Heaving Dead Cats » contradiction

A Thought Experiment With Your Religious Friends

Neece — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 02:41:49 +0000

I am reading several books right now (I have them all listed in the left sidebar). One is called The God Virus and I just started it the other day. On page 18, Darrel W. Ray describes an experiment. I think I’ve heard of it before, but I thought I’d share it with you because it shows how religion attacks the critical thinking skills of the mind. As Mr. Ray says, it leaves the skill intact for other religions but disables critical thinking about one’s own religion. It really is like a virus of the mind.

Here’s the experiment as explained in the book:

You have a serious conversation with a deeply christian friend. Your friend is intelligent, well educated and knowledgeable. You agree to record the session. The topic is islam. During the session, you discuss that mohammed was a self-appointed prophet and that he claimed he talked to allah and the angels. He wrote a book that he claimed was infallible, and he flew from Jerusalem to heaven on a horse.

During the conversation, you agree that mohammed was probably delusional to think he could talk to god. You agree that the koran was clearly written by mohammed and not allah. It is ludicrous for him to claim that he is the last prophet and that all others are false. Neither you nor your friend can believe that he flew to heaven, let alone on a horse. It all sounds too crazy, and you both agree it is difficult to see how someone could believe such a religion. At the end of the conversation, you say that muslims did not choose their religion; they were born into it. Anyone who was exposed to both christianity and islam would see that christianity is the true religion.

Over the next few days, you transcribe the recording onto paper. Then you change all references to mohammed and make them jesus. Now the document reads something like this:

During the conversation, you both agree that jesus was probably delusional to think he could talk to jehovah. The bible was clearly written by men and not jehovah. You both agree it is ludicrous for jesus to claim that he is the last prophet and that all later ones are false. Neither of you can believe that he rose from the dead, nor flew to heaven. It all sounds too crazy, and it is difficult to see how someone could believe such a religion. At the end of the conversation, you both agree that christians did not choose their religion; they were born into it. Anyone who was exposed to both christianity and islam would see that islam is the true religion.

Now, tell your friend, “I made a transcript of our conversation about islam and would like to go over it with you.” As you read it, watch her reaction. How does she respond to each statement? How soon does she get defensive? How quickly does she start making elaborate arguments that have no more factual basis than the first conversation? If you persist in this line of parallel reasoning, how long before she gets angry or breaks off the conversation? Could this conversation damage your friendship?

You can do this experiment with other prophetic religions. For example, substitute Joseph Smith for mormonism or moses for judaism.

Have you ever tried an experiment like this? Have you ever questioned your friend’s religion? Did it damage your friendship? Or a family member? Does that person still talk to you? How far did your religious friend go to make excuses and explain away his religion in the face of reality?

It’s About Time That The Religious Are No Longer A Protected Class

Neece — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:13:01 +0000

The following is a question asked of Daniel Dennett, and his answer which was in the Washington Post the other day. My comments are below.

Q: Is there widespread media bias against Christianity? Against evangelicals such as Brit Hume and Sarah Palin? Against public figures who speak openly and directly about their faith? Against people who believe as you do?

There is no media bias against Christianity. If it appears to some people that there is, it is probably because after decades of hyper-diplomacy and a generally accepted mutual understanding that religion was not to be criticized, we have finally begun breaking through that taboo and are beginning to see candid discussions of the varieties of religious folly in American life. Activities that would be condemned by all if they were not cloaked in the protective mantle of religion are beginning to be subjected to proper scrutiny.

There is still a lot to accomplish however. We need to change the prevailing assumptions in the same way that public opinion has been reversed on drunk driving. When I was young, drunk drivers tended to be excused because, after all, they were drunk! Today, happily, we hold them doubly culpable for any misdeeds they commit while under the influence.

I look forward to the day when violence done under the influence of religious passion is considered more dishonorable, more shameful, than crimes of avarice, and is punished accordingly, and religious leaders who incite such acts are regarded with the same contempt that we reserve for bartenders who send dangerously disabled people out onto the highways.

I also look forward to the day when pastors who abuse the authority of their pulpits by misinforming their congregations about science, about public health, about global warming, about evolution must answer to the charge of dishonesty. Telling pious lies to trusting children is a form of abuse, plain and simple. If quacks and bunko artists can be convicted of fraud for selling worthless cures, why not clergy for making their living off unsupported claims of miracle cures and the efficacy of prayer?

The double standard that exempts religious activities from almost all standards of accountability should be dismantled once and for all. I don’t see bankers or stockbrokers wringing their hands because the media is biased against them; they know that their recent activities have earned them an unwanted place in the spotlight of public attention and criticism, and they get no free pass, especially given their power. Religious leaders and apologists should accept that since their institutions are so influential in American life, we have the right to hold their every move up to the light. If they detect that the media are giving them a harder time today than in the past, that is because the bias that protected religion from scrutiny is beginning to dissolve. High time.

By Daniel C. Dennett | January 12, 2010

Dennett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy and Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. His most recent book was Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

A few notes:

My first reaction is to disagree with Daniel Dennett. I think there is a definite bias towards religion in this society, which carries over into the media.

For example, watch a football game with the crybaby Tim Tebow playing. They never fail to mention how pious he is and how his parents are ministers, or some other such dreck. What the hell does that have to do with him throwing the ball down the field? Nothing. But the commentators (and whoever decides on such content) feel the need to share a heartwarming story. It’s biased. I’ve never once heard them mention godlessness in a sport, only how religious sports people are. It’s nauseating. Like that makes them better people. Watch their behavior and you’ll see they are no better than anyone else, or often they can be worse.

I agree with Mr. Dennett. It’s about damned time that we hold religious people and institutions accountable when they lie and cause hurt, either directly or indirectly through propaganda and hate-mongering.

I think indoctrinating children with religion and lies is harmful and often abusive. I have no idea how we can even tackle this though.

We also need to work harder on stopping quacks and pseudoscience proponents like Oprah, Jenny McCarthy and anyone else who lies to the public to promote their own agenda. We do so little to stop this sort of harm. So much more needs to be done to hold people who lie for a living accountable. Of course, this includes the religious, including the pope who is just as human as the rest of us, and whose lies are deadly to people in Africa and around the world.

Unfortunately it’s true that religious institutions and many religious leaders are powerful in America and around the world. Why should they be given carte blanche to do whatever they like, even if it is to molest children, or to spread hate, fear and lies, all while not paying taxes?

I wonder how much we really do scrutinize religion, the religious and their institutions, though. Not nearly enough, I’m afraid. But at least we’re getting somewhere. Now, let’s make them pay taxes. If they can bilk people of their hard earned savings while lying to them and using their pulpit for political agendas, shouldn’t they have to pay taxes too?

Many Americans Are Religiously Mixed Up

Neece — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:30:22 +0000

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life just released a new survey today. I’ve given it a quick persusal and I have to say, while some of it is interesting, most of it doesn’t surprise me. Apparently large numbers of Americans engage in multiple religious practices. Stuff you’d think would cancel each other out, but they handle the cognitive dissonance without hesitation.

For example, many blend christianity with Eastern or new age philosophies such as reincarnation, astrology and the belief in spiritual energy in physical objects. Sizeable minorities in all major U.S. religious groups say they have experienced supernatural phenomena, such as being in touch with the dead or with ghosts.

A third of Americans attend different religious services. Personally I find this amazing. When I studied different religions, I lost my faith in all of them pretty quickly because they sort of canceled each other out. Instead 35% of Americans seem to handle the conflicting faiths and stories just fine.

24% of Americans and 22% of christians, specifically, believe in astrology and 15% have consulted a fortuneteller or psychic. Damn, I’m in the wrong business.

Nearly half (49%) of the public says they’ve had a religious or mystical experience, defined as a “moment of sudden religious insight or awakening.”

This is interesting but not surprising. About 1/4 of adults express belief in tenets of certain Eastern religions: 24% believe in reincarnation, 23% believe in yoga as a spiritual practice. 26% believe in spiritual energy located in physical things such as mountains, trees or crystals and 25% believe in astrology. About 16% believe in the ‘evil eye’ or that certain people can curse or cast spells that cause bad things to happen to someone.

“Compared with other religious traditions, white evangelical Protestants consistently express lower levels of acceptance of both Eastern beliefs (reincarnation, yoga) and New Age beliefs (spiritual energy in physical things and astrology). For example, roughly one-in-ten white evangelicals believes in reincarnation, compared with 24% among mainline Protestants, 25% among both white Catholics and those unaffiliated with any religion, and 29% among black Protestants. Similarly, 13% of white evangelicals believe in astrology, compared with roughly one-quarter or more among other religious traditions. There are few differences among religious traditions in belief in the “evil eye,” though black Protestants stand out for high levels of belief on this question (32%).”

“Among Protestants, high levels of religious commitment are associated with lower levels of acceptance of Eastern or New Age beliefs. Among both evangelical and mainline Protestants, those who attend church weekly express much lower levels of belief in reincarnation, yoga, the existence of spiritual energy in physical things and astrology compared with those who attend religious services less often. Among Catholics, by contrast, frequency of church attendance is linked much less closely with these kinds of beliefs, although those who attend less often do express higher levels of belief in astrology compared with weekly attenders.”

“Hispanics are more likely than whites to believe in yoga, spiritual energy in physical objects, astrology and the evil eye, and blacks are more likely than whites to believe in reincarnation and the evil eye. Older people (those over age 65) consistently express lower levels of acceptance of these kinds of beliefs compared with younger people. These beliefs are more common among Democrats and independents than Republicans and are more widely held by liberals and moderates than conservatives. The difference between liberals and conservatives is especially pronounced on the question of belief in yoga as a spiritual practice; nearly four-in-ten liberals express this belief (39%), compared with 15% of conservatives.”

29% of Americans say they’ve felt in touch with someone who has died. 18% have been in the presence of a ghost and 15% have consulted a psychic or fortuneteller.

“Evangelical Protestants are the group least likely to say they have felt in touch with a dead person (20%). Members of other religious traditions are much more familiar with this type of phenomenon, with 37% of black Protestants, 35% of white Catholics, 31% of the unaffiliated and 29% of white mainline Protestants saying they have felt in touch with someone who has died. Differences between evangelicals and other religious traditions are smaller on the questions of ghostly experiences and consultations with fortunetellers.”

Women report being in touch with a dead person more than men. Women are also more than twice as likely to have consulted a psychic or fortuneteller. (20% vs 10%) Interestingly, a college education doesn’t stop people from consulting a psychic. (13% for the less educated, 17% for those with a college education). Conservatives and Republicans report fewer of these experiences than Liberals or Democrats though.

“In total, upwards of six-in-ten adults (65%) express belief in or report having experience with at least one of these diverse supernatural phenomena (belief in reincarnation, belief in spiritual energy located in physical things, belief in yoga as spiritual practice, belief in the “evil eye,” belief in astrology, having been in touch with the dead, consulting a psychic, or experiencing a ghostly encounter). This includes roughly one-quarter of the population (23%) who report having only one of these beliefs or experiences. More than four-in-ten people (43%) answer two or more of these items affirmatively, including 25% who answer two or three of these items affirmatively and nearly one-in-five (18%) who answer yes to four or more. Roughly one-third of the public (35%) answers no to all eight items.”

“With the exception of white evangelicals, majorities of all major religious traditions report holding at least one of these beliefs or having experienced one of these phenomena. In fact, roughly half of black Protestants (50%), the religiously unaffiliated (48%) and Catholics (47%) answer yes to two or more of these items, as do 43% of white mainline Protestants. A slim majority of white evangelicals (53%) answer no to all eight questions, while 47% indicate belief or familiarity with at least one of these items. Among white evangelicals and white mainline Protestants, higher levels of religious commitment (as measured by frequency of church attendance) are associated with lower levels of belief in these phenomena and familiarity with these experiences.”

“Among the unaffiliated, three-in-ten have had a religious or mystical experience. This is lower than nearly any other religious segment of the population but is still a higher proportion than among the general public in 1962 (22%). These kinds of experiences are particularly common among the “religious unaffiliated” (i.e., those who describe their religion as “nothing in particular” and say that religion is at least somewhat important in their lives), among whom 51% have had a religious or mystical experience. Among self-described atheists, agnostics and the “secular unaffiliated” (i.e., those who describe their religion as “nothing in particular” and say that religion is not important in their lives), roughly one-in-five (18%) say they have had this kind of experience.”

“Mystical or religious experiences are most common among people who regularly attend religious services. More than six-in-ten of those who attend weekly say they have had this kind of experience (61%), compared with half of those who attend monthly or yearly (48%) and just one-third of those who seldom or never attend religious services (33%).”

“Blacks are much more likely than whites or Hispanics (69%, 47% and 44%, respectively) to report religious or mystical experiences. More than half (55%) of baby boomers (age 50-64) identify with such experiences, compared with fewer young adults and seniors (43% each).”

“There is little difference along party lines on this question. Roughly half of Republicans, Democrats and independents say they have had a religious or mystical experience. More than half of conservatives (55%) claim to have had such experiences, similar to the number of liberals who have had these kinds of experiences (50%) and much higher than among moderates (43%).”

Now, as with all surveys, this was just a small, diverse sampling of the public. 4,013 adults to be exact. So keep that in mind.

I guess what I find disturbing is how many diverse and conflicting beliefs these people walk around with. That’s called cognitive dissonance (anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes, beliefs or the like). Only I guess it’s not when it doesn’t register in the conscience.

Are the masses of people who populate America this unconscious? This unaware of what they believe? How terrifying is that?

The sad thing is, this isn’t shocking. I mean, just look at what is on offer for TV these days. Ghost Hunter, anyone?

Mindless drivel spoonfed to self-absorbed, willfully ignorant narcissists.

Well, here’s a lolcat to cheer you up!

Objective Versus Subjective

Johnny — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:41:27 +0000

I’m seeing this video being repeatedly posted on Facebook as it chains its way though the theist world. From what I’ve gathered from the YouTube mirroring, this is a TV commercial running in the Republic of Macedonia. The campaign is apparently something like “Knowledge Is Power.” And this part of the campaign is apparently sub-headlined “Religion is knowledge, too. Bringing religion back to school.“

On several Facebook posts by friends or family, I’ve pointed out that its not a “true story” as claimed. Even pointing out the Snopes article which says that not only did Einstein not do this, but the whole story is an urban legend. The unanimous response so far has been “So what? Its a good story; and even if Einstein didn’t say it, its still the truth.”

The title and the argument of the commercial don’t really coincide. The title asks “does God exist?” while the argument presented is that “if God exists, then he is evil.”

The problem with the argument is that it is comparing objective information with subjective information (apples-to-oranges).

Cold may not exist because it is actually the lack of heat; but heat also really does not exist. Heat is the measurement of temperature. Temperature can be measured with scientific instruments to precise specifics. Multiple scientists from varying cultures with different instruments would measure the same temperature. Darkness actually being a lack of light, but still describing something that is scientifically measureable. Again even with variations in equipment, personnel, and their personal experiences, scientists would reach the same conclusion when measuring the same thing. Thus, they are objective.

Evil, being described as the absence of good is very subjective. Two people raised in different parts of the same state would classify the same deed at different levels of evil. Expand the potential for difference in ‘measuring’ evil (or absence of good) if your sample audience is from completely different cultures or times in history. The ‘measure’ of the absence of good is subjective to the era, the country, the nationality, the culture, the personal faith, the personal experience, and the acceptance of society norms for each individual. Thus, this measurement is subjective.

I also think that the dishonesty of the video creator claiming Einstein had this argument with a professor is poor form. And really goes even further to discredit the argument. But when has ‘Lying for Jesus’ ever been a true ethical struggle for most Christians.

And of course bringing religion into school curriculum is always a bad idea.

Justifying Our False Beliefs

Neece — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 07:31:47 +0000

I think I’m beginning to understand something about believing. Over the years I’ve encountered many religious people who have tried to explain to me why I need to believe as they do, why they are right and I am a fool for not understanding that. But I don’t have faith like they do. Hell, I don’t want it. Faith, by definition is belief that is not based on proof.

I embrace reason and a desire to understand the universe. While we certainly don’t have all of the answers, that doesn’t mean we stop asking questions. There is always something interesting to learn about.

I love asking questions. One that has puzzled me in the last year or so is why people cling to false beliefs so strongly. No matter how much I reason with a True Believer^TM or try to educate them with facts, they just dig in their heels, sit on their haunches and bray their myths and lies over and over. They block their ears, squint their eyes shut and cry out, “I can’t hear you, I won’t listen… lalalalalalalalala….”

Yesterday I found a new study on ScienceDaily titled “There Must Be a Reason: Osama, Saddam and Inferred Justification”. It was published in the most recent issue of Sociological Inquiry. It’s a study by four research institutions to understand why people kept believing that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks even once it was obvious that there was no evidence supporting that claim.

But that’s not why I was so fascinated. What caught my attention was the underlying research about false beliefs.

Some people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence thanks to a mental phenomenon called motivated reasoning, says sociologist Steven Hoffman, visiting assistant professor at the University at Buffalo and co-author of the study. “Rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe. For the most part,” says Hoffman, “people completely ignore contrary information” and are able to “develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information.” (Newsweek)

Now, let’s think about the belief in a god that created the world in 6 days about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, shall we? And of course, Jesus who died on the cross to save us all from hellfire and damnation. So let’s talk a bit about motivated reasoning:

On page 2 of the paper it states: This model [motivated reasoning] envisions respondents as processing and responding to information defensively, accepting and seeking out confirming information, while ignoring, discrediting the source of, or arguing against the substance of contrary information (DiMaggio 1997; Kunda 1990; Lodge and Tabor 2000).

Motivated reasoning is a descendant of the social psychological theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger and Carlsmith 1959; Kunda 1990), which posits an unconscious impulse to relieve cognitive tension when a respondent is presented with information that contradicts preexisting beliefs or preferences. Recent literature on motivated reasoning builds on cognitive dissonance theory to explain how citizens relieve cognitive dissonance: they avoid inconsistency, ignore challenging information altogether, discredit the information source, or argue substantively against the challenge (Jobe, Tourangeau, and Smith 1993; Lodge and Taber 2000; Westen et al. 2006).

Sound familiar?

What happens when one set of ideas (about god the father and his peace-loving hippie son Jesus) is repeated over and over to you when you are a child? You haven’t even formed your ego before age 6, and already you know about Jesus dying on the cross for you, or whatever myths your parents and religious community has brainwashed you with. When you get older and information starts to conflict with these beliefs, how do you handle it?

Cognitive Dissonance: an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The “ideas” or “cognitions” in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one’s behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.

Of course the easiest way to deal with cognitive dissonance is to justify and rationalize your beliefs, and deny anything that might contradict them. That brings us to:
Confirmation Bias: an irrational tendency to search for, interpret or remember information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions or working hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning.

Back to the paper (page 3): This confirmation bias means that people value evidence that confirms their previously held beliefs more highly than evidence that contradicts them, regardless of the source (DiMaggio 1997; Nickerson 1998, Wason 1968).

So how do people go about dealing with contradictory information to their beliefs? There are several options: (% is how many people in the study used the different strategies)

Bayesian Updating: the willingness to change your mind in the face of contradictory information from a trusted source. To successfully change your opinion you need to attend to new information, remember it, and then use it in decision making. (page 7 of the study) (2.04% of respondents actually changed their mind when given contradictory information)
Deny you ever believed the contradictory information in the first place. (page 9) (14.29% in the study simply denied that they had ever held the false belief)
Resist the new information: (page 11)
- Counter-argue: directly rebut the contradictory information. (12.24%)
- Attitude Bolstering: bring facts that support your position to mind without directly refuting the contradictory information. Change the subject and justify your opinion with other reasons that seem good to you. (32.65%)
- Selective Exposure: Ignore the contradictory information without rebutting or supporting other positions. Just say you don’t know. (6.12%)
- Dispute Rationality: argue that opinions do not have to be grounded in facts or reasoning. (16.33%)
- Inferred Justification: infer evidence which would support your beliefs. This is a sort of backward chain of reasoning. You start with something you believe strongly and work backward to find support for it. (14.29%) (with another 2.04% possibly also falling in this category)

So, here’s what I think. You get indoctrinated by your family, your church, your peers, your culture and your society. As a child you are a sponge for their information about everything. As you get older, perhaps you are faced with contradictory information. You are going to either attend to that new information and assimilate it after careful thought, perhaps changing your belief system in the process. Or, more likely, you’re going to resist the new information in one or more of the above listed ways.

Oh, and regarding attentiveness to the contradictory information by the study’s respondents, the researchers said,

“We found that while all of our “above average” respondents did attend to the information, a substantial minority of our less well-informed respondents—nearly one-third—ignored or refused to engage with information that challenged their political preferences, even when that information came from a source they favor. (page 16)

How many times have I had a conversation with a religious person only to have them pointedly ignore the information I have? Lots. Or when they quote from their own bible and only pick out the parts that support their set beliefs, and blatantly ignore the parts they don’t understand or don’t like? Cherry-picking, anyone?

So this is all food for thought. It at least starts us thinking why most people cling to their gods and myths like safety blankets. It certainly gives us an idea as to how they resist the facts, logic and new information they may come across in favor of their old comfortable beliefs.

Note: I need to clarify something. Belief is a powerful force in our minds that we can all fall into. Quite some time ago I wrote about how knowledge and beliefs are stored differently in the brain. I am sure I have justified my beliefs many times in my life. You probably have as well. I think the difference is when some people are confronted with conflicting information, they attend to it, maybe do some research on it, process it, then use it to change their minds as necessary. I’ve done that many times. The more I practice re-analyzing old beliefs and getting rid of ones that have no basis in reality, or ones that don’t fit my ethics and understanding of the universe, the easier it gets. I think that’s what makes some people skeptics and atheists. It can be quite challenging.

I think there is a difference between a skeptic who is willing to look at different information and change their mind and someone who is dogmatic. That is who is addressed here.

What are your thoughts?

The Resurrection Never Happened

Johnny — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:53:02 +0000

Neece posted on the Codex Sinaiticus a few weeks ago. I’ve been digging around, reading it (a little) and about it, and was formulating a reply to add to her article. After a bit of writing, I decided I should just make it a separate article.

Let me start with a little background information. Many Christians mistakenly assume that the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John) are independent accounts of the life of Jesus. Thus they assume that four corroborated eyewitnesses prove his existence, and the validity of every story told of him. Several facts knock this premise on its ear; but somehow Christians hold fast to their belief still.

First, Luke starts his book by stating that he is drawing up accounts “as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses” (in case that is too cryptic, he is admitting these were the stories told to him; that he was not an eyewitness). Second, we have historical and archeological information that indicates the new testament books were written after 45 CE at the earliest; most were after 90 CE. Third, we have in depth analysis and research that has resulted in plenty of proof that three of the four copy from another. Yet still many Christians think them all perfect accounts of the life of Jesus. Even his existence cannot be proven absolutely.

Most scholars agree that Mark was written first, and the other three had a copy or version of Mark they built their work from. The most common hypothesis currently is that Matthew used Mark or a version of Mark (M) in conjunction with the Q document (an as-yet undiscovered document). Luke used Mark and the Q document; as well as at least one other source (L), possibly two (J). The gospel of John came last, in addition to being very obviously written by a Greek (when original versions are examined). “The Gospel [of John] certainly does not appear to have been written by an uneducated fisherman from Galilee, which is who John the disciple is portrayed as in Gospel stories.” John appears to use Matthew, Mark, and Luke; but takes many liberties by using “eloquent Greek prose for the speeches of Jesus” instead of just translating. [SOURCE]

Most of you probably knew this, or knew of it in general, so I’ll get on with the “new” information.

Seems to me there are four pivotal things about Jesus that Christianity builds on: virgin birth, miracles performed, crucifixion, resurrection. How much of the Christian doctrine revolves around the resurrection? How much of the Jesus mythology comes crashing down without his return to life?

The last chapter (16) of Mark tells the story of the two Marys going to the sepulcher to anoint the body of Jesus. They discover the body missing and a “young man” (often depicted as an angel) tells them he is risen (the first half of the chapter: 16:1-8). The second half of the chapter (16:9-20) relates the various appearances Jesus put in with those known to him.

The drum roll… Remembering…

Mark was the most original known story of the life of Jesus.
The Codex is the earliest known compiling of the new testament.

The version of Mark that appears in the Codex ends at verse eight.

In the earliest known telling of the life of Jesus, there was no resurrection. For all we really can gather, the body might have been stolen.

How much credence does this lend to Christianity borrowing aspects of other myths, and adding them to the Jesus myth?

Do you think this could be used as an effective arguing tool for Jesus being a mythical figure?

Conversations With christians – Beth 2 – Down The Rabbit Hole

Neece — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:08:09 +0000

Hello everyone. I heard from Beth again today and will share our further exchange with you in a minute. After I posted the first conversation with her, she and I corresponded at least once more that night. So the following exchange is actually a few emails back and forth. I hope I can keep it straight for you so that it all makes sense.

I have to say, talking to christians is no easy task. I’m sure you understand that in your own experience. It’s almost crazy-making to try to reason with someone who believes that Jesus raised the dead and walked on water. I don’t know how people who debate such things don’t lose their tempers and start smashing things. I guess I understand why some atheists are considered angry. They’re probably just frustrated, like I am.

Anyway, here we go. We’ll start with Beth. My comments will follow hers.

I apologize because I failed to inform you that even though I am Christian, I do not think the Bible is without flaws. It was written and edited by man, who is imperfect by nature, and therefore I leave room for error in it. When I stated I agree with Jesus’s teachings, it was not my intention to come across as the type to “cherry pick”, but to establish, given my ideals, that I view Jesus as a figure who represents righteousness. For example, it is like reading a fictional story. You see it is not true, but you can pick up on the lessons and agree with them. Now arguably, that is not sufficient enough a comparison since the foundation of my faith is the Holy Book, but I am not religious. I am spiritual. Organized religion, from my stance, is corrupt to a degree. Mind you, it does not take away from what Jesus advocated. People tend to misinterpret what he said and judge others based on their standards. My definition of what it constitutes to be a Christian appears to be different from yours. I do not fault you for that. I cannot explain myself well on that point, but trust me, I can still give myself that title even if there seems to be contradictions with how the church labels it and how I do. (if you insist on me elaborating on that then I will do my best)

I think I understand. You are a christian, a follower of christ. Spiritual but not religious. I get it. I wonder what being a christian means to you, but don’t feel pressured to explain it to me unless you want to. I already know what the church says. But how you see yourself and how you see christ is interesting to me.

Now, to address the “Is Jesus real?” question. Yes, I do think he lived. I see the parallels between him and other Gods invented (if you prefer that term) before him, but it does not change the fact he was there. Now I’m quite certain you could pull out a list of documents that show otherwise and I would not deny they demonstrate how he possibly couldn’t have existed. However, I can also see evidence of him existing being destroyed as a result of how not many agreed with Christianity at the time and would not want a record of him around. I do believe him to be the Savior so yes, I believe he performed those miracles, even if science cannot completely fathom how such was possible. That goes into my belief that God is omnipotent and what that entails.

So you believe Jesus died, went to hell and rose three days later. And while he walked the earth he healed and performed miracles. Ok. Good to know. It’s not about science not being able to fathom how such was possible, it’s that the laws of the universe itself won’t allow such things to happen. But we don’t need to go into it. If you believe in miracles, we’ll leave it at that.

Now, from what I gather, you decided if there is a God they must follow the laws of the universe. I believe if there is one that they were responsible for said laws and created the universe. That is where we clearly differ. Therefore, Jesus, from my standpoint, could accomplish what he was claimed to have accomplished.

So you feel that god created the universe and he can break his own rules? Well, if jesus was the son of god, then why didn’t he do anything truly remarkable with his miracles? Why did he have to put demons into pigs, or raise one man from the dead? Why didn’t he cure cancer or blindness for all mankind? Why did he waste his miracles on changing water into wine for a wedding when he could have done great things that really helped all of mankind? They are simply stories stolen from other myths, completely unremarkable.

Religion was created by men, yes, I do concur, but how does that debunk the fact a God could exist separate of that? I wondered if you had yet dealt with that possibility and how. You told me you came to the conclusion deities were just a figment of men’s imagination, but did not explain why this being could not exist. Only that men invented a concept of it or them based on the fact they could not understand how things worked in the world.

While gods were created by man and then religions were created around the gods that were created. What evidence is there for a real god separate of religion? There is no evidence for any god of any type. So you’re saying that the god of the bible is the real god, and Jesus was his real son and did the gospel stuff, but the rest can be thrown away as religion? But that’s not cherry picking? Did I miss something?

Ok, looking at religion and the concept of a supreme being separately. Let’s say religion is just a way for man to have rituals. This is confusing. But it doesn’t have anything to do with anything. It’s just man’s thing, totally made up.

Separate from that is a god who.. let’s see, created the world, but keeps to himself/herself/itself? It has never contacted humans and doesn’t think about being worshiped, and basically leaves his/her/its creation alone? Is that right?

Well, that is what is called Deism. Ben Franklin and Einstein were Deists, if I’m correct. But you are a bit different than the classical definition:

Deism: a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme god created the universe, and that this and other religious truth can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for faith. Deists generally reject the notion of divine interventions in human affairs – such as by miracles and revelations.
Deists typically reject most supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that god (or the supreme architect) has a plan for the universe that is not altered either by god intervening in the affairs of human life or by suspending the natural laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources.

So, you have mixed deism with christianity to come up with your own thing, I guess.

I go back to my original answer on all of this. There is zero evidence for any kind of supernatural, or a supreme being of any sort by any name. There is no evidence for gods or demons, an afterlife, angels, miracles, etc. So I side with science and evidence. There’s no evidence in all these years that we’ve been conscious on this planet. There are no gods.

That’s not to say that I couldn’t be shown extraordinary evidence to prove the existence of a god. But the evidence would have to be pretty convincing. So far, there is none. That makes things rather simple from my perspective.

1.) I cannot view the Bible as free of flaws. My example of reading a fictional book was faulty now that I think about it because I do believe Jesus existed and he was the Messiah, meaning that I do believe part of is true. This is not cherry picking, as I am able to distinguish what is fact from what is not. I also take on the literary/allegorical perspective of the creation story, meaning the evolution theory and God could co-exist. I do not see science as a direct enemy to my spirituality.

2.) I understand the conflict with my saying I’m a Christian and not being religious. However, there is only this problem if I follow their doctrine completely, which provided what I told you, I do not. Their definition of Christianity is not mine. I am spiritual because I seek to separate the deity from how man markets them. In other words, I try understand them through questioning. Through challenging. I am not one to blindly follow.

1. Just one thing. How do you know what is fiction and what is true? What do you do to decide? This is fascinating to me. How are you able to see the truth amongst the fiction? Why isn’t anyone else able to do that? So the creation myth is a story told to simple people back then. I see. But please answer how you pick the bible apart from fiction and truth.

2. No, I totally get saying you’re a christian without being religious. You follow christ, not the church. But where do you get your definition of christianity? And how do you know you’re right and they are wrong? What do you mean by questioning and challenging. Who do you question and challenge?

Also, I do understand what cherry picking is. You seem to equate it with only using certain verses of the Bible to back what you are saying, but excluding the rest. When you think the Bible is completely true. That’s cool. I think you are missing my point though - I do not believe the Bible is entirely true. However, given the evidence that shows Jesus was a real person who actually lived then I wouldn’t doubt the New Testament. Now, as far as his miracles go, that’s strictly a matter of faith. The creation story, in light of recent theories, has been examined in a figurative way to work with the evolution one. I agree that could be valid regarding the debates over the two beliefs. Why can’t it be they co-exist? That’s what bothers me. People always have to separate them.

What you’re saying about the bible is classic cherry picking. You pick out the parts of the bible that suit what your preconceived conclusions are and you discard the rest as irrelevant. That’s cherry picking. It doesn’t get any more basic than that.

I recommend this well written article about the jesus mythos: The Other Easters

You’ll see that there is ample evidence that jesus was simply an amalgamation of many different pagan religious concepts of the time. I contend that there is very little evidence, if any, that such a man walked the earth. I just had this discussion and wrote about it here: Oh Jesus.

As I mentioned in that article, if Jesus existed why are there zero contemporary references to him? And why didn’t jesus write anything down himself? It would suggest he was illiterate, but why would a god-man be illiterate? It makes no sense. The evidence is shaky at best, but honestly I don’t see it. It just isn’t there.

Also, no matter how hard people try to reconcile the idea of the creation myth with evolution, it doesn’t mesh. Why do people need to do that? It’s a story told and written by people who had no concept or understanding of science. Of course it doesn’t make any sense. Whatever you can shoehorn into the theory of evolution is simply luck on the part of the iron age storytellers.

Science and religion don’t mix. They are like oil and water. One is based on faith, indoctrination and belief. The other is based on observation, experimentation and evidence.

I can see why you might come to the conclusion I am a deist. It does deviate from the standard definition, but you have to understand beliefs are not always able to be accurately labeled. If there is any example of this then it is me. I have spoken to many who get frustrated with the fact I call myself a Christian yet stray from that norm. I call myself that not because of the religion, but because the God that I see existing matches the one described in the Bible. Omnipotent. Just. Loving. I’m sure you can point out, using the Bible, all the things that contradict what I just stated. However, the Bible was written by man. It is therefore logical to believe it is not “divinely inspired” as claimed by many of my faith. If God is as he declares himself to be, then none of what you would refer to would matter.

I agree, beliefs are quite individual. But when you call the biblical god omnipotent, just and loving I really have to wonder if you’ve read the bible at all. That god is none of those things. In fact he is anything but. Of course you don’t want me to quote the bible because you will say that each of my quotes of his jealous rages, his lack of omnipotence, his lack of justice, and his general hateful, extremely human personality is the part of the bible that man made up.

Outside of the bible which we agree was written by flawed men, where does god claim to be just, omnipotent and loving? You can’t have it both ways. I refer back to classic cherry picking.

You asked me once again, how I distinguish fact from fiction. Simple, I use evidence, like yourself. There is evidence Jesus lived. As I stated previously, it is a matter of faith to believe he is the son of God and not just a person.

What evidence are you using? The bible, which you claimed was written by man? Where is the evidence that jesus lived? There is none. Not a single contemporary reference to him, even though the Romans of the time were meticulous record keepers. The gospels were written decades after the supposed death of jesus, which conveniently went unrecorded. All “evidence” of an historical jesus is hearsay. Not fact.

When I question or challenge, it generally has to do with the Bible. For instance in the Old Testament it basically says to be homosexual is a sin. Now, I do not understand why someone who is born with that sexuality should be condemned to hell by their own creator, now do you? Of course not. It is unjust. So how can that verse be “divinely inspired”?

Jesus himself said he came to fulfill the law, not make a new one. He stood by the old testament laws. He never once said a word about homosexuality. So if you take all of that together you have to think he never refuted the Leviticus laws because he agreed with them and didn’t think anything of them. Your rationale is based on your own feelings and morals. It doesn’t have anything to do with what was believed when Leviticus or the gospels were written.

No, I think if god makes someone gay, then the least he can do is not call it a sin. Animals show signs of homosexuality too, which says it’s simply a part of nature. But since I think the whole concept of a god is unfounded, I don’t know how you’d expect me to answer it. But to pick out the Leviticus verses as man-made is, once again, cherry picking, when you will go to jesus’s words in the gospels and quite easily call them true and accurate.

So that’s that. A lot of the comments I wrote above were just sent to Beth so she hasn’t had a chance to respond yet. When she does I’ll be sure to share them with you. I tried not to be harsh, but some of this just seems downright illogical and wrong to me. I tried to be nice but let me know if you think I was too harsh on her. Honestly I don’t know how I could have been nicer though.

Heaving Dead Cats » contradiction

A Thought Experiment With Your Religious Friends

Related posts

It’s About Time That The Religious Are No Longer A Protected Class

Related posts

Many Americans Are Religiously Mixed Up

Related posts

Objective Versus Subjective

Related posts

Justifying Our False Beliefs

Related posts

The Resurrection Never Happened

Related posts

Conversations With christians – Beth 2 – Down The Rabbit Hole

Related posts