Atheists, can Christianity be debunked fully?

[cloudyday2]

Come on, we all know there are no mental states!

Let me see. No, I think Massachusetts is probably a mental state. They have Harvard, M.I.T., Boston College, Cliff Clavin, ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah? Feel free. I certainly don't agree with Aristotle on everything, though if Clark says something I take issue with, you'll know soon enough.

Here goes. In brief, Clark (1993) presents what he classifies as two approaches to how the praxis of science can be conceptualized and thereby evaluated. He says there are two ways that the philosophy of science can be labeled and approached, as either: 1) external or "top down" method, or 2) internal or "down up" method. And he goes on to specifically say that:

A classic example of this "top down" method is Aristotle. The great Greek developed his concept of science in the Posterior Analytics [gosh...I just love that title; it conjures up various visits to the doctor ]. But his discussion took no account of the work he actually did as a practicing biologist! In spite of Aristotle's genius, this move is flawed. (p. 55)
​

Of course, Clark then goes on to talk about more modern thoughts about how science "should" be done ...

[...hold on just a moment while I brace for impact. Ok. There. I'm ready.]

Reference
Clark, David K. (1993). Dialogical Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

 

[Silmarien]

Let me see. No, I think Massachusetts is probably a mental state. They have Harvard, M.I.T., Boston College, Cliff Clavin, ...

Hey, my alma mater as well, and we were mental in more ways than one!

 

[Silmarien]

Here goes. In brief, Clark (1993) presents what he classifies as two approaches to how the praxis of science can be conceptualized and thereby evaluated. He says there are two ways that the philosophy of science can be labeled and approached, as either: 1) external or "top down" method, or 2) internal or "down up" method. And he goes on to specifically say that:

A classic example of this "top down" method is Aristotle. The great Greek developed his concept of science in the Posterior Analytics [gosh...I just love that title; it conjures various visits to the doctor ]. But his discussion took no account of the work he actually did as a practicing biologist! In spite of Aristotle's genius, this move is flawed. (p. 55)
​

Of course, Clark then goes on to talk about more modern thoughts about how science "should" be done ...

[...hold on just a moment while I brace for impact. Ok. There. I'm ready.]

Reference
Clark, David K. (1993). Dialogical Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

I mean, there's really not enough information there to respond to at all. Aristotle's discussion takes no account of the work he did as a practicing biologist because we're going to just assert that it didn't, and the result is flawed because it's flawed. I'd need to know more about precisely what he means by top-down and down-up too. Usually I associate that with holism vs. reductionism.

 

[cloudyday2]

@2PhiloVoid , one more thing on "From Gods to God": I wasn't as interested in the specific stories studied as much as the strategy used to study them.

The main idea I took away from the book is that changes to religious texts usually leave the original form of the text intact but embedded inside a new context that changes the meaning. And even if the original form is replaced the original form of the story might be referenced or repeated in another text that the editor missed or did not control.

I think this type of editing probably happened in the gospels. So when Bible teachers tell the readers to look at the verses surrounding a confusing verse, they are continuing the cover-up. If you want to know what the editors of Mark were saying, then you should look at the surrounding verses. But if you want to know what an earlier version of Mark might have been saying or what Jesus might have been saying, then the surrounding verses could mislead.

So that's my book report.

EDIT: The nifty thing is that the original form is not lost through editing. I suspect this is a general feature of the decentralized nature of oral traditions and hand written manuscripts. The editors can't make the original form of the story disappear, so they must create a new and extended version of the story that "clarifies" issues that "confused" readers of the original version. Naturally everybody will favor the new and extended version of the text - bigger is better.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I mean, there's really not enough information there to respond to at all. Aristotle's discussion takes no account of the work he did as a practicing biologist because we're going to just assert that it didn't, and the result is flawed because it's flawed. I'd need to know more about precisely what he means by top-down and down-up too. Usually I associate that with holism vs. reductionism.

Oh, I very much agree that Clark seems to give short shrift to making it clear as to just 'how' Aristotle is flawed. At the moment, I can't verify exactly how Clark comes to his conclusion since it has something to do with a citation and reference he makes to an analysis made by Ernan McMullin in an essay from 1970 entitled, The History and Philosophy of Science: A Taxonomy.

However, to me, it sounds like Clark is implying something resembling the concept of Heidegger's Hammer, I say this because in McMullin's essay I find that Aristotle's philosophical approach to science is compared, and said to be similar in some respects, to that of Rudolf Carnap, the analytic philosopher and logical positivist of the early 20th century who evaluated the practices of history and science. In fact, McMullin's evaluation is something like:

It is assumed by Aristotle and Carnap alike that one can make a sharp
cut between that which is to be proved or justified (what Carnap calls the
"hypothesis") and the evidence for it. The latter is supposed to be some-
how "given"; the concepts in which it is expressed are taken to be unprob-
lematic. Furthermore, no question is asked about how the hypothesis it-
self is derived in the first place, about the modifications of concept or the
postulates of structure that may have been needed in order to arrive at it.
In defense of so dubious a set of assumptions and so drastic a limitation of
goal, it is argued that only thus can purely logical modes of analysis be
used, and some over-all methodological pattern established.
(p. 13)​

Then, following up from the previous quote I cited in the previous post above, I find Clark going on to say:

...Indeed, recent decades have witnessed a shift toward the historical approach [i.e. the Internal Method cited in my previous post, in contrast to the External Method]. In this method, researchers study how scientists actually do their work. The way successful scientists reason should guide philosophy of science. Leaders in this shift include Stephen Toulmin, Michael Polanyi, Ernan McMullin, and Thomas Kuhn. (p. 55)​

That last name I'm sure you're familiar with.

And yes, all of this has something to do with holism versus reductionism.

Anyway, that smart alecky quip I made about Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, I apologize for. That was all "me" saying that, quite apart from anything Clark was saying!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@2PhiloVoid , one more thing on "From Gods to God": I wasn't as interested in the specific stories studied as much as the strategy used to study them.

The main idea I took away from the book is that changes to religious texts usually leave the original form of the text intact but embedded inside a new context that changes the meaning. And even if the original form is replaced the original form of the story might be referenced or repeated in another text that the editor missed or did not control.

I think this type of editing probably happened in the gospels. So when Bible teachers tell the readers to look at the verses surrounding a confusing verse, they are continuing the cover-up. If you want to know what the editors of Mark were saying, then you should look at the surrounding verses. But if you want to know what an earlier version of Mark might have been saying or what Jesus might have been saying, then the surrounding verses could mislead.

So that's my book report.

EDIT: The nifty thing is that the original form is not lost through editing. I suspect this is a general feature of the decentralized nature of oral traditions and hand written manuscripts. The editors can't make the original form of the story disappear, so they must create a new and extended version of the story that "clarifies" issues that "confused" readers of the original version. Naturally everybody will favor the new and extended version of the text - bigger is better.

Yeah, I know. A lot of this is related to, and is an extension of, the Document Hypothesis ... and there's nothing wrong with making educated evaluations of the earliest texts and as to their possible versions and progressions. However, what probably isn't ok for us to assume--either way--is that scholars "really, really, really" know just how much of the Bible is 'layered' in successive materials.

An overly pronounced focus on this subject without the raw and very clear evidence that is needed to firmly establish all of this beyond a shadow of a doubt could, in some instances, make us doubt some interpretive insights and disconnect pieces of Scripture that might actually have been together in the first place. And the thing to watch out for is that, now, some people end up reading and interpreting the Bible all the while thinking that everything in it has been piece-mealed together when that may or may not actually be the case.

Here's a question, Cloudy: do you read mainly "skeptical" literature? I know you have the Christ Files, but Dickson admits in the book that he doesn't consider this book to be an "academic work." I hope this book isn't the only one you've read that is more conservatively in support of the validity of the Bible.

 

[Silmarien]

Oh, I very much agree that Clark seems to give short shrift to making it clear as to just 'how' Aristotle is flawed. At the moment, I can't verify exactly how Clark comes to his conclusion since it has something to do with a citation and reference he makes to an analysis made by Ernan McMullin in an essay from 1970 entitled, The History and Philosophy of Science: A Taxonomy.

However, to me, it sounds like Clark is implying something resembling the concept of Heidegger's Hammer, I say this because in McMullin's essay I find that Aristotle's philosophical approach to science is compared, and said to be similar in some respects, to that of Rudolf Carnap, the analytic philosopher and logical positivist of the early 20th century who evaluated the practices of history and science. In fact, McMullin's evaluation is something like:

It is assumed by Aristotle and Carnap alike that one can make a sharp
cut between that which is to be proved or justified (what Carnap calls the
"hypothesis") and the evidence for it. The latter is supposed to be some-
how "given"; the concepts in which it is expressed are taken to be unprob-
lematic. Furthermore, no question is asked about how the hypothesis it-
self is derived in the first place, about the modifications of concept or the
postulates of structure that may have been needed in order to arrive at it.
In defense of so dubious a set of assumptions and so drastic a limitation of
goal, it is argued that only thus can purely logical modes of analysis be
used, and some over-all methodological pattern established.
(p. 13)​

​

I don't think that's fair. You could definitely consider both Aristotelianism and logical positivism to be forms of rationalism, broadly speaking, but the unique features of logical positivism have absolutely nothing to do with Aristotle. After all, there are plenty of concepts that show up in Aristotle's work, from the four causes to essence and potency and so forth and so on, that would make a logical positivist flip out completely.

Now, if we want to criticize rationalism more generally, that's definitely possible, but logical positivism is such a specific thing that this comparison is pretty anachronistic. Carnap may be rationalism gone crazy, but he's certainly not the height of the movement. If I wanted to pick a modern to compare to Aristotle, it'd probably be Leibniz.

 

[cloudyday2]

Here's a question, Cloudy: do you read mainly "skeptical" literature? I know you have the Christ Files, but Dickson admits in the book that he doesn't consider this book to be an "academic work." I hope this book isn't the only one you've read that is more conservatively in support of the validity of the Bible.

I usually buy books by authors who don't seem to be actively pro or con. Ehrman is the only author I have read who seems to be interested in persuading the reader to believe or disbelieve. I've only read a couple of Ehrman's books, because the facts are often oversimplified. Ehrman seems to be writing for people who only have a casual interest.

Vermes is an example of the authors I prefer. If you had the DVD version of "The Christ Files" (hint, hint ) then you could see the full interview with Vermes where he has a lot of very nice things to say about Jesus and Christianity. I read "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus" by Vermes and was actually annoyed that I couldn't determine his personal opinion on the authenticity of many sayings of Jesus. I was hoping for some answers, but all I got from Vermes was an overview of the facts supporting various positions. LOL

I think most Christian scholars agree that the Bible contains layers of editing - particularly the Old Testament. If I found a book written by somebody arguing against this idea, I think I would be suspicious that the author is some kind of quack. IDK The documentary hypothesis on the Torah is no longer popular, but I think the basic idea is still accepted. It is only that modern scholars believe the process was more complicated.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think that's fair. You could definitely consider both Aristotelianism and logical positivism to be forms of rationalism, broadly speaking, but the unique features of logical positivism have absolutely nothing to do with Aristotle. After all, there are plenty of concepts that show up in Aristotle's work, from the four causes to essence and potency and so forth and so on, that would make a logical positivist flip out completely.

Now, if we want to criticize rationalism more generally, that's definitely possible, but logical positivism is such a specific thing that this comparison is pretty anachronistic. Carnap may be rationalism gone crazy, but he's certainly not the height of the movement. If I wanted to pick a modern to compare to Aristotle, it'd probably be Leibniz.

Isn't it amazing the variety of ways in which philosophers (and some Christian apologists) slice and dice, and then categorize and label, the various 'supposed' classifications they think they find in their analyses? I actually agree with you to some extent that Clark--however much I like his overall approach to apologetics--doesn't quite handle his comparison of Aristotle to more modern philosophers and scientists as well as he should. He seems to want to immediately jump ship from the Pre-moderns, torpedo the Moderns, and grab the life raft of the Postmoderns, all in one fell swoop [...and thereby making room for his own form of Reformed Epistemology, which is a thing in and of itself].

I think he would have done better to simply say something more like "reductionism should not be done at the expense of holism"; maybe he should have said, "If you're going to take it apart, make sure to put it back together again, maybe even better than you found it." Man, where have I heard something like that before? {Oh, yeah! Back in my childhood!}

Anyway, I just thought Clark's little scooping out of Aristotle was interesting, and I was wondering what your thoughts on it might be, Sil. And you told me: Leibniz seems to you to be more comparable. I kind of like that idea actually, and I think I can see how that could be the case to some degree, maybe even a high degree.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I usually buy books by authors who don't seem to be actively pro or con. Ehrman is the only author I have read who seems to be interested in persuading the reader to believe or disbelieve. I've only read a couple of Ehrman's books, because the facts are often oversimplified. Ehrman seems to be writing for people who only have a casual interest.

Ok. That's one way to look at it; in that regard, you're a bit like John Dickson, I suppose. I'm similar, but I prefer to draw from multiple angles (Apologetic vs. Mainstream vs. Skeptical), and I like to bring in the idea of "triangulation" which Hermeneutics suggests, wherein I try to study a topic from various other avenues and not just get bogged down in studying just one single topic.

The reason I say this is because your approach is kind of like digging a deep well. Of course you can attempt to do so, but if you just happen to dig in the wrong spot, there's no guarantee you'll actually find "water." You might just keep on digging, and digging, and digging, and on coming up dry and having the feeling that you never find "the answer." You might want to keep in mind, too, that God may not have intended to "give" us full answers or to completely satiate our thirst for certainty; the corollary is that the Devil also may want us to spin our wheels in one spot so we get seriously stuck ...

Vermes is an example of the authors I prefer. If you had the DVD version of "The Christ Files" (hint, hint ) then you could see the full interview with Vermes where he has a lot of very nice things to say about Jesus and Christianity.

While I'm so far not finding the specific interview with Vermes from the DVD on Youtube, I did come across this little bit featuring Professor James Charlesworth which includes his comments about the "difference between Jesus and the Essenes." Interesting Stuff!

I read "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus" by Vermes and was actually annoyed that I couldn't determine his personal opinion on the authenticity of many sayings of Jesus. I was hoping for some answers, but all I got from Vermes was an overview of the facts supporting various positions. LOL

That sounds like an interesting book by Vermes. I don't have that one. I've got his book on the Resurrection, however.

I think most Christian scholars agree that the Bible contains layers of editing - particularly the Old Testament. If I found a book written by somebody arguing against this idea, I think I would be suspicious that the author is some kind of quack. IDK The documentary hypothesis on the Torah is no longer popular, but I think the basic idea is still accepted. It is only that modern scholars believe the process was more complicated.

Although Christian scholars may agree that various portions of the Bible, even substantial portions of it, contain "layering" of some kind, this doesn't necessarily mean that it's as extensive or as disturbing to the credibility of the content as perhaps you seem to presently think it is, Cloudy. This isn't to say you're wrong; it might be the case that it turns out you should just throw the Bible in the trash, too.

BUT...............................................and this is a big but, somehow, I don't think it's as easy as all of that, nor that the New Testament is just a big collection of a menagerie of bits and pieces of hundreds upon hundreds of verses all pasted together at various times into singular documents. No, I think the Bible, particularly the New Testament, is a bit more solid than what it is often credited to be by skeptics. Maybe you need to take Dickson more seriously? Maybe don't throw the Bible in the trash?

 

[bhsmte]

My faith in Christianity has withered to the point that I have a hard time imagining ever believing again, but I like to double-check my conclusions periodically.

So I started in the style of a proof by counter example. Assume Christianity in some basic and standard form is true. Can I find a counter example to debunk this assumption to my satisfaction? Or must I rely on the lack of positive evidence and unlikeliness of Christian claims?

Is there some core assumption of Christianity shared by Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox (so that nobody can dodge the bullet) and then a counter example that would convince a reasonable person that this core assumption is extremely unlikely if not impossible?

EDIT: And exclude the assumptions from Christian scholasticism such as omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc. I don't consider those things core assumptions. A core assumption might be "the crucifixion served a divine purpose". That's the type of thing I'm after.

Not sure what you mean by; "debunked fully".

Can Christianity or any other religion be shown with 100% certainty to be false? IMO, the answer is no.

But, a whole lot of personal interpretations or claims can not be shown with 100% certainty to be false. You know, the whole proving a negative thing?

Each claim of any belief, should stand on it's own merits.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Can Hinduism be debunked fully?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Not sure what you mean by; "debunked fully".

Can Christianity or any other religion be shown with 100% certainty to be false? IMO, the answer is no.

But, a whole lot of personal interpretations or claims can not be shown with 100% certainty to be false. You know, the whole proving a negative thing?

Each claim of any belief, should stand on it's own merits.

I think it's best to simply ask the person what would suffice as a debunking. If they say, "Prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead" then you can reply with, "What can I show that would demonstrate that?" Eventually they will shift from trying to force you to prove a negative into trying to prove a positive, and that's when they will be in trouble.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think it's best to simply ask the person what would suffice as a debunking. If they say, "Prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead" then you can reply with, "What can I show that would demonstrate that?" Eventually they will shift from trying to force you to prove a negative into trying to prove a positive, and that's when they will be in trouble.

Oh dear, you've figured us out! Alert! Alert! Alert! Fellow Christians, we've been compromised!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can Hinduism be debunked fully?

I don't know. Would it all depend upon whether Arjuna actually existed and whether or not he actually killed his cousins at the behest of Krishna?

 

[cloudyday2]

Not sure what you mean by; "debunked fully".

Can Christianity or any other religion be shown with 100% certainty to be false? IMO, the answer is no.

But, a whole lot of personal interpretations or claims can not be shown with 100% certainty to be false. You know, the whole proving a negative thing?

Each claim of any belief, should stand on it's own merits.

Often atheists say that "there is no evidence for Christianity, so I don't believe". It's not so easy for me, because I have some evidence that suggests that Christianity might be true in some way. My evidence is apparent answers to prayers, synchronicities, paranormal-type experiences.

I dismiss my evidence as coincidences, confirmation bias, hallucinations, delusions, etc. But I have also sought to debunk Christianity more aggressively - as an investigative journalist might debunk phony facts during the political season.

Can we say facts A, B, and C are absolutely fundamental to any version of Christianity, and then show those facts to contradict other facts that we do accept (or some similar debunking strategy)? What would the fundamental facts of Christianity be? That would be the first step IMO.

 

[High Fidelity]

Can it be debunked fully? No. No more than any other religion can, however, that alone should serve to discredit individual faiths as being 'objectively true' because ultimately they all rely on faith in the absence of proofs.

Most 'evidence' brought forward is from holy texts which, ironically, require faith to take as any authority in the first place.

So no, it can't be debunked fully but no faith can be objectively proven either. That leaves us with the outlook that we can't be sure it's wrong, but there's nothing to suggest x, y or z are true any more than other faith systems.

People then typically argue that "it's better to have faith just in case" but really, if a god exists and they would punish us for choosing wrong in what is equivalent to "pick a hand" when they have thousands of hands, well, begs the question on whether that's a character worthy of respect, let alone love or worship.

 

[bhsmte]

Often atheists say that "there is no evidence for Christianity, so I don't believe". It's not so easy for me, because I have some evidence that suggests that Christianity might be true in some way. My evidence is apparent answers to prayers, synchronicities, paranormal-type experiences.

I dismiss my evidence as coincidences, confirmation bias, hallucinations, delusions, etc. But I have also sought to debunk Christianity more aggressively - as an investigative journalist might debunk phony facts during the political season.

Can we say facts A, B, and C are absolutely fundamental to any version of Christianity, and then show those facts to contradict other facts that we do accept (or some similar debunking strategy)? What would the fundamental facts of Christianity be? That would be the first step IMO.

That's all cool, but again, no religion and likely most personal beliefs, cant be debunked 100%

 

[cloudyday2]

That's all cool, but again, no religion and likely most personal beliefs, cant be debunked 100%

Nothing is 100%. If I said "100%" then I'm sorry to have confused the issue.

There are plenty of religions that can be debunked. Scientology can potentially be debunked by showing the L. Ron Hubbard invented the facts. The same is true for Mormonism. Potentially we could discover that Muhammad didn't exist or that the Quran and Islam were invented after the Muslim Conquests (as a few believe).

Christianity is just as vulnerable to debunking, because it makes historical claims.

There are religions that are less vulnerable to debunking (such as Hinduism mentioned by @Steve Petersen a few posts up). If a religion doesn't claim anything historical or physical then it isn't as vulnerable IMO.