Why your faith?

[Silmarien]

Sorry, read it again, please. I simply did not tell you that you would "not abandon Christianity if [your] understanding of it is proven false" as you claim I said.

Again, what I said was, if you found another religion taught about equality before Christianity did, you would not change to another religion for that reason. And your latest post agrees. You might abandon Christianity for some reasons, but not for that one. So you agree with me that you would not switch religion for that reason. So if you agree with what I said, and what I said was a compliment, that was no ad hominem.

No, it's not a compliment to tell someone that they're being insincere, especially after mischaracterizing what they said.

Wow. There are verses in the Bible that are insulting to women. The Bible has long been used in support of slavery and racism. If human dignity and absolutes are absolutes in Christianity, a lot of people have missed it.

Not what I mean by absolute. Christianity provides a worldview in which humans are by their nature made in God's image and therefore worthy of dignity. It provides a standard of a fully realized life in the service of others, and makes that standard absolute by declaring it God in the flesh. Most people do not live up to it, certainly, and many try to twist it to serve their own purposes, but that does not mean there are no standards there.

Thats a shame. Carrier is a great historian.

I do hope you realize that this is the atheistic equivalent of shoving fundamentalist literature in someone's face. Waxing poetic about Richard Carrier is a sure way to lose all credibility.

I have seen him in action in an area of supposed expertise (Greek philosophy), and seeing how badly he mangled that, I would not be willing to subject myself to his writings in a field I was less familiar with. I prefer legitimate sources.

I didn't know you were looking for a sermon on why I think people should be treated equally.

I believe that we should treat all as equal because societies are made up of many people. If some in the society are not treated equally, they will be disenfranchised and that will cause trouble. If some are not treated equally, then that is not fair, and people will know that they are not treating others fairly. They will then expect others to treat them unfairly also, and that will lead only to distrust and discord. So treating people with equality, respect, and fairness is best for society.

Your turn. Why do you think we should treat people equally?

Pure utilitarianism, I see. I would prefer not to treat something like human dignity as a practical means to the end of improved social harmony. That implies that there's nothing particularly important about human dignity itself--all that matters is what's best for society, and if a truly egalitarian society is ultimately unworkable, then the best option would be to discard such ideals and make whatever sacrifices are necessary for the good of society.

I would rather hold that human dignity is a good in and of itself, but that is fairly difficult, if not impossible, without some sense of the Absolute. In the absence of that, one must wonder whether Nietzsche was not actually correct about a morality of equality existing so that the weak could enslave the strong. Perhaps our very focus on the "good of the society" is misplaced and should be replaced with a system that promotes individual excellence and punishes failure.

Therein lies the dilemma.

I didn't ask you what Theists attribute to the source behind the Big Bang. I asked you what they know about that source. I note that you did not state one thing that they know about that source.

You noted that, did you? How very observant. I would not claim to know that the external world exists or that 2+2=4, so I would be reluctant to claim knowledge here either. That does not mean there are not good reasons to attribute intellect and will to the source of reality.

In any case, I can see that your question was never sincere in the first place, and I'm really not interested in playing games with anti-theists, so I'm not sure there's any point in continuing this.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, it's not a compliment to tell someone that they're being insincere, especially after mischaracterizing what they said.

I did not tell you that you were not sincere.

I told you that the argument that Christianity is true because it was first in something is not a sincere argument.

It turns out that we agree that this is not a sincere argument. So if you agree with me that this is not a sincere argument, why do you keep bringing this up?

Not what I mean by absolute. Christianity provides a worldview in which humans are by their nature made in God's image and therefore worthy of dignity.

Do you have any reason to believe we are made in Gods image?

The fact that one might want it to be true or think that life would be better if true is not a good reason.

It provides a standard of a fully realized life in the service of others, and makes that standard absolute by declaring it God in the flesh.

Service to others is God in the flesh? Again, you might want that to be so, but that does not make it so. How do you know it is true?

Most people do not live up to it, certainly, and many try to twist it to serve their own purposes, but that does not mean there are no standards there.

Most religions and cultures have good standards. Nobody said that Christians had no good standards.

I do hope you realize that this is the atheistic equivalent of shoving fundamentalist literature in someone's face.

Shoving literature in somebody's face is rude. Mentioning that I think somebody is a good historian is not rude.

Waxing poetic about Richard Carrier is a sure way to lose all credibility.

Wait, what I said was, "Carrier is a great historian." You call that waxing poetic? If it takes 5 words in a simple statement to wax poetic, you waxed poetic dozens of time in your post.

I have seen him in action in an area of supposed expertise (Greek philosophy), and seeing how badly he mangled that, I would not be willing to subject myself to his writings in a field I was less familiar with. I prefer legitimate sources.

Seriously, why are you dragging this on? I mentioned his book only as a source that others supported equality before Christianity did. But since you agree with me that Christianity probably wasn't the first to say this, why don't we just say we agree on this point and move on? Why endlessly argue about sources if we agree on the conclusion?

Pure utilitarianism, I see. I would prefer not to treat something like human dignity as a practical means to the end of improved social harmony. That implies that there's nothing particularly important about human dignity itself--all that matters is what's best for society, and if a truly egalitarian society is ultimately unworkable, then the best option would be to discard such ideals and make whatever sacrifices are necessary for the good of society.

I would rather hold that human dignity is a good in and of itself, but that is fairly difficult, if not impossible, without some sense of the Absolute.

I did not say there was no intrinsic value in humans.

I was addressing your particular statement about the importance of treating people with dignity and equality. I have explained to you why I think it is important to treat people that way.

That does not mean there are not good reasons to attribute intellect and will to the source of reality.

What are your good reasons for believing that the source of reality has intellect and will?

 

[Silmarien]

It turns out that we agree that this is not a sincere argument. So if you agree with me that this is not a sincere argument, why do you keep bringing this up?

No, I do not agree that my argument is not a sincere one, your misunderstanding of it set aside.

Do you have any reason to believe we are made in Gods image?

The fact that one might want it to be true or think that life would be better if true is not a good reason.

How is this relevant to the question of whether there are reasons for an agnostic to embrace Christianity? My argument has never been about the truth value of the religion.

Service to others is God in the flesh? Again, you might want that to be so, but that does not make it so. How do you know it is true?

How do I know that Christianity provides a divine standard of a human life of service to others? I would start by reading the Gospel.

I did not say there was no intrinsic value in humans.

I was addressing your particular statement about the importance of treating people with dignity and equality. I have explained to you why I think it is important to treat people that way.

Why would there be intrinsic value in humans? That is the key question here.

What are your good reasons for believing that the source of reality has intellect and will?

I can offer you reading recommendations, if you'd like, but it's really not the sort of thing that can be addressed easily in a couple forum posts, and certainly not with a hostile interlocutor.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, I do not agree that my argument is not a sincere one, your misunderstanding of it set aside.

I did not say that your argument was insincere.

I said that the argument that since Christianity is first, therefore it is to be followed, is insincere.

Since you now appear not to be making that argument, and agree that such an argument would be insincere, I am not sure why we are still discussing something on which we agree.

How is this relevant to the question of whether there are reasons for an agnostic to embrace Christianity? My argument has never been about the truth value of the religion.

Ah, pure utilitarianism. You find it useful to act as though Christianity is true.

I find there are ways to get people to treat people equally and respectfully without resorting to religious claims that are not based on the truth value of the claim.

Is making a claim that has no truth value the same as stating alternative facts?

How do I know that Christianity provides a divine standard of a human life of service to others? I would start by reading the Gospel.

There is some good advice in the gospels, and some bad advice. It seems to me that a divine source would not have made the mistakes there. How do you know the advice there is divine?

Why would there be intrinsic value in humans? That is the key question here.

I find the human mind to be the most marvelous thing in all of reality. I know from personal experience what it is like to have a human mind, and know it is good. Since every person I meet must also have a human mind, I find a intrinsic value in everybody I meet.

Does that answer your question?

I can offer you reading recommendations, if you'd like, but it's really not the sort of thing that can be addressed easily in a couple forum posts

I wasn't really looking for reading recommendations. We are just neighbors talking over the fence, remember?

I was wandering if you have any reason for claiming that the source of reality has intellect and will.

 

[doubtingmerle]

"Well that was interesting. I am guessing she won't be able to support her claim that the source of reality has to have intellect and will," I explain to my dog. "We must come back this way again, and see if she can answer."

 

[SolomonVII]

Jesus did not come to find those who do not need him.
Enjoy the flowers and the dogs and the warm summer breeze and all the things that fulfill you by all means.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Enjoy the flowers and the dogs and the warm summer breeze and all the things that fulfill you by all means.

I'll drink to that!

 

[Silmarien]

Ah, pure utilitarianism. You find it useful to act as though Christianity is true.

No, this is not utilitarianism by any stretch of the imagination. Utilitarianism is specifically an ethical view. This, in contrast, is a pragmatic argument. And it always was meant to be one, since I was always explicitly coming from an agnostic perspective.

I wasn't really looking for reading recommendations. We are just neighbors talking over the fence, remember?

I was wandering if you have any reason for claiming that the source of reality has intellect and will.

[me addressing my dog] "Champ, I am guessing we have her stomped here, and that she can't give us a good reason to claim the source of reality has intellect and will."

"But, merle," says the dog, "do you really think that you could explain evolution in ten words to a Creationist who refused to give it the slightest consideration? Would you not be a bit frustrated if they explicitly asked you why they ought to believe in evolution and then refused to put any effort into informing themselves of the issues involved?"

"Approaching your neighbors under false pretenses like this, merle, pretending to be interested in their perspectives when all you really want to do is mock them," the dog mournfully shakes his canine head, "you're giving a bad name to atheists the world over."

Like I said, if you're actually interested in recommendations, I'd be happy to oblige. Otherwise, have fun with that dog. He seems to have you all figured out.

 

[SolomonVII]

I'll drink to that!

To your health then! It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick, not those who consider themselves righteous who need God, but sinners.
There comes a point in any Christians life when they got It pretty much figured out. They know the bottom line in everyhomily, the punchline of every joke before the priest even says it.
Why not set back with a cool one and watch the hummingbirds flit in the back yard instead of kneeling in the stifling heat of the church then?

I suppose, the best answer for many of us is that we are not there mainly for ourselves anymore,but to show our face as believers for those who really need the assurance in their lives that there is something still worthwhile to believe in, after life has chewed them out and spat them out. They need to believe there is life after the death of their children, or a reason to carry on after their husband has traded them in for a sleeker, sportier model of wife.
We are not out there for the hale, and the hearty,and the happy,but we come to show the people who may look up to us and respect our opinions that the community as a whole, smart and dumb, rich and poor, leaders and the shakers, and the clingers on too,see in God something worth while to believe in.

In the end, it is not a totally selfless act either, to forgo the cool one and spend time among the sinners and the ailing. No man is an island. A community filled with spiritually healthy people is in every one’s greater interest, I think.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Thanks for responding. Sure, if we found good evidence that someone in the past had risen from the dead, we might do well to believe the evidence. But as I have explained in other threads, I don't find the evidence credible. Think about it. If you were to find several old books that said someone in China had risen from the dead 3000 years ago, would you believe it? If you read that some of his followers died for this belief, would you join them? Would you worship this man as God? I think you would be open to other views: that this was just legend; or that they were mistaken when they thought the man was dead; or that they were mistaken that the body was missing; or that they were mistaken when they thought they saw the person; or that they were simply talking about some sort of spirit life after death. I think you would find all these more likely than that this man was the risen Son of God, and deserved to be worshipped.

But suppose I did believe these things were history. What benefit would there be to practicing your faith?

Well, these are good questions and there's much I can say about it. What you're mostly touching on is sometimes referred to "Christology from below", which primarily deals with the evidence for Jesus Christ being God. The short answer is that I do think that the death and resurrection of Christ are both historically credible and theologically valid.

Different faiths, religions and worldviews are a bit like a colour spectrum. There are many colours, some are closer than others, but they are all unique and exclusive. If we were to ask what benefit there is to be Christian, I could state many things, such as forgiveness of sins, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, and life in Christ. However, such a question betrays a distinct way of thinking, which is common to Secularism and contrary to Christian understanding.
Christianity is not about what we can benefit, for we hold that we are unworthy and saved through grace. Neither is it about living good lives in order to merit good things, for we hold that we are unrighteous, saved by the only righteous man: Jesus Christ. In short, Christ is what we know to be reality, and we live in accordance with this view in the same way you live according to yours.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, this is not utilitarianism by any stretch of the imagination. Utilitarianism is specifically an ethical view. This, in contrast, is a pragmatic argument. And it always was meant to be one, since I was always explicitly coming from an agnostic perspective.

My mistake, I meant pragmatic.

You find it practical to convince people that Christianity is true, regardless of whether it is true.

I find we can get better results without resorting to that kind of deception.

 

[doubtingmerle]

do you really think that you could explain evolution in ten words to a Creationist who refused to give it the slightest consideration?

I can explain to you how we know evolution must have happened: because of the overwhelming scientific evidence.

Can you explain to me how you know the source of reality has intellect and will?

 

[doubtingmerle]

In short, Christ is what we know to be reality, and we live in accordance with this view in the same way you live according to yours.

how do you know Christ to be reality?

 

[cvanwey]

It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood. The birds are chirping. The flowers are vibrantly colored. "I am glad we are moving here," I inform my dog, "but it seems a little deserted this morning. Perhaps everyone went to church."

"Oh yes," you explain to me over the fence later that day. "Many of us take our faith quite seriously here".

"That's interesting", I respond. "I personally don't have much faith in any deity. Seriously, why should I adopt your faith?"

You step back, pause, and reply...

Just my 2 cents...

Many differing interpretations of 'faith' seem to exist. So one might need to first clarify their specific definition of this word, prior to proceeding. Personally, I find many will intertwine the word 'faith' with both 'hope' and 'trust'. Many believers will state we all possess 'faith' in something...

My view... 'Some' whom possess faith in Christianity, for example, use 'faith' as follows... Meaning, some choose to favor Biblical stories and assertions (in spite) of later opposing demonstrable and peer reviewed evidence and discovery. Meaning, some choose to retain 'original faith' that the Bible is correct, where evidence seems to contradict.

Some will argue about 'truth', and what is 'truth'. Or, what is one's standard for 'absolute truth'. And that if something cannot be universally and absolutely known, will then interject the word 'faith' as this is what all humans do. Some theists will attempt to 'level' the playing field, stating that we all possess 'faith' to varying degrees, as nothing is 'absolutely true' without an 'absolute truth standard'.

For such a position, I offer the following:

"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two equals four, or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." - Bertrand Russell

Also, though absolute truth may never be 'verified', I pose the following...

500 years ago, it was widely accepted that the earth was flat. 100 years ago, it was widely accepted that the earth was perfectly round. 30 years ago, it was widely accepted that the world is spherical, but not perfectly round.

Question, how much faith is needed to continue believing the earth is flat (as believed by most 500 years ago)?

You see, this is where faith plays in... Faith can be retaining a long ago debunked position, where evidence does not follow.

Peace

 

[Silmarien]

My mistake, I meant pragmatic.

You find it practical to convince people that Christianity is true, regardless of whether it is true.

I find we can get better results without resorting to that kind of deception.

I've never tried to convince anyone that Christianity is true. Why on earth would I? But you asked me point blank if I thought there was any reason why you should adopt Christianity, and I answered honestly that yes, I think it would be better for society as a whole if secular humanists were progressive Christian humanists instead. Because I think that secular humanism is an incoherent dead end. You are the one approaching me in this scenario, demanding my opinion out of nowhere. Strangely, it is an opinion you seem incapable of dealing with.

I have made no attempt to deceive you, and I honestly am finding the way that you constantly twist what I'm saying to be increasingly repugnant. If you were actually my neighbor, I would want to build a higher fence.

I can explain to you how we know evolution must have happened: because of the overwhelming scientific evidence.

Can you explain to me how you know the source of reality has intellect and will?

"Overwhelming scientific evidence" isn't an explanation; it's an assertion. And a Creationist can deny the legitimacy of scientific evidence entirely. As can any postmodernist. You would need to challenge their entire previous worldview before you could even begin to explain the scientific evidence, and you would be far better off recommending reading material than trying to explain the modern state of science over the fence.

The state of modern philosophy of religion is likewise not the sort of thing you can explain over the fence. There are certainly reasons that theism is a long and venerable tradition, but you're not going to understand them if you're not willing to do your homework.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I've never tried to convince anyone that Christianity is true. Why on earth would I?

Two reasons: 1) You think it would be good for people to adopt Christianity, and 2) your Lord and Savior asks you to do it.

But you asked me point blank if I thought there was any reason why you should adopt Christianity, and I answered honestly that yes, I think it would be better for society as a whole if secular humanists were progressive Christian humanists instead.

Ok, you think it would be better for us to become Christian. If that is what you think, why are you so taken back at the thought of convincing people that Christianity is true?

Because I think that secular humanism is an incoherent dead end.

...and we should become Christians? And yet you get angry at the suggestion that you might want to convince people to become Christians? This makes no sense.

And no, humanism is not a dead end. Remember the explanation I gave you for how humanism leads to respect for others?

You are the one approaching me in this scenario, demanding my opinion out of nowhere.

Please read this thread again. I am not demanding anything. I am asking for your reasons that I should adopt your faith. If you don't want to answer that question, you are welcome to move on to another thread. Nobody is demanding you stay here and answer the theme question of this thread.

"Overwhelming scientific evidence" isn't an explanation;

I beg to differ. Scientific evidence is a very good explanation. Overwhelming scientific evidence is even better.

Can you think of an explanation for why we know evolution to be true that is better than pointing to the overwhelming scientific evidence?

it's an assertion.

It's an assertion that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. And I can back up that assertion if you want more information.

Now back to you. Do you have one tidbit of scientific evidence for the claim that the source of reality had intellect and will? I have scientific evidence for my claim (evolution). Do you have scientific evidence for yours?

And a Creationist can deny the legitimacy of scientific evidence entirely.

Yeah, and when they try it, they get their clock cleaned.

And some get their self-reproducing watches cleaned--https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-self-replicating-watch-argument.8005539/ .

You would need to challenge their entire previous worldview before you could even begin to explain the scientific evidence, and you would be far better off recommending reading material than trying to explain the modern state of science over the fence.

Either that, or I could show Creationists the evidence and watch them flounder as they try to evade the evidence.

The state of modern philosophy of religion is likewise not the sort of thing you can explain over the fence.

I didn't ask you to explain the state of philosophy of religion.

I asked you if you have any evidence that the source of the universe has intellect and will. If you do, what is that evidence?

There are certainly reasons that theism is a long and venerable tradition, but you're not going to understand them if you're not willing to do your homework.

There was a reason why flat earthism had a long and venerable tradition. That does not prove it is best for us today.

 

[Silmarien]

Two reasons: 1) You think it would be good for people to adopt Christianity, and 2) your Lord and Savior asks you to do it.

Did you miss the part where I'm agnostic about Christianity? Because I've mentioned it in literally every post. If I'm not convinced that something is true, why would I go around trying to convince other people that it is true?

...and we should become Christians? And yet you get angry at the suggestion that you might want to convince people to become Christians? This makes no sense.

You're a humanist, supposedly. Is the concept of believing a certain viewpoint is superior without necessarily going out of your way to try to force it down everyone else's throat really so foreign to you?

And no, humanism is not a dead end. Remember the explanation I gave you for how humanism leads to respect for others?

Yes, I do. It failed as an explanation.

I beg to differ. Scientific evidence is a very good explanation. Overwhelming scientific evidence is even better.

It's only a good explanation to people who trust science. If I do not trust science, then you need to handle that first. Scientific evidence will not matter otherwise.

Similarly, if you only trust science, than arguments that fall outside of the realm of empirical science will not sway you. The more powerful arguments for theism do not directly involve scientific evidence, so you will summarily reject them. As long as that is the case, there is no point in presenting any of them, as we would simply be talking past each other.

This is why walking up to people and insisting that they give you bullet point reasons to believe is problematic. If you are actually interested in dialogue, there are far better ways to engage, and if you're only here to play games, you really should find a new hobby. And perhaps work through whatever lingering issues with religion you have, since baiting people is childish and petty. Do you really want to contribute to the picture of atheists as a bunch of angry young men who irrationally hate religion?

Yeah, and when they try it, they get their clock cleaned.

The Creationists might. Good luck taking out the postmodernists and anti-realists, though. They actually have arguments.

There was a reason why flat earthism had a long and venerable tradition. That does not prove it is best for us today.

In what universe does flat earthism have a long and venerable tradition? The Greeks demonstrated that the earth was round in the 3rd century BC.

 

[Daniel9v9]

how do you know Christ to be reality?

Because Christ physically walked among us and died for us. And because of the very tangible Baptism, that through faith in God and His promise constitutes a new life.

 

[Uber Genius]

Uber Genius said: ↑
If you said, "The universe and all matter and energy just popped into existence uncaused magically out of nothing," would anyone be okay with that? You physics teacher and philosophy professors would certainly not be okay with that.

You responded:
Could you please address what I actually said? Because I have stated what I think is behind the Big Bang, and it is not""The universe and all matter and energy just popped into existence uncaused magically out of nothing." Why not deal with what I said rather than this straw man?

So my response is in no way a straw man! Please refer to the definition before attempting to misrepresent my post.

I said "If your said," so every reader knows that it is a conditional clause that represents your approach but not verbatim. I was identifying your actual method of relying on magic and rhetoric that no philosopher would except. But I will gladly spell it out for you.

You said, "If we accept a Big Bang, and some incomprehensible "eternity" beyond it, it seems it is difficult to make any definitive statements about that eternity." We are not making definitive statements but rather examining alternative explanations to see which best explains a universe coming into being from no space, no time, no matter,no energy, as the Big Bang model represents!"

You go on to say, "At a minimum it could just be that "nothing" really is impossible so there are various somethings out there, and one of those somethings is an eternally expanding "space-time" with quantum effects that creates universes."

This is not philosophy!

The fact that modern science in the last 50 years has stumbled upon a universe that came from timeless, spaceless, without energy and matter, runs into a 3500 year old religious explanation of a timeless spaceless immaterial creator God seem pretty spectacular to atheist philosophers and cosmologists alike but you conclude it is "difficult to make any definitive statements."

And then give us a much less plausible offering:

"Nothing is impossible." Eternally expanding universes with an actual infinite regress of causes. This is the "magic" portion where your suggestion destroys all scientific inferences. By punting your cause to a infinite series of causes of which we will, "definitionally," never be able to scientifically collect data about, you produce, not a scientific, or a philosophical (as actual infinites don't exist, and you have reversed one of the central maxims of philosophy, out of nothing nothing comes), but a meaningless hypothesis based on a word game that no atheist philosopher, or cosmologist would support.

Word games, word games, magic, fake philosophy, oh and let's play some more word games.

All you have done is again play a word game by saying nothing is impossible.

"One could also postulate that another something that exists is some sort of sentient god, but I see no way of knowing that."

Again here you have circularly achieved your conclusion, based on word games and your elimination of any premise that supports knowing there is a sentient God.

 

[Uber Genius]

Thats a shame. Carrier is a great historian.

Richard Carrier is a ancient historian, but not a New Testement historian. His work on Jesus was panned by fellow athiest scholars, and disagrees with all scholars in the last 50 years in the the matter of Jesus' historicity. His arguments in his book on the matter rely on premises that were falsified in the 1950s and 1960s due to archeological finds and various troves of textual finds that corroborate a historical Jesus.

He is destroyed by an actual historical Jesus scholar William Lane Craig.

Carriers Classical history may be good, I'm unfamiliar with it, but he appears to have an axe to grind with regards to Jesus' history, and abandons the basics of historiography to misrepresent a false narrative.

In my book when an expert falsifies the record to manipulate people to his view, rather than relying on the data, superlatives like "great" go out the window!