my part as a Philosophical Hermeneuticst, I'm proud of him for at least mentioning that context can (or "might" at least) play into how we understand the specific verses he's chosen to address in his video.

Take a listen to his poised and reasonable vid presentation (it's about 13 minutes long) and tell us what you think about his conclusions? Is he right? Is he wrong? Do you have another evaluation you might make about the specific verses he has addressed regarding prayer as presented in the Gospel of Matthew? [i.e. Matthew 18:18-20]

Video Title: Atheist Debates - A Bible verse I was wrong about

Source: Youtube

 

[public hermit]

Interesting video. And, not easy passages to reconcile. I have never heard anyone argue that the first two who prayed it ruined it for everyone else. I wonder how he would respond to the notion that prayer, even intercessory prayer, is primarily about relationship with God and the transformation of those who pray. I only watched about 3/4 of the video, so I hope I didn't stop short of the gold.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interesting video. And, not easy passages to reconcile. I have never heard anyone argue that the first two who prayed it ruined it for everyone else.

Neither have I ever heard anyone teach that some random "first two prayer partners" could ruin it for everyone one else, but on that note, I think Matt was just trying to be somewhat humorous before he actually got to the point where he began to attempt his actual point for the video.

I wonder how he would respond to the notion that prayer, even intercessory prayer, is primarily about relationship with God and the transformation of those who pray. I only watched about 3/4 of the video, so I hope I didn't stop short of the gold.

Matt actually mentioned that kind of interpretation, but he did so in passing during those first few minutes of the video.

One of the interesting things for me in this video was to hear an atheist such as Matt affirm that some kind of application of 'context' should be made when attempting to interpret these verse on particular verses on prayer. After hearing some atheists here try to swat away the importance of even the idea of context, let alone the usual hermeneutical assertion that there are actually several layers of context that usually accompany the meaning of just about any verse in the bible, I was happy to hear an atheist affirm context.

However, while I appreciate Matt's attempt to interpret this specific passage, and I really like that he admitted that his initial 'logic' of interpretation was off, I don't think his attempt to correct his overall reading or his application of context got him to a proper interpretation of this passage. Even though he realized there could be other possibilities for a better interpretation, I don't think he also realized there could still be more than those he'd already considered. In fact, I think Matthew 18:18-20 perhaps represents another possibility of meaning altogether which may set this 'prayer passage' apart from similar prayer related passages we can find in the Gospels or elsewhere in the Bible. So, we all may want to remain open to better a interpretation of this passage than what many of us heretofore could have understood it to require.

Thanks for taking the time to watch and consider the video from Matt! Have you had any other thoughts here that may affect our apologetic response to this passage in the Gospel of Matthew, P.H.?

 

[public hermit]

One of the interesting things for me in this video was to hear an atheist such as Matt affirm that some kind of application of 'context' should be made when attempting to interpret these verse on particular verses on prayer. After hearing some atheists here try to swat away the importance of even the idea of context, let alone the usual hermeneutical assertion that there are actually several layers of context that usually accompany the meaning of just about any verse in the bible, I was happy to hear an atheist affirm context.

I agree. The contrast between how Matt approaches the material with some of what I have seen on here is stark. He, at the very least, seems to be arguing in "good faith," as they say. Or, at least, he comes closer to it than some others, especially as concerns context. As you say, context is important. Not only is the pericope within which the passage appears important, but the whole canonical context. The forest is as important as its constituent trees.

However, while I appreciate Matt's attempt to interpret this specific passage, and I really like that he admitted that his initial 'logic' of interpretation was off, I don't think his attempt to correct his overall reading or his application of context got him to a proper interpretation of this passage. Even though he realized there could be other possibilities for a better interpretation, I don't think he also realized there could still be more than those he'd already considered.

I'll be honest, his appearance of appreciating context doesn't seem to hold for very long. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but once he gets to vs. 18 he seems to disregard the context he had just elaborated upon. His position seems to be that we are to pray according to God's will (which makes intuitive sense), but God's will is not up for us to determine, so intercessory prayer is pointless. Or, if God only does what two or more gather to pray for then God's will is arbitrary (maybe he didn't say that last part...I can't remember). But, I would think the context both within the pericope and within the Jewish tradition is important.

So, we all may want to remain open to better a interpretation of this passage than what many of us heretofore could have understood it to require.

I am certainly open to a better interpretation than...well any that I can think of, haha.

Thanks for taking the time to watch and consider the video from Matt! Have you had any other thoughts here that may affect our apologetic response to this passage in the Gospel of Matthew, P.H.?

I do have some thoughts that should affect our apologetic response. One thing I think is important is that whoever engages with an a/a (atheist/agnostic) in regards to difficult passages should be able to approach it with a good dose of doxastic humility. How we reason about beliefs is important. I am not an a/a, but it nonetheless drives me nuts when a Christian approaches a text like this as if the answer is obvious and anyone who doesn't see it is an idiot. We're not going to add to the kingdom by treating people as if they are oblivious to the obvious. There are very difficult passages in the scriptures and just because we are Christian doesn't mean we have every answer to every question. We are finite, mortal beings trying to grasp at what can only be revealed. So, we should have some humility.

Plus, the moment we admit there are various difficulties it disarms the a/a of some of their hermeneutical power. Rigid answers, that assume a certain kind of completion, are always more susceptible to defeat than more nuanced answers that take into account various ambiguities and difficulties. I may not be able to convince an a/a of the truth, but I can put into doubt their easy answers. By revealing context, nuance, and ambiguity it stretches their assumptions. That is, if they are arguing in good faith.

Some comments on context:
The first thing that should happen is a marking off of the perimeters of the pericope. As discussed in the video, vss. 15-17 should be included. I would include Peter's question in vss.21-22, because it also concerns relations between members of the body or ecclesia. So, I would say the immediate context to be considered is vss.15-22. That being said, the context of the whole chapter is important. The initial question the disciples ask in vs.1, "At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, ‘Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" may be helpful in interpreting the passage. Also, it may help to remember that Matthew is the "Jewish" gospel. What do we know about the idea of binding and loosing in a rabbinical context?

The context seems to concern church authority, that is the authority of a unified body gathered on account of Christ. To put it in a somewhat mundane manner, the church isn't going to be able to call Jesus on the phone to get an answer every time there is a conflict to be resolved. The united members have to have some authority to determine outcomes and to do so, hopefully, in accord with God's will. So, one way to read this passage will be concerned with the decision making process the body has been granted via the authority of Jesus Christ.

But, that is one option among others. I am chomping at the bit to hear yours.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree. The contrast between how Matt approaches the material with some of what I have seen on here is stark. He, at the very least, seems to be arguing in "good faith," as they say. Or, at least, he comes closer to it than some others, especially as concerns context. As you say, context is important. Not only is the pericope within which the passage appears important, but the whole canonical context. The forest is as important as its constituent trees.

Yeah, I'd say so, too!

I'll be honest, his appearance of appreciating context doesn't seem to hold for very long. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but once he gets to vs. 18 he seems to disregard the context he had just elaborated upon. His position seems to be that we are to pray according to God's will (which makes intuitive sense), but God's will is not up for us to determine, so intercessory prayer is pointless. Or, if God only does what two or more gather to pray for then God's will is arbitrary (maybe he didn't say that last part...I can't remember). But, I would think the context both within the pericope and within the Jewish tradition is important.

Oh, I wouldn't dream of correcting you on this. While Matt does begin in his vid with what appears to a demeanor of humility and he seems to offer up in good faith an "admission of error," he soon enough pulls a small 'gotcha' of sorts a little later on, and I think your point about how literary context may pertain not only to the pericope in which a biblical text is situated but also to the ways in which Jewish thought and the writing style of the author play into one's overall interpretation was all likely overlooked by him.

I do have some thoughts that should affect our apologetic response. One thing I think is important is that whoever engages with an a/a (atheist/agnostic) in regards to difficult passages should be able to approach it with a good dose of doxastic humility. How we reason about beliefs is important. I am not an a/a, but it nonetheless drives me nuts when a Christian approaches a text like this as if the answer is obvious and anyone who doesn't see it is an idiot. We're not going to add to the kingdom by treating people as if they are oblivious to the obvious. There are very difficult passages in the scriptures and just because we are Christian doesn't mean we have every answer to every question. We are finite, mortal beings trying to grasp at what can only be revealed. So, we should have some humility.

Honestly, I don't worry much about all of this these days, not since there is so much candor that is now shown by various Skeptics as they non-nonchalantly rail at the Christian Faith. No, I just make sure my light-saber has a full charge since we Christians can never be "too" prepared these days when engaging the dark side of things.

This isn't to say I'm ignoring your wise admonition here, but I think we do ourselves a disfavor by failing to remain vigilantly aware that there can be substantial differences between a Cornelius, a Simon-Magus, a Sergius Paulus, a pre-conversion Saul, or even an "Elymas," and we need to know with what and with whom we are dealing.

Plus, the moment we admit there are various difficulties it disarms the a/a of some of their hermeneutical power. Rigid answers, that assume a certain kind of completion, are always more susceptible to defeat than more nuanced answers that take into account various ambiguities and difficulties. I may not be able to convince an a/a of the truth, but I can put into doubt their easy answers. By revealing context, nuance, and ambiguity it stretches their assumptions. That is, if they are arguing in good faith.

It sounds to me like you've had some rather milder experiences with atheists and skeptics. My experiences unfortunately haven't been so much on the side of ever being "advantageous" socially and those atheists I've engaged with have more often than not been of the temperament where they were only too happy to wipe the floor with me if I were to have shown even the slightest incongruity of thought or other rational weakness ...

Some comments on context:
The first thing that should happen is a marking off of the perimeters of the pericope. As discussed in the video, vss. 15-17 should be included. I would include Peter's question in vss.21-22, because it also concerns relations between members of the body or ecclesia. So, I would say the immediate context to be considered is vss.15-22. That being said, the context of the whole chapter is important. The initial question the disciples ask in vs.1, "At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, ‘Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" may be helpful in interpreting the passage. Also, it may help to remember that Matthew is the "Jewish" gospel. What do we know about the idea of binding and loosing in a rabbinical context?

And with all that you've said here, I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head. The only thing I'd add to this is that not only does the connection of meaning and application in this passage begin in verse 1, it also doesn't end until.....well, in this case, the end of this chapter as it has been parsed by later historical 'helpers.'

The context seems to concern church authority, that is the authority of a unified body gathered on account of Christ. To put it in a somewhat mundane manner, the church isn't going to be able to call Jesus on the phone to get an answer every time there is a conflict to be resolved. The united members have to have some authority to determine outcomes and to do so, hopefully, in accord with God's will. So, one way to read this passage will be concerned with the decision making process the body has been granted via the authority of Jesus Christ.

I think you're correct, but let's wait to see what any detractors may want to say about it all. I'm kind of waiting for the usual "...but if God wanted us all to be saved, then why didn't He make the Gospel message in all of its various tangents easier to understand and easier to access ... ?" When they lose an argument in interpretation, this is usually their default argument.

But, that is one option among others. I am chomping at the bit to hear yours.

Chomp no more, bro!

 

[public hermit]

It sounds to me like you've had some rather milder experiences with atheists and skeptics.

That may very well be true. Most of my experience is reading professional philosophers who are atheist and theist write back and forth (say between William Rowe-a fundamentalist turned atheist- and Alvin Plantinga-a giant of a Christian philosopher). They are always willing to concede a point if it is salient. To be honest, I have avoided a good many of the conversations on this particular forum because I won't have much patience with someone who obviously isn't going to reason and give an obvious inch. But, I am happy to learn from those better skilled at it.

 

[gaara4158]

I have long since given up the endeavor of demonstrating proper logical contradictions between different Bible verses. There is far too much wiggle room to be found in historical and linguistic context for us to ever nail down the definitive meanings of two verses and declare there's no way to reconcile them without invoking a contradiction or error. Christians tend to harp on context and interpretation whenever the subject of Biblical contradictions is brought up, and they can often elaborate on reasons verse X doesn't mean what you think it means and verse Y only applies in situation Z. After all, they've got centuries of work by Bible scholars at their disposal. Good luck convincing them you've spotted something they missed! It's just not worth it. Now, the general slipperiness of Biblical interpretation can be submitted as a weakness in itself, but there are faithful hermeneuticists who insist that just because you can't find the proper interpretation doesn't mean there isn't one. So argument from Biblical contradiction is rarely a fruitful angle for anti-apologists.

Still, it's very difficult to reconcile a plain reading of the two verses Matt brought up without imbuing Genie-like properties to God. It takes some imagination to make it work, but it can be done. We could assume that God is implying that when two people earnestly work together to understand God's will and they come to agree on it, they can pray that it be done. The results of said prayer would tell them whether they understood God's will properly or not. If this is the proper interpretation, then the purpose of prayer is not to influence future events, but rather to test one's knowledge of God's will. This makes God's promise in the first verse much less exciting, but it avoids the fatal contradiction Matt used to argue for.

 

[cloudyday2]

I haven't watched the video, but I had a question on context in Biblical hermeneutics. Many scholars think that many of the Biblical texts have been edited by various authors at different times. In many cases the editor adds context to change the meaning of the original text rather than changing the original text, because the original text is too well known and is viewed as sacred. The editor may not even be aware that he is changing the meaning of the original text; he may think he is "clarifying" an original text that is often "misunderstood".

So I wonder if context is the enemy when seeking the true message from the original author? Context will often give you the message of later editors instead.

 

[Silmarien]

I have long since given up the endeavor of demonstrating proper logical contradictions between different Bible verses. There is far too much wiggle room to be found in historical and linguistic context for us to ever nail down the definitive meanings of two verses and declare there's no way to reconcile them without invoking a contradiction or error.

I think you would need a particularly theory of biblical inerrancy to invoke the possibility of logical contradictions at all, simply because of the way that conversation works in general. Context isn't an excuse to be slippery--it's a real issue. I've been accused of both being a scary radical leftist and of having a traditional religious worldview around here, which I find highly entertaining. Both assumptions are legitimate inferences depending upon what the topic of conversation is, and occasionally I probably do out and out contradict myself. Therefore, I do not exist. Q.E.D.

When dealing with an ancient culture, the situation is obviously going to be much, much worse. Honestly, I wish people paid more attention to Second Temple Judaism and Middle Eastern culture in general when approaching Scripture--no amount of creative interpretation is going to be worthwhile if it's grounded upon nothing but personal conjecture.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I haven't watched the video, but I had a question on context in Biblical hermeneutics. Many scholars think that many of the Biblical texts have been edited by various authors at different times. In many cases the editor adds context to change the meaning of the original text rather than changing the original text, because the original text is too well known and is viewed as sacred. The editor may not even be aware that he is changing the meaning of the original text; he may think he is "clarifying" an original text that is often "misunderstood".

We might keep in mind that not only can Christians be at fault for changing texts which can then affect the interpretive qualities of texts and their various inherent contexts, but atheists can be guilty of this too. And not only this, but both Christians and Skeptics can be guilty of skewing texts and contexts even when reading Dr. Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham. I'm not sure how one could skewer THAT, but I'm sure someone could do it! In fact, I'm confident that someone could even take a Bart Ehrman book and skew its contexts too.

So I wonder if context is the enemy when seeking the true message from the original author? Context will often give you the message of later editors instead.

**sigh** No, Cloudy, context isn't the enemy. Typically, it's a lack of education about what contexts are and how they work that is the enemy, even AFTER various forms of Textual Criticism have been applied; this is likely the case in most instances, especially where religious books are concerned.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think you would need a particularly theory of biblical inerrancy to invoke the possibility of logical contradictions at all, simply because of the way that conversation works in general. Context isn't an excuse to be slippery--it's a real issue. I've been accused of both being a scary radical leftist and of having a traditional religious worldview around here, which I find highly entertaining. Both assumptions are legitimate inferences depending upon what the topic of conversation is, and occasionally I probably do out and out contradict myself. Therefore, I do not exist. Q.E.D.

When dealing with an ancient culture, the situation is obviously going to be much, much worse. Honestly, I wish people paid more attention to Second Temple Judaism and Middle Eastern culture in general when approaching Scripture--no amount of creative interpretation is going to be worthwhile if it's grounded upon nothing but personal conjecture.

... of all people, Silmarien! I would have thought that you'd also offer a plug for how we also owe it to some of the ancient Greeks for helping to get the ball rolling on this hermeneutical stuff! Since you've been a little slack in this regard, I'm going to help us all out here!

The Task of Hermeneutics in Ancient Philosophy [...and see the last several pages!]

You're welcome!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have long since given up the endeavor of demonstrating proper logical contradictions between different Bible verses. There is far too much wiggle room to be found in historical and linguistic context for us to ever nail down the definitive meanings of two verses and declare there's no way to reconcile them without invoking a contradiction or error. Christians tend to harp on context and interpretation whenever the subject of Biblical contradictions is brought up, and they can often elaborate on reasons verse X doesn't mean what you think it means and verse Y only applies in situation Z. After all, they've got centuries of work by Bible scholars at their disposal. Good luck convincing them you've spotted something they missed! It's just not worth it. Now, the general slipperiness of Biblical interpretation can be submitted as a weakness in itself, but there are faithful hermeneuticists who insist that just because you can't find the proper interpretation doesn't mean there isn't one. So argument from Biblical contradiction is rarely a fruitful angle for anti-apologists.

Still, it's very difficult to reconcile a plain reading of the two verses Matt brought up without imbuing Genie-like properties to God. It takes some imagination to make it work, but it can be done. We could assume that God is implying that when two people earnestly work together to understand God's will and they come to agree on it, they can pray that it be done. The results of said prayer would tell them whether they understood God's will properly or not. If this is the proper interpretation, then the purpose of prayer is not to influence future events, but rather to test one's knowledge of God's will. This makes God's promise in the first verse much less exciting, but it avoids the fatal contradiction Matt used to argue for.

I like the fact that you seem open to further consideration of how we may want to interpret various biblical texts, even this one which Matt D. has chosen for us to reevaluate. However, gaara, if the bible wasn't written with chapters and verse numbers or red lettering, then what principles will dictate to us what a plain reading "is" and how that kind of reading should officially proceed?

 

[gaara4158]

I like the fact that you seem open to further consideration of how we may want to interpret various biblical texts, even this one which Matt D. has chosen for us to reevaluate. However, gaara, if the bible wasn't written with chapters and verse numbers or red lettering, then what principles will dictate to us what a plain reading "is" and how that kind of reading should officially proceed?

The Bible was put together over centuries by people who made it their life’s work to ensure its coherence. It’s naive to think someone with a little free time can undermine all of that.
I’m not sure what removing chapter and verse markers would do to a “plain reading” of the text. To me, plain reading just means taking the text at face value, leaning on the simplest, most intuitive meaning possible. Given that we’re so far removed from the original context, this means a plain reading will almost always be incorrect. But what’s that mean for the parts of the Bible that are generally taken at face value?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Bible was put together over centuries by people who made it their life’s work to ensure its coherence. It’s naive to think someone with a little free time can undermine all of that.
I’m not sure what removing chapter and verse markers would do to a “plain reading” of the text. To me, plain reading just means taking the text at face value, leaning on the simplest, most intuitive meaning possible. Given that we’re so far removed from the original context, this means a plain reading will almost always be incorrect. But what’s that mean for the parts of the Bible that are generally taken at face value?

Oh, I think we both can intuit what that means....

 

[cloudyday2]

We might keep in mind that not only can Christians be at fault for changing texts which can then affect the interpretive qualities of texts and their various inherent contexts, but atheists can be guilty of this too. And not only this, but both Christians and Skeptics can be guilty of skewing texts and contexts even when reading Dr. Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham. I'm not sure how one could skewer THAT, but I'm sure someone could do it! In fact, I'm confident that someone could even take a Bart Ehrman book and skew its contexts too.



**sigh** No, Cloudy, context isn't the enemy. Typically, it's a lack of education about what contexts are and how they work that is the enemy, even AFTER various forms of Textual Criticism have been applied; this is likely the case in most instances, especially where religious books are concerned.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by "context". I mean the context provided by the surrounding text of the Bible itself - not the context of my culture and so on. The text of the Bible is not the same as the text of a Bart Ehrman book, because the text of the Bible in some cases was edited by many anonymous people over centuries of time. A Bart Ehrman book likely contains some edits, but Bart himself signs-off on those edits and the entire process is probably a few months.

Hermeneutics derives the the messenger god Hermes (as you know). Whose message are we seeking from a Biblical text? We can often find the original message by REMOVING the context that was added by later editors in an attempt to "clarify".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think you misunderstand what I mean by "context". I mean the context provided by the surrounding text of the Bible itself - not the context of my culture and so on. The text of the Bible is not the same as the text of a Bart Ehrman book, because the text of the Bible in some cases was edited by many anonymous people over centuries of time. A Bart Ehrman book likely contains some edits, but Bart himself signs-off on those edits and the entire process is probably a few months.

No, I haven't misunderstood you, Cloudy. Rather, I'm eschewing the Bart Ehrman rhetoric that you're bringing to this discussion, one that resembles that which we find in Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus.

So, yeah, please don't T-bone my thread and push it out of its original context into one that is instead a red herring.

 

[cloudyday2]

No, I haven't misunderstood you, Cloudy. Rather, I'm eschewing the Bart Ehrman rhetoric that you're bringing to this discussion, one that resembles that which we find in Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus.

So, yeah, please don't T-bone my thread and push it out of its original context into one that is instead a red herring.

I have never read "Misquoting Jesus", but you clearly don't get what I am saying.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have never read "Misquoting Jesus", but you clearly don't get what I am saying.

No, I get what you're saying, I'm just DENYING that it has some kind of universal application, even where the Bible is concerned. So, I'm not going to let you just casually muddy the waters or to Cloud our vision here in this OP.

 

[zippy2006]

I have long since given up the endeavor of demonstrating proper logical contradictions between different Bible verses. There is far too much wiggle room to be found in historical and linguistic context for us to ever nail down the definitive meanings of two verses and declare there's no way to reconcile them without invoking a contradiction or error. Christians tend to harp on context and interpretation whenever the subject of Biblical contradictions is brought up, and they can often elaborate on reasons verse X doesn't mean what you think it means and verse Y only applies in situation Z. After all, they've got centuries of work by Bible scholars at their disposal. Good luck convincing them you've spotted something they missed! It's just not worth it. Now, the general slipperiness of Biblical interpretation can be submitted as a weakness in itself, but there are faithful hermeneuticists who insist that just because you can't find the proper interpretation doesn't mean there isn't one.

"I don't quite understand that language," said Reding; "I see it is used in various publications. It implies that controversy is a game, and that disputants are not looking out for truth, but for arguments."

-John Henry Newman
​

I would try not to frame the question in such competitive terms (and I think this is part of Philo and Hermit's point about 'good faith'). What I hear you saying, in a certain way, is, "I can't disprove their hypothesis to their own satisfaction, so I give up." But why try to disprove their hypothesis in the first place? (this is a complicated question)

So argument from Biblical contradiction is rarely a fruitful angle for anti-apologists.

Isn't that a strange way of speaking? It's as though the anti-apologist is waging a military campaign against Christianity, and if he can't make inroads on the Northern front he will abandon it and attack on the Southern. Each attack is really just a means to an end. It's a remarkably candid statement of atheist proselytism!

I don't mean to attack you personally, for I think you argue in 'good faith' more than the vast majority of atheists on this board, but the point you've raised is so central that it's worth considering.

The Bible was put together over centuries by people who made it their life’s work to ensure its coherence. It’s naive to think someone with a little free time can undermine all of that.

I agree that it's naive, but again, it's not a game. There is no rational justification for seeking to undermine what one does not understand, and ironically, only once you understand it are you capable of undermining it. To again take up the military analogy, this is why the "inside man" is uniquely equipped to deal so much damage. Yet if you seek to understand only to undermine, you will never understand. You need to "place yourself in the other person's shoes." This is the keyhole and password to any system of thought, not just Christianity!

Here's a hint drawing from your first post: mathematical systems are more susceptible to logical contradictions than religious or cultural organisms are. A simple logical contradiction will allow you to undermine the Judeo-Christian tradition no more than it will allow you to undermine The Brothers Karamazov. The New Atheists have infected the world with the idea that religion works on mathematical principles, and therefore I doubt they would be able to understand the efficacy of a Feuerbach or a Nietzsche.

(Admittedly, the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura probably hasn't helped us at the level of popular exegesis.)

 

[gaara4158]

"I don't quite understand that language," said Reding; "I see it is used in various publications. It implies that controversy is a game, and that disputants are not looking out for truth, but for arguments."

-John Henry Newman
​

I would try not to frame the question in such competitive terms (and I think this is part of Philo and Hermit's point about 'good faith'). What I hear you saying, in a certain way, is, "I can't disprove their hypothesis to their own satisfaction, so I give up." But why try to disprove their hypothesis in the first place? (this is a complicated question)



Isn't that a strange way of speaking? It's as though the anti-apologist is waging a military campaign against Christianity, and if he can't make inroads on the Northern front he will abandon it and attack on the Southern. Each attack is really just a means to an end. It's a remarkably candid statement of atheist proselytism!

I don't mean to attack you personally, for I think you argue in 'good faith' more than the vast majority of atheists on this board, but the point you've raised is so central that it's worth considering.



I agree that it's naive, but again, it's not a game. There is no rational justification for seeking to undermine what one does not understand, and ironically, only once you understand it are you capable of undermining it. To again take up the military analogy, this is why the "inside man" is uniquely equipped to deal so much damage. Yet if you seek to understand only to undermine, you will never understand. You need to "place yourself in the other person's shoes." This is the keyhole and password to any system of thought, not just Christianity!

Here's a hint drawing from your first post: mathematical systems are more susceptible to logical contradictions than religious or cultural organisms are. A simple logical contradiction will allow you to undermine the Judeo-Christian tradition no more than it will allow you to undermine The Brothers Karamazov. The New Atheists have infected the world with the idea that religion works on mathematical principles, and therefore I doubt they would be able to understand the efficacy of a Feuerbach or a Nietzsche.

(Admittedly, the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura probably hasn't helped us at the level of popular exegesis.)

Of course. I and a few other nonbelievers around here have happily admitted that there is a sporting aspect to our participation here, and that's what I'm speaking to in this thread. There's just as much sport in working contradictions into interpretations of scripture as there is in working them out. It's just not going to get anyone closer to the truth. That's why I don't engage in that kind of thing when explaining why I don't believe Christianity is true (which is what I characterized earlier as anti-apologetics). I am thus far not convinced that investing the time to understand scripture as it was meant to be understood will bear fruits that justify the commitment. I only argue interpretations when someone seems Hell-bent on applying some scriptural condemnation to me.