Thoughts on Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris

[ebia]

"A heap of different people"? Name one author who wrote about Jesus while he was still alive, or even 20 years after his death. This is vital missing information.

Your expectations are simply not what ancient historians get to work with. It's not a world of instant writing, and most things written down don't survive. They are almost always working from texts written well after -usually much longer after than this, usually much less text, and always much less well preserved.

For Jesus you have at least eight distinct authors (the four evangelists, Paul, the author of Hebrews, James, Jude and the author(s) of the Petrine epistles) writing substantial texts within 50-60 years of his death. The first (Paul) writing about 20 years after. Expecting more than that, or closer, is simply not what you get when you do ancient history; it's more and better than major Kings and some Emperors get!

This is the same problem with arguing, say, the fossil record with a YEC. You have to understand the method and the kind of evidence the field works with normally; not bring expectations from another field.

That's why ancient historians don't doubt he existed - they are used to working with this kind of data, and usually much less of it of much lower reliability -in order to do their work.

A good Christian historian (say John Dickson) will distinguish between what he can say as a historian and what he knows as a Christian. As an historian he can say (for example):
Jesus existed - as certain as one gets in Ancient history.
Jesus was crucified - almost as certain.
Jesus cleansed the Temple and drove some people out - very likely
...
Jesus was born of a virgin - that's not a question history can answer (though its a wierd story to write if it's not based on something).

Of course none of this needs to be established for my original point. If relevant historians who doubt Jesus' existence exist Dawkins should have found one. If they don't exist he should not have pretended they do. Either way his integrity is called into question. He is trying to pretend that, because he is a competent scientist, he is competent in all other fields beyond the scholars who have studied and work in those fields.

 

[ebia]

You get it! Whenever I explain that if evolution is true, there is no original sin and thus, Jesus was pointless, they shrug it off like it's no big deal. Thank you for getting it!

Again this arogance. "I don't understand how this field works, and I don't have to. If it looks like rubbish to me then it is."

That's exactly how YEC creationists deal with science.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

RE the OP:

Good men in their respective fields (excellent writers in their fields of expertise), horrible at understanding what they criticize, the point where they look like buffoons.

 

[mulimulix]

Yes that was the reason. God loves him. As for the others you mentioned (in a previous post) that were killed be aware God loved them too and could have saved them eternally visit this website to see how God can speak to people as they are about to die and save them himself. This guy died, and as he was dying God spoke to him, gave him a message, and he became a born again christian. After he met Jesus in heaven he was sent back to tell his story. www.aglimpseofeternity.org

Ok, we were on the same page until you said he met Jesus in heaven.

Your expectations are simply not what ancient historians get to work with. It's not a world of instant writing, and most things written down don't survive. They are almost always working from texts written well after -usually much longer after than this, usually much less text, and always much less well preserved.

For Jesus you have at least eight distinct authors (the four evangelists, Paul, the author of Hebrews, James, Jude and the author(s) of the Petrine epistles) writing substantial texts within 50-60 years of his death. The first (Paul) writing about 20 years after. Expecting more than that, or closer, is simply not what you get when you do ancient history; it's more and better than major Kings and some Emperors get!

This is the same problem with arguing, say, the fossil record with a YEC. You have to understand the method and the kind of evidence the field works with normally; not bring expectations from another field.

That's why ancient historians don't doubt he existed - they are used to working with this kind of data, and usually much less of it of much lower reliability -in order to do their work.

A good Christian historian (say John Dickson) will distinguish between what he can say as a historian and what he knows as a Christian. As an historian he can say (for example):
Jesus existed - as certain as one gets in Ancient history.
Jesus was crucified - almost as certain.
Jesus cleansed the Temple and drove some people out - very likely
...
Jesus was born of a virgin - that's not a question history can answer (though its a wierd story to write if it's not based on something).

Of course none of this needs to be established for my original point. If relevant historians who doubt Jesus' existence exist Dawkins should have found one. If they don't exist he should not have pretended they do. Either way his integrity is called into question. He is trying to pretend that, because he is a competent scientist, he is competent in all other fields beyond the scholars who have studied and work in those fields.

Alright, I have sent an email to a doctor in history I know. I'll let you know her reply...

The way I see it is if some 'Facts' in the Bible are completely outrageous (in historical terms), e.g. virgin birth and resurrection, then how can you trust the rest of the book?

 

[ebia]

Ok, we were on the same page until you said he met Jesus in heaven.



Alright, I have sent an email to a doctor in history I know. I'll let you know her reply...

Thanks. What is her area/period of study?

The way I see it is if some 'Facts' in the Bible are completely outrageous (in historical terms), e.g. virgin birth and resurrection, then how can you trust the rest of the book?

Firstly historians studying the period would not treat the bible as a single text as I've tried to emphasise. Only later are the texts collected together. Secondly, if historians discarded every source that made outrageous claims they would loose many of their most important sources - they have to live in the real world where people who make outrageous claims still write what they do for a reason. Even outright fiction, which nobody I'm aware of thinks the gospels are, tells you a lot about the world that produced it.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Ok, we were on the same page until you said he met Jesus in heaven.



Alright, I have sent an email to a doctor in history I know. I'll let you know her reply...

The way I see it is if some 'Facts' in the Bible are completely outrageous (in historical terms), e.g. virgin birth and resurrection, then how can you trust the rest of the book?

The way I tend to see it is people tend to take a peice of history, then immediately apply the credence of history to something supernatural. To simply say that Jesus existed doesn't really tell us if even the non supernatural aspects of his existence as relayed in the bible are even historically accurate let alone bring veracity to the supernatural claims. Unfortunately some people fail to make the distinction. And that's before seeing how the whole idea of the bible being being rears it's ugly head.

As for the title'd subject. I've very much enjoyed a number of Dawkin's works. I'm still reading through Greatest Show on Earth and I enjoy'd Hitch-22 quite a bit. But I'm not a big fan of Harris.

 

[razeontherock]

His writings on evolution were enough evidence for me that God cannot exist

This makes no sense. There is nothing about Ev that somehow "disproves" God, or even attempts to.

if evolution is true then there was no Adam and Eve and no Eden and no talking snake and therefore there is no such thing as original sin which pretty much throws the rest of the Bible into disarray.

Again this makes NO sense! Look into Orthodox Christianity sometime. NO original sin. You are displaying the epitome of Ephesians 4:14, "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"

 

[Varicose Brains]

This makes no sense. There is nothing about Ev that somehow "disproves" God, or even attempts to.

Evolution proves that a magical God did not create us. We came into being as a result of genetic mutations that happened over the course of hundreds of millions of years. No God necessary.

Again this makes NO sense! Look into Orthodox Christianity sometime. NO original sin. You are displaying the epitome of Ephesians 4:14, "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"

God did not make humans (see above). Therefore the whole creation story is the fabrication of a deluded priest, which means there is no such thing as "original sin", which furthermore means there is no such thing as sin AT ALL. I do not need God to redeem me because I am not a sinner, nor is there, in fact, a God for me to need because I am the result of millions of years of evolution and not the creation of some invisible and perpetually angry being in the sky who listens to my thoughts, watches me incessantly and always disapproves of everything I do.

I do not understand how ANY Christian can both believe in evolution AND a Creator God. The two are mutually exclusive and any attempt to reconcile them leads to unscientific speculation. If God did instigate and start evolution by providing that first spark of life WHY IS THIS NOT IN THE BIBLE? Why do we instead have a children's story in Genesis 1-3? Furthermore, if the Bible is wrong in Genesis 1-3 what makes you think it is right about anything else?

The only reason I can think of that someone would attempt the mental gymnastics of believing in both Evolution and God is because they need comfort in life. And the notion of a personal, loving God does indeed provide some comfort but it is, ultimately, a self-inflicted delusion.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Ok, we were on the same page until you said he met Jesus in heaven.

Not Douglas wood, he did not go to heaven, it is a seperate story about a different man and a different experience. Sorry if you though I ment douglas wood went to heaven and saw Jesus, he did not.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Evolution proves that a magical God did not create us. We came into being as a result of genetic mutations that happened over the course of hundreds of millions of years. No God necessary.



God did not make humans (see above). Therefore the whole creation story is the fabrication of a deluded priest, which means there is no such thing as "original sin", which furthermore means there is no such thing as sin AT ALL. I do not need God to redeem me because I am not a sinner, nor is there, in fact, a God for me to need because I am the result of millions of years of evolution and not the creation of some invisible and perpetually angry being in the sky who listens to my thoughts, watches me incessantly and always disapproves of everything I do.

I do not understand how ANY Christian can both believe in evolution AND a Creator God. The two are mutually exclusive and any attempt to reconcile them leads to unscientific speculation. If God did instigate and start evolution by providing that first spark of life WHY IS THIS NOT IN THE BIBLE? Why do we instead have a children's story in Genesis 1-3? Furthermore, if the Bible is wrong in Genesis 1-3 what makes you think it is right about anything else?

The only reason I can think of that someone would attempt the mental gymnastics of believing in both Evolution and God is because they need comfort in life. And the notion of a personal, loving God does indeed provide some comfort but it is, ultimately, a self-inflicted delusion.

 

[Varicose Brains]

I'm serious. Do you have proof God exists and either caused evolution, or created us as described in Genesis 1-3?

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Proof meaning...what? A picture? A video of God creating someone? If that's the case, no, I don't. If we're postulating God, an infinite being, I see no reason why He can't use evolution and all the natural processes we observe to accomplish whatever it is He wishes to accomplish. As far as I can tell, evolution is true. And I believe God works within the bounds of science, 99% of the time. There's no reason for science and Christianity to be at odds with each other, as far as I can tell.

 

[razeontherock]

Evolution proves that a magical God did not create us.

God did not make humans (see above). Therefore the whole creation story is the fabrication of a deluded priest, which means there is no such thing as "original sin", which furthermore means there is no such thing as sin AT ALL. I do not need God to redeem me because I am not a sinner, nor is there, in fact, a God for me to need

I do not understand how ANY Christian can both believe in evolution AND a Creator God. The two are mutually exclusive

1. I am deeply offended by you displaying an icon with any type of cross on it. Do remove that at once!

2. You are showing an incredible lack of understanding here. This is not a good position to make conclusions from.

 

[EphesiaNZ]

1. I am deeply offended by you displaying an icon with any type of cross on it. Do remove that at once!

2. You are showing an incredible lack of understanding here. This is not a good position to make conclusions from.

He is seeking remember and I think it's a bit harsh asking him to remove that icon. I had lot's of doubts and conflicts whilst finding faith, suggest cutting him some slack eh!

Yes he is not understanding it much I admit but you can't take a wall down safely using dynamite. It comes down brick by brick...

 

[mulimulix]

Proof meaning...what? A picture? A video of God creating someone? If that's the case, no, I don't. If we're postulating God, an infinite being, I see no reason why He can't use evolution and all the natural processes we observe to accomplish whatever it is He wishes to accomplish. As far as I can tell, evolution is true. And I believe God works within the bounds of science, 99% of the time. There's no reason for science and Christianity to be at odds with each other, as far as I can tell.

The problem I have with this is the fact that god lied with the whole creation story if evolution/big bang is true. The other major problem, as he mentioned before, is the original sin issue. Still no one has explained how you can believe in evolution/big bang AND Jesus while compensating for original sin.

 

[humblehumility]

1. I am deeply offended by you displaying an icon with any type of cross on it. Do remove that at once!

2. You are showing an incredible lack of understanding here. This is not a good position to make conclusions from.

Please, please stop making posts in this section without an explanation. You must understand that every non-believer requires an explanation for what is said. I do not mean to be offensive to you at all (as you seem like a nice person), but simply stating "You are showing an incredible lack of understanding here" without evidence only hurts your position.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

The problem I have with this is the fact that god lied with the whole creation story if evolution/big bang is true. The other major problem, as he mentioned before, is the original sin issue. Still no one has explained how you can believe in evolution/big bang AND Jesus while compensating for original sin.

How did God lie?

Also...Christianity doesn't stand or fall on a literal/non literal reading of Genesis, which wasn't how it was meant to be read at all. Original sin as you define it isn't even a Biblical concept - original guilt is what I imagine you're thinking of, and original guilt is not something I believe to be Biblical. Original sin as the majority of the western world understands it (original guilt) was a concept developed by Augustine to combat the Pelagians. Original sin (not original guilt) doesn't even exist in Judaism, and the Eastern Orthodox don't hold to original guilt at all. The Catholics believe there was a literal man named Adam, who was the first being God gave a soul. None of the early church fathers believed in a literal Genesis...so honestly, it's not a big deal.

*edited

 

[razeontherock]

He is seeking remember

Those icons are confusing. One means a Christian who is merely seeking a home Church, which might involve minor things like denominational differences. I wrote that thinking that's what his was. If it's something else, I apologize.

 

[razeontherock]

The problem I have with this is the fact that god lied with the whole creation story if evolution/big bang is true.

This is outright perplexing. How do you account for the fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians are theistic evolutionists?

Obviously, there is not this either/or scenario you depict. Which would then mean you'd have to face the possibility that maybe you're missing major components of the creation story. Like what the original audience would have understood it to mean, for example. Have you ever considered that?

The other major problem, as he mentioned before, is the original sin issue. Still no one has explained how you can believe in evolution/big bang AND Jesus while compensating for original sin.

What makes you think they're related?

 

[razeontherock]

You must understand that every non-believer requires an explanation for what is said.

And I would suggest you need to realize that the only explanations that mean anything at all, are those that come directly from G-d. We can point a fellow mortal in a general direction, and the general yes / no that limits human language is about all we have to work with in such matters.

It makes no sense to give full detailed answers to things that go way beyond the scope of the question, just like you don't start a building with the roof before a solid foundation is laid.