'The Case for Christ' and a stubbornly historical religion

[rug]

April 13, 2017
By Bishop Robert Barron

The Case for Christ is a film adaptation of Lee Strobel’s best-selling book of the same name, one that has made an enormous splash in Evangelical circles and beyond. It is the story of a young, ambitious (and atheist) reporter for the Chicago Tribune, who fell into a psychological and spiritual crisis when his wife became a Christian. The scenes involving Lee and his spouse, which play out over many months of their married life, struck me as poignant and believable – and I say this with some authority, having worked with a number of couples in a similar situation. In some cases, a non-believing spouse might look upon his partner’s faith as a harmless diversion, a bit like a hobby, but in other cases, the non-believer sees the dawning of faith in his beloved as something akin to a betrayal. This latter situation strongly obtained in the Strobel’s marriage.

In order to resolve the tension, Lee used his considerable analytical and investigative skills to debunk the faith that was so beguiling his wife. The focus of his inquiry was, at the suggestion of a Christian colleague at the Tribune, the resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus didn’t rise, his friend explained, Christianity crumbles like a house of cards. The narrative unfolds, then, as a kind of detective story, Strobel hunting down leads, interrogating experts, asking the hard questions.

I liked this for a couple of reasons. First, at its best, Christianity is not fideist, that is to say, reliant upon a pure and uncritical act of faith on the part of its adherents. Rather, it happily embraces reason and welcomes critical questions. Secondly, and relatedly, Christianity is a stubbornly historical religion. It is not a philosophy (though it can employ philosophical language), nor is it a spirituality (though a spirituality can be distilled from it); rather, it is a relationship to an historical figure about whom an extraordinary historical claim has been made, namely, that he rose bodily from the dead.

Now especially in recent years, many attempts have been made to mitigate the scandal of this assertion. Jesus was a great moral exemplar, a powerful teacher of spiritual truth, an inspiring man of God – and it doesn’t particularly matter whether the reports of resurrection are factually accurate. Indeed, it is probably best to read them as mythic or symbolic. To all of that, classical Christianity says no. It agrees with Lee Strobel’s colleague: if the resurrection didn’t happen, Christianity should be allowed to fall onto the ash heap of history. Therefore, watching our intrepid investigator go about his work is, for a true Christian, thrilling, precisely because the questions are legitimate and something is very really at stake.

http://www.catholicreview.org/article/commentary/bishop-robert-barron/the-case-for-christ-and-a-stubbornly-historical-religion

[greymattermom]

1. Is the virgin birth in the same category?

If the virgin birth didn't happen.. etc?

[rug]

4. In the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, and some other Christian groups.

But the Resrrection is the essential core belief.

[Cartoonist]

2. Happily embraces reason

Thanks for the laugh

[rug]

5. I really doubt you're laughing.

Maybe I'm a skeptic.

[Cartoonist]

27. It made my day

It was something Ken Hamm would have said.

[rug]

36. Your confusion between Ken Ham and Robert Barron explains your confusion about religion.

[Cartoonist]

61. Confusion?

I never confuse reality and myth. Unlike Hamm and Bacon, er Barron.

[rug]

62. con·fu·sion

lack of understanding; uncertainty.

a disorderly jumble.

the state of being bewildered or unclear in one's mind about something.

Thi difference between the two is readily apparent.

[Cartoonist]

64. In what way?

Religion is bunk. That's reality. You prove it almost daily. Today you linked to a nutcase who uses religious texts to prove religious bunk.

[rug]

65. What is in your head does not always translate to reality.

To wit: "Religion is bunk." That's at best an opinion. At worst irt's rank prejudgment. Yet you, in some manner, turn it into reality.

Read up on Barron and demonstrate he's a "nutcase".

I will forebear from saying what you prove almost daily,.

[Cartoonist]

68. He is risen

Opinion or reality? Until you can show proof, it's not reality. Barron thinks he has proof, but he doesn't. Maybe that's not enough to get him committed, but it disqualifies him from being a scholar.

[rug]

69. Define the proof you say he is needed.

Go ahead.

[Cartoonist]

71. Not that line of BS again.

You often pull that lame argument as if it had any merit.
ANY proof will do. A historical record that proves the existence of Julius Caesar would be similar. Even Barron sought such a record but came up empty. Keep trying.

[rug]

72. And you never answer it.

Stay off the internet and learn some biblical scholarship.

[Cartoonist]

73. Biblical scholarship

The ultimate oxymoron

[rug]

74. The ultimate closed, prejudiced mind.

[Cartoonist]

75. Open it then

Provide some substance. When all you have to offer are books written by racist misogynistic old men, is it any wonder my mind rejects such "proofs"?

DU frowns on linking to hate sites. I contend that the Bible is such a site, after all it supports slavery. Not even the Pope discredits that part.

[rug]

82. I'm not your rabbi.

If you think discussing the Bible in the DU Religion Group is linking to a hate site, you need more help than I can or care to give.

[Cartoonist]

85. The hate manual

That's my objection to the Bible. Your problem is that you see it as something wonderful. We disagree.

[rug]

94. It'c clearly a manual you hate.

[Bretton Garcia]

103. Jesus tells us to "hate" our family, quote.

And to - quote - "hate" - our life in the world.

Hiding under all the ostensible "love" in Christianity, is actually an asceticism that hates many things. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. If I had a talking snake like the one in the Bible....

I would call him Lt. Dan.

[rug]

6. You'd also be as far from the topic as Uranus.

[Orrex]

7. I've read three of Strobel's books

The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, and The Case for a Creator, all at the behest of a friend, a born-again Christian, who swore that these miraculous works would show me The Light.

I would say, charitably, that the books are 100% unconvincing to anyone who isn't already a believer, littered with strawmen, preposterously flawed reasoning and dubious readings of the bible in support of Strobel's ultimately circular arguments. Also, I frankly don't believe that he was ever the atheist he claims to have been. Certainly he lacks any of the sincere skepticism that I have seen in every atheist I've ever known or read about.

If a believer wants to stamp their bingo card with a slew of watered-down and long-rebutted apologetics, perhaps to enable simple, reassuring affirmations at an upcoming bible retreat, then Strobel might be a good choice. For anyone else, especially for people seriously interested in apologetic traditions, then he's among the weakest contributors to the genre.

[rug]

8. His book doesn't convince me either but he frames the question squarely.

However, I have read at least as much claptrap from nonbelievers, littered with strawmen, preposterously flawed reasoning and dubious readings of the bible in support of their ultimately circular arguments.

I do not, though, claim he was no true atheist.

There are bingo cards on quite a few websites, many with a fondness for cartoons, where attacks on beliefs are overshadowed by ignorance on the subject, assumptions about believers and tribalist ideology.

Nothing is learned and postures are taken.

[Orrex]

9. I agree that he frames the questions reasonably well

But then he provides the most banal and simplistic answers to those questions, caricatures of the actual responses to those questions. Further, he paints himself as a sincere devil's advocate, but he simply (and repeatedly) throws softballs to give his interviewees more time to sermonize.

As stated previously, I know as much about the Gospels (and the bible in general) as any self-professed Christian I know in real life, so if my response to those believers is to be lampooned as "meme camp," then their faith must be equally simplistic.


There are two basic ways to rebut religious apologetics:
1. show that those arguments contain (or depend upon) an insoluble logical inconsistency
2. show that those arguments, even if internally consistent, do not support the conclusion

Each and every one of Strobel's "answers" fails at one or both of these.


I have seldom, if ever, seen a convincing anti-theistic argument that declared with certainty that God (for instance) doesn't exist. I am content to say "I do not know, I am not remotely convinced, and I do not believe." If someone else wants to declare that God doesn't exist, then I await their proof with great eagerness.

[rug]

10. Your second paragraph is illogical.

Most religious belief, as opposed to physical claims, is insoluble, not illogical. Observation of that is not a rebuttal.

Nothing about religious belief can be stated with certainty.

[Orrex]

11. "Nothing about religious belief can be stated with certainty."

Then no one can profess to be an authority on it, least of all those who stand to gain from belief in their authority.

Nothing about religious belief can be stated with certainty.

In this regard it differs not at all from any other belief in non-verifiable supernatural phenomena, and it therefore is of no value to me whatsoever. YMMV, apparently.

[rug]

14. Incorrect.

The first thing to know about religious beliefs is that they are beliefs not formulae.

I am not interested in what is or is not of value to you in your quest for material evidence of the immaterial. Obviously.

[Orrex]

18. No, that's not the first thing to know about religious belief

The first thing to know about religious belief is that believers can't actually support their beliefs logically, despite their millennia of well-documented efforts to do exactly that.

If you believe in the immaterial, then on what basis can you reject any claim made about the immaterial?

[rug]

38. "believers"? Are you standing by that broad brush statement?

Religious beliefs can easliy be supported by logic after the datum is stated.

Your last question has stumbled into the reason why religious belief can neither be proven nor refuted.
And why so much of anittheist discussion is reduced to hurling memes.

[Orrex]

43. "Religious beliefs can easliy be supported by logic after the datum is stated."

Do tell. Perhaps you mean "after the data are assumed outright to be correct and true," because "stating the datum" doesn't do shit except prop up the uncritical believer. Or if you don't like "believer," then how about "religionist" instead? I'll go with that one.

You've made that bullshit "meme camp" accusation--or variations of it--over a dozen times, as if religionists aren't chock full o' memes themselves. And, while we're at it, I'm not telling anyone that they're going to hell for their refusal to believe my favorite fairy tale.

[rug]

45. You haven't answered my question about your broad brush.

Despite that, your post has answered it. You shouldn't be ashamed to simply say you're an antitheist.

BTW, here are the memes you put in that post:

"uncritical believer"

"religionists"

"they're going to hell"

"favorite fairy tale"

Feel free to throw in "invisible sky daddy" next time. Not that it will make it any more a discussion.

[Orrex]

50. So your insults are ok, but mine are intolerable? Got it.

Meanwhile, here's how I define what you simplistically grasp as a "broadbrush."

A "believer" is one who accepts as true something for which no empirical exists (or which can't exist). A believer may believe in ghosts, bigfoot, God, or what have you, but in every case the unifying theme is this: when asked to support the belief that they require others should accept as well-justifiied, they declare that their belief can't be proven and can't be required to be proven.

As for the "going to hell" bit, I've been told that outright, so if you don't care for my mention of it here, take it up with the credulous religionists who've repeatedly hit me over the head with it.


Frankly, I'm not obligated to refute your belief, but I sure as hell don't have to respect it either. The most you can ask is that I not proactively witness against it--the way that religionists incessantly preach their version of "The Good News" or whatever.


However, if you're one of those vanishingly rare few who truly accepts that others don't share your beliefs, then I guess I'll get a different brush just to paint you. So far, the brush I have is fine for this discussion, thanks.

[rug]

54. By all means, "proactively witness".

Far be it from me to ask you to stop.

The problem is not that I need an exception from your broad brush. If you're going to, inaccurately, complain about "insults" and "ad homs", you need to put down the broad brush you just doubleed down on.

Democratic Underground is a diverse community which includes people of every race, sex, religious belief (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, gender identity, body type, disability, age, etc. We want to promote a welcoming atmosphere for all of our members, and do not want to provide a platform for bigotry.

[Orrex]

55. But here's the thing:

You posted in an open forum, thereby inviting comment and debate. So, by replying to your post, I'm obviously not "proactively witnessing."

Also, since I'm certainly not promoting bigotry, despite your desperate attempt to wedge me into a hide-worthy post, your bold and innovative posting of the TOS is a lovely scare tactic but doesn't impress me.

Especially since that excerpt says nothing about a "broadbrush."

However, if it'll soothe your delicate sensibilities, I'll soften it like this: I have no problem with religionists who believe and who reassure others of their belief, but as soon as they invite commentary--by witnessing in an open forum, for instance--then I'm under no obligation to treat their beliefs with any greater respect than they treat mine.


Also, why the hell must I tolerate your insults ("meme camp&quot while no one is permitted to question you?

[rug]

57. I invited comment and debate, niot tired, repetitive antitheist slurs (like thatbetter than meme?)

But, since you responded as you did, lumping believers together in a hateful, unconscious whole, I pointed out your error.

To coin a phrase, "why the hell must I tolerate your insults ("believers can't actually support their beliefs logically" sic) while no one is permitted to question you?"

[Orrex]

66. But your debates are tired from the outset

I'm not exactly new around here, and you typically follow this pattern:

1. Post something designed to evoke strong response
2. Complain when someone calls you out on your assertions
3. Insult those who disagree with you
4. Wave the TOS in people's faces after you've pissed them off enough to post something less than glowing in response to you

believers together in a hateful, unconscious whole

When you've experienced actual religious bigotry, give me a call. Here's a tip: complaining that someone fails to compartmentalizes you to your satisfaction, that's not bigotry.

[rug]

70. Not nearly as tired as this:

"uncritical believer"

"religionists"

"they're going to hell"

"favorite fairy tale"

Oh wait, you consider that calling me out on my assertions.

[potone]

77. Rug, why do you do this?

You repeatedly attempt to prove the basis of your belief in God to people who do not share that belief. Religious belief–when it is not simply inherited from one's parents and the societal/cultural community in which one was raised–is experiential. That is not something that can be conveyed to other people, least of all to those who reject the possibility of the existence of God. For the sake of your own mental well-being, give up trying to explain the ineffable to those who not only do not believe in it, but are hostile to it.

Happy Easter, or, as we say in Greek Orthodoxy, ???ό ?ά???!

[rug]

81. Thanks for yor concern, potone.

I'm really not trying to prove anything but, as this is the Religion Group, I do come here to discuss religion. The fact that there are reflexive religion-bashers here, if not outright assholes on the subject, is not my concern.

???ό ?ά?? to you as well. I'm glad Easter fell on the same day in each calendar, It's a taste of unity.

[Orrex]

120. Broad-brush

I am not a reflexive religion-basher, and AtheistCrusader and I have very different views on a number of subjects, so your effort to lump non-believers together in a hateful, unconscious whole is a broad-bush attack despite your fondness for invoking the TOS when it suits you.

I have met quite a few religion-bashers in my day, very nearly all of them self-professed Christians, and all of those united in their hateful bashing of Islam, Hinduism, and other other faiths.

[rug]

122. Oh, I very clearly see where you two diverge.

I see even more clearly where you clone the other.

That's not a broad brush. It's a carefully made empirical observation.

[Orrex]

124. Similarly, I see where you diverge from people who can formulate an argument

That's also not a broad-brush, nor is it a statement of faith.

[Orrex]

121. See, here's the thing

Last edited Tue Apr 18, 2017, 02:10 PM - Edit history (1)

You are mistaking hostility to fallacious propaganda for hostility to the ineffable, whereas they are two very separate things.

If someone perceives themselves to have had a personal experience with the ineffable, I don't care one bit, because it's none of my business and affects me not in the slightest. But as soon as that person proselytizes about it, or insults me because of it, or pursues a legislative agenda because of it, then that makes it fair game for debate and rebuttal, and the believer can't simply insist that it's real while also insisting that no one can possibly refute it. Which is what has happened in this thread repeatedly.

And when a non-believer engages a religionist about the subject, the religionist very often complains about hostility or bigotry and persecution simply because the non-believer doesn't accept infinitely fantastical claims at face value.


No god worthy of my worship would leave any doubt as to its existence or message, and when his proselytizers say that his existence and message are undeniable and irrefutable, then it's up to them to demonstrate evidence for it. At present, literally all they have is "I really, really, REALLY believe it."

[rug]

123. For one who hates prosetylites you you give a fair mimicry.

Hostility to fallacios propaganda is not the problem. It's not even the unwarranted certitude as to whether an opinion is fallacioius propaganda.

The problem is a complete scattershot (oddly related to broadbrushing) against anyone you think is doing that. With or without evidence.

I really, really have not seen anyone doing that on DU. Certainly not for long. Using DU as a play pen to beard progressive believers because . . . . religion is utter bullshit. I would use other words but you said you don't like being presented with the TOS.

[Orrex]

125. Where have I preached the good news about atheism?

It's not even the unwarranted certitude as to whether an opinion is fallacioius propaganda.

Unwarranted? Hardly! Strobel puts forth weak and fallacious arguments, and I'm happy to call him out for his bullshit.

If others for some reason find him convincing and parrot his argument, I'm happy to call them out for parroting fallacious propaganda.

The problem is a complete scattershot (oddly related to broadbrushing) against anyone you think is doing that. With or without evidence.

That's your poorly reasoned assessment based on your agenda-driven interpretation of my refusal to accept at face value the claims made about the infinite. It's not scattershot at all, rather like a consistent, well-supported series of arguments, and if you can't connect the dots then perhaps you should take it on faith.

I really, really have not seen anyone doing that on DU. Certainly not for long.

On DU I have never shied away from an argument about apologetics, not in the 12 years I've been here, nor am I alone. If you don't think anyone's been rebutting apologetics for long, then I have to wonder why you've chosen not to see it.

You insult, ridicule and misrepresent your opponents while cherry-picking their posts and ignoring points you can't refute. What are we to make of this?

[rug]

126. QED.

[Orrex]

136. LOL

Unless you're about to give a talk on Quantum Electro Dynamics, it's pretty clear that you don't know what QED means.

[rug]

137. It's clear you don't realize you just demonstrated the point.

IIt's also clear you're far from laughing out loud.

[Orrex]

138. Yes, some religionists are very fond of that tactic

Realizing that they have no hope of supporting their argument logically, they harumph and proclaim that the point is demonstrated. Other religionists then nod solemnly and declare the matter settled.

And then, when the emptiness of that tactic is pointed out, they'll often complain about unfair stereotypes and persecution by mean ol' atheists.


Honestly, this is partly my fault, for being foolish enough to engage with you on this subject, since I'm familiar with your shtick and really should know better than to expect a surprise. Maybe I'll check in again some time when I want to be insulted repeatedly and have my views misrepresented.


Until then...

[rug]

139. LOL

[Orrex]

140. QED

[rug]

141. EOD

[Bretton Garcia]

30. Barron argues as I do that Christianity DOES make empirical claims

Or as he says, it often claimed to make true statements about physical, historical facts.

And if so, I add? Then we might be able to go back to find physical evidence in history, and so forth. To see if it was true or not.

[rug]

39. Actually, he states that classic Christianity is based on fact, not empiricism.

Two entirely different things.

[Bretton Garcia]

46. Religion twists words around dishonestly, Peter warned

For History though, facts must be backed or defined by empirical evidence.

Emotion desires or spiritual phantoms in contrast, are not facts.

[rug]

49. Are you quoting an Epistle in support of your argument?

[Bretton Garcia]

53. Yes. I believe the Bible warns about itself.

It's a lie that now and then drops hints that it is not true.

[AtheistCrusader]

118. "Nothing about religious belief can be stated with certainty."

If only people actually folded in on themselves and vanished when conjuring a paradox.

[still_one]

101. Here is a take on Strobel's view of the resurrection, by Brent Landau

where he poses the question to Strobel:

Whether most professional biblical scholars would find his arguments for the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection to be persuasive?

Strobe's answer was the following:

A"s you know, there are plenty of credentialed scholars who would agree that the evidence for the resurrection is sufficient to establish its historicity. Moreover, Dr. Gary Habermas has built a persuasive “minimal facts” case for the resurrection that only uses evidence that virtually all scholars would concede. In the end, though, each person must reach his or her own verdict in the case for Christ. Many things influence how someone views the evidence – including, for instance, whether he or she has an anti-supernatural bias.“

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/a-closer-look-at-the-story-of-jesus-resurrection/

In other words, for those who subscribe this, it comes down to faith. You either believe it or you don't

[rug]

102. That, ultimately, is true. For both sides.

There is enough lacking in proof that mythicists cannot affirmatively state Jesus never existed as there is lacking for the Resurrection.

[Bretton Garcia]

104. We should thank Rug sincerely here.

For giving us an article tha, he knows, is contrary to his and Guil's frequent points. Since here Bishop Barron, if not Strobel, suggests that Catholicism is NOT supposed to be based on just faith and spirituality. But is supposed to be just as much, based on critical inquiry and on Reason:


'First, at its best, Christianity is not fideist, that is to say, reliant upon a pure and uncritical act of faith on the part of its adherents. Rather, it happily embraces reason and welcomes critical questions. Secondly, and relatedly, Christianity is a stubbornly historical religion. It is not a philosophy (though it can employ philosophical language), nor is it a spirituality (though a spirituality can be distilled from it); rather, it is a relationship to an historical figure about whom an extraordinary historical claim has been made, namely, that he rose bodily from the dead. '

[AtheistCrusader]

117. That's not framed, it's a low slow softball over the plate, designed to be hit by a believer.

He wouldn't last five minutes in a theological debate with the likes of Dennett.

I agree with Orrex, Strobel strikes me as either not understanding what an Atheist is when he claimed he was, or he is a fake atheist capitalizing on a rich vein of mine-able Christian pocketbooks, like S.E. Cupp. An 'atheist' that "aspires to faith". Sorry, setting off all my snake-oil-salesman detectors.

Here's a pretty good point by point takedown, and most of these are consistent across other reviews of the book that I've read, as well as my own personal impressions about the book.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/lee-strobels-fragile-argument-2/

[edhopper]

12. At least the reviewer

is unbiased.

[rug]

15. Oh, Barron is no hack at all.

Wach Rbin's interview, both parts.

His reason is as strong as his faith. Bishop or no, they are not exclusive.

[edhopper]

17. didn't say he was a hack

[rug]

20. Sorry, I call a lot of clergy hacks, usually based on their insincerity and cynicism.

He doesn't strike me that way at all. Everything I've seen about him shows an understanding of both sides of an argment even while being a advocate for one of them.

[edhopper]

21. I think he is biased

toward what he sees as a logical approach to faith. (is that an oxymoron?)

He highlights this while ignoring the flaws.

It's okay that he likes the movie. But the arguments for resurrection remain unconvincing.

[rug]

23. I don't find Strobel's arguments convincing either.

Aquinas is the epitome of a logical approach to faith. Logic requires a datum. Accepting that, you can proceed logically to a conclusion.

Barron could have been a lot more critical of the movie. Here's one review:

You'll be hard-pressed to credibly state this is not biased (though entetaining) as well.

[edhopper]

26. biased yes

but hilarious.

though sarcasm may be the best approach to this movie.

[Bretton Garcia]

13. I've talked with Robert Barron. And Strobel's son Kyle.

Bishop Barron usually coyly straddles the line, but obviously favors Christianity slightly. And I agree, Stroble was not much of an atheist.

So do they decide the resurrection happened? There's really no positive case there, using an unreliable Bible as evidence.

But the Bible promised us all the miracles that Jesus did (John 14.13?). And we can test this promise empirically (1Thesis. 5.21; Mal. 3.10; Dan 1.4-15 KJE; 1 Kings 18.20-40).

So? At the next funeral, ask the priest or minister to loudly enjoin the dead person to come back to life. And then look to see if the promise of coming back to life comes true.

His son contributes regularly to a blog called Theogy Forum, with Kent Eilers.

[rug]

16. I'm dubious.

I require more evidence of your encounters.

[Bretton Garcia]

19. Blog Kyle.

[rug]

22. Metamorpha.

http://www.metamorpha.com/

I see nothing about Robert Barron there.

[Bretton Garcia]

24. That's Kyle

Ask Robert Barron about someone he used to talk with on EWTN, with blog name Griffin.

I'm looking to see if I still have his phone.

Think he has a blog still, too.

[rug]

25. Here's his blog.

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/christianity-without-the-crucifixion-is-not-christianity/5429/

It looks like he's moved on from EWTN.

[Bretton Garcia]

28. When he called me "friend" at EWTN he was an up and coming priest

Last edited Sun Apr 16, 2017, 11:20 AM - Edit history (2)

Very media savy. So he's a good choice for LA, and media reviews.

He's definitely more rational than Chaput. Always flirting with rationality in fact.

He called me friend, even when he suspected I was an agnostic or atheist, in fact.

A good ally for Francis.

I don't have his address any more, since he moved. Threw it away anyway I think.

[rug]

37. He would still call you friend.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

29. So, does he uncover irrefutable physical proof of the Resurrection?

Really? Why haven't I read about it anywhere?

I haven't read this book or anything else the reporter has written, but if, as is indicated in another reply in this thread, he simply uses Bible passages to support the Resurrection, he's on exceptionally shaky ground. That's not finding proof.

[Orrex]

32. He's referring to the hearsay account written years after the purported fact,

In which someone is claimed to have seen an empty tomb.

This is offered up as irrefutable proof of the resurrection and the divinity of Christ.

[Bretton Garcia]

33. Sounds likely these guys all right

At times they admit that Christianity makes lots of physical, historical - not just immaterial, metaphorical, spiritual - claims. But then they say that we can investigate them scientifically,.just by looking at a written book. The Bible. Rather than doing real scientific tests.

Some of them, like Barron, have made a half step toward science. But just s half step.

People like me are trying to guide them to the full mile. Showing them that even the Bible itself called for that (above).

[rug]

40. Watch the movie. Read the book.

He has not ncovered irrefutable physical proof of the Resurection but he has debunked many of the lamer mythicist claims.

[Bretton Garcia]

51. He's preaching to the choir. People sworn to believe faithfully.

No matter how much evidence there is against him. Since Faith by dictionary definition, is believing in things for which there is no proof.

That's the thing about Barron. He questions for a moment. But almost always comes to the predetermined, accepted conclusion.

But he at least raises the questions. For a fleeting second.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. Like hell he has.

Book's a joke, movie is unlikely to be any better.

[rug]

96. The hell he hasn't.

That criticism (without evidence) is the joke.

[AtheistCrusader]

99. I have several copies of his book. A throw-away theistic argument is to give someone

that book and then run away because logic, and reason, are hard. I have a well-worn annotated copy. Dog-eared. Tagged. references added.

The book is a piece of shit.

[DetlefK]

31. The story is loaded: The story's premise puts the atheist at an unwinnable disadvantage.

I don't get why he is supposed to DISPROVE the religious claims.

How come the atheist doesn't set out to PROVE the religious claims? If he can prove them, they are valid, if he cannot prove them, they are invalid.

The whole method of objective, evidence-based proof doesn't work with religious claims. They can neither be proven nor disproven by this method.
Therefore, the atheist's failure to disprove the religious claims shows that he used the wrong method to solve this specific problem, it does not validate the religious claims as proven.

[rug]

41. Precisely. Flip it and that's exactly the antitheist method.

[Orrex]

84. Nice broadbrush

Democratic Underground is a diverse community which includes people of every race, sex, religious belief (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, gender identity, body type, disability, age, etc. We want to promote a welcoming atmosphere for all of our members, and do not want to provide a platform for bigotry.

[rug]

93. Here's a meme for you.

It describes a distinct movement not a person.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. It's only unwinnable because there's no evidence.

Zero credible evidence. None. Not a scrap.

It would be winnable if there was credible evidence for.

[rug]

95. It's unwinnable because you attack the immaterial by demanding material evidence.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. *Ignoring the books of your faith claim the immaterial MADE everything material*

Literally the entire universe and everything in it is fabricated and designed by said alleged immaterial.

That doesn't make it unprovable, if the author of everything REALLY IS immaterial.

[rug]

107. But it does.

Can you describe an author by reviewing a book?

[Orrex]

108. False analogy

[rug]

109. Cliched replies.

[Orrex]

110. Ad hominem

[rug]

111. Red herring.

Here, this will save time:



https://worldoptimalization.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/fallacies-and-bias/

[Orrex]

112. No

Instead, you should take a look at this and see why your "arguments" are so unconvincing.



https://worldoptimalization.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/fallacies-and-bias/

[rug]

113. I've read it already.

I have to go keep somebody out of jail. I'll read it again when I get back.

[AtheistCrusader]

114. Does the author describe themself in the book and how he or she might be contacted?

Does the author describe how it made XYZ, and we can go verify XYZ was in fact a designed, 'made' thing?

[Orrex]

115. Exactly.

And this is why it's a false analogy, rather than "apples and oranges."

[AtheistCrusader]

116. Right.

Preface every single statement below with 'alleged'.

The Abrahamic bible-god reveals itself to humans many times, directly. (Pillar of fire, booming voice, burning bush, direct physical miracles like parting water, etc.)
It becomes a flesh and blood person and it's own kid. Gets itself killed, waits three days, does the jack-in-the-box thing and reveals itself to many humans.
Even if it cannot normally be beheld by humans for whatever reason, it has hosts of supernatural beings/heralds that CAN interact with humans. (Be not afraid, etc) Suspiciously absent after the advent of the GoPro.
It has hosts of supernatural ENEMIES that it does not even control, that also don't reveal themselves to us for some odd reason.

Etc.

Sometimes I wonder if it would help to spell that out when calling out the false analogy that raised it, but I think in this case, it won't.

An ant might not have the faculties to perceive a human with a hammer, building a house, but it's certainly capable of discovering that human's tool-marks upon the materials it used, while framing the house.

[Orrex]

119. Terrific summary

I"m not aware of any part of the bible that shows bible-god et al forbidding his enemies to reveal themselves to us, and it would be in the interest of such an entity to present itself as mankind's friendly guardian. Sure, the serpent is subtle, but its conspicuous absence is more damning to the claim of bible-god's existence than bible-god's own absence.

[rug]

128. An ant doesn't know what a tool is. It's incapable.

[AtheistCrusader]

129. Right as usual sir.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116641-ants-craft-tiny-sponges-to-dip-into-honey-and-carry-it-home/

[rug]

130. Tell me when they find ants using a sponge left behind a drywall.

It will be facinating.

[AtheistCrusader]

131. If I got shot down that hard I might be tempted to drop a non-sequitur and flee as well.

[rug]

132. You're a hero in your own mnid, Ace.

[Lordquinton]

135. Is that so?

{citation needed}

[Orrex]

105. Special pleading

[rug]

106. Apples and oranges.

[AtheistCrusader]

133. At least apples and oranges are REAL.

[rug]

134. So is their difference.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

34. This guy can't really be much of a reporter

if he falls back on using the Bible to prove the Bible.

[Bretton Garcia]

35. True. But?

He is writing things that suggest very faintly at least, that Christianity is not just about our mental 1) spirit, or even also 2) the Bible. But also ... 3) History. Including 4) what happens in the physical world.

The churches to be sure, are dogmatic, and are too attached to old ideas. So any progressive new idea, or even a step back to a rejected old idea, takes place by way of slow, tiny, baby steps.

Right now, Barron is taking the baby step of suggesting that history - or physical material facts - are important, even to religion.

So far it seems, Barron is still looking no further than the Bible for things in it that seem credible from a physical or an Historian's point of view.

Some of the rest of us though, are going on to complete all that. By going to the point of saying the Bible tells us to honor the observation of nature.

Or in other words? To honor Science.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

44. History is what happens in the real world.

And it's important to be able to verify what really happened.

So far as I'm aware, there is zero proof that Jesus actually lived, or that the various claims on his behalf are true. And I wish someone who is supposed to be a reporter would deal more in factual reality than he apparently does here. Looking to one source and one source only, that has zero confirmation, doesn't give me any confidence in the validity of this stuff.

[Bretton Garcia]

47. I agree. Barron has more work to do.

[edhopper]

42. Read his review

the reasoning is really torturous.

Would people go to their deaths for made up things? Yes, they do all the time.

Witnesses? The Bible claims there were, but no extant evidence of any,

And so on.

[Bretton Garcia]

48. Rug tricked us with a misleading excerpt again !?!!??

The excerpt above looked pretty good.

The rest sounds pretty terrible.

[edhopper]

52. Same old

Bible proves the Bilble crap.

And this:

But what about the reliability of the Christian texts themselves? Weren’t they written long after the events described? A Catholic priest, who is also an archeologist and specialist in ancient manuscripts, told him that the number of early copies of the Christian Gospels far surpasses that of any other ancient text, including the Iliad of Homer and the Dialogues of Plato.

Do I even have to...

[rug]

59. That's a pretty piss-poor - and stale - summary of the review.

[Orrex]

56. Careful, or you'll be accused of broad-brushing.

Watch out!

[rug]

60. Seeking succor in sympathetic quarters?

[Orrex]

67. No.

Just pointing out that I'm not the only one who sees through your tired shtick.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. That could be the title of the fucking book/movie in your OP.

[rug]

92. Squealing like a stuck pig could be the title of some responses.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. No, I mean your post was a genius paraphrase.

The book is couched as a serious investigation with critical reviewers, honestly examined.

It's none of those things. All of the interviewees are deep, entrenched partisans. The investigation is a curated narrative, not an investigation at all.

[rug]

58. Maybe you should read the whole link.

There's an idea!

[Cattledog]

63. +1000

[hrmjustin]

76. Jesus is always real to me.

But I do understand skepticism over his existence.

[Htom Sirveaux]

78. Strobel should not have been impressed with the idea

that 500 people at one time claimed to see Jesus. Tons of people have claimed to see Jesus in any number of mundane places, like a hill side or a drain pipe. Paul says nothing about that particular appearance that would preclude treating it like Jesus in a piece of toast.

[Bretton Garcia]

79. Elvis sightings were a staple of the National Inquirer

Long after his death.

To many inquiring minds, they prove that Elvis resurrected, or never really died.

Elvis Lives!

"That's all right momma."

[Humanist_Activist]

80. Apologetics generally bore me but this shallow intellectualism is amusing....

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:-1px -1px 3px #999999 inset;"]So what were his inquiries? First, he wondered whether the resurrection stories were just fairy tales, pious inventions meant to take away our fear of death. But he learned that, in point of fact, many people claimed to have seen Jesus after his crucifixion, including five hundred at once. Moreover, most of the leaders of the early Church went to their deaths defending the legitimacy of what they taught. Would anyone do that for a myth or a legend of his own invention?

OK, let's unpack this one. First, the strawman, I don't know anyone who argues that the resurrection story is supposed to alleviate fear of death for everyone. It's the fact that Jesus saves you and you get to be resurrected later in paradise that is the selling point. But that's neither here nor there, the issue is this, out of the 4 canonical gospels, the earliest was possibly written as early as 30-40 years after Jesus died, with the others being written about 50-80 years later. These are lifetimes of differences we are talking about, and it shouldn't be no surprise that the shortest gospel, and the one with the least amount of elaboration, is also the one scholars think was written earlier.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:-1px -1px 3px #999999 inset;"]But another question came to his mind: might they all have been victims of a mass hallucination? A psychologist patiently explained that waking dreams are not shared by hundreds of people at different times and different places. “If hundreds of individuals had the same hallucination, that would be a greater miracle than the resurrection,” she informed him with a smile.

This is a classic case of the Mandela effect combined with confirmation bias. You don't need to "make it up" consciously, but rather your brain just has to fool you into believing in it. It doesn't even have to take lifetimes for this to be achieved. Eyewitness testimony from last week is notoriously unreliable, much less from decades ago. People also have the gift of believing what they want to believe, to the level that even in the face of contrary evidence, they believe it regardless. Examples include the people who believe that Nelson Mandela died in the 1980s, people who have seen Elvis after he died, all sorts of witnesses to numerous paranormal, spiritualist and psuedo-scientific phenomenon. Were the witnesses who recited or were the sources for the canonical gospels any different from modern people?

The thing to keep in mind is that neither the people who had first or second hand accounts of Jesus resurrection, nor those who believed Nelson Mandela died were crazy or liars. They believed what they believed, and there was nothing wrong with them mentally. They could have been or were mistaken in their own memories, and that's normal. Happens to all of us, and accounts for things such as false memories and all sorts of incongruities with our memory are generally ignored because our brain tries to organize itself in a way so we don't go insane with contradictory and inaccurate memory, hence the ability to have cognitive dissonance. Every had an argument with a parent about what type of cake you had on your 10th birthday? It's kinda like that.

But of course, Strobel and Barron aren't psychologists or psychiatrists, and probably didn't consult with either to assist in answering the questions they had above. Combine this with mass psychology, for example, in-group think and in-group memory, and you can explain mass hallucinations quite easily. In fact, the Resurrection story isn't even unique here, there have been stories of apparitions of Jesus and/or Mary appearing in front of crowds for centuries. Same with UFOs and other phenomenon. Some of these the Catholic Church itself discounts as mass hysteria/hallucination.

This also explains why many people were and are willing to die for things that, in some cases, they themselves made up. Usually this occurs in the group setting, peer pressure is a powerful thing and can exaggerate such beliefs. Look at what happened with the Heaven's Gate cult? All that's required is that they sincerely had to believe it was true and that they were going to be "saved" from death somehow, and they happily died for that belief. These people weren't mentally unstable, they simply had a self destructive belief that they carried. There are numerous other examples throughout history, touching on every religious and nonreligious belief people have. Are all these beliefs true, or even worth dying for? Actually, are any beliefs worth dying for? Now that's a question for the ages.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:-1px -1px 3px #999999 inset;"]But what about the reliability of the Christian texts themselves? Weren’t they written long after the events described? A Catholic priest, who is also an archeologist and specialist in ancient manuscripts, told him that the number of early copies of the Christian Gospels far surpasses that of any other ancient text, including the Iliad of Homer and the Dialogues of Plato.

I don't understand this argument at all, having read the Gospels myself, they seem to mostly written in a narrative style fitting epic or mythic storytelling, not much different from Iliad, quite a bit different from most of the Dialogues. Who is this priest he's referencing, and what evidence does this priest present that makes the Gospels extraordinary?

I actually read "The Case for Christ" quite a few years ago, and it was and is typical apologetics wrapped in pseudo-intellectual scholarism and philosophizing. Hence the reason why I said apologetics, and also theology, bore me. There's nothing to pursue here, there's no room for growth, there are a lot of hypotheticals, a lot of speculation, a lot of questions, and no means of getting the answers. In most cases, the questions themselves are nonsensical. Neither subject advances humanity one iota, not ethically, not intellectually. Fields of study for nothing.

[Bretton Garcia]

83. Standard responses to apologetics

Barron claims he knows a priest who - in effect smugly, vainly, proudly - asserts that the Bible is the best-attested early book in history.

And in fact, 1) it may be the first massively popular and reproduced text. But being popular is not the same as being true. Today many of the most popular books of all, are works of fiction

Furthermore, 2) the first actual copies we have, are at best some tiny fragments from John. From tentatively, 150 AD; six generations after the events they claim to narrate.

Snd? We don't really get reasonably complete New Testaments till say, Codec Vaticanus and so forth, another hundred years after that.

Scholars might try to suggest that early non-existent copies of Mark, might have existed as early as 57 AD. Later gospels c. 90 SD. But those and other suggestions are very, very highly contended in the scholarly world.

So you are right. The apologetics priest that Barron mentions, is raising very lame defenses.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. Argument to populism is tricky. They still crank out some 1/3-1/2 million copies of Atlas Shrugged

every year.

[Humanist_Activist]

98. I was trying to be generous, and bringing up the point that it doesn't matter much if it was....

1 generation or 6.

I find the idea that people won't die for a lie to be the weakest and lamest apologetic at all. When I first read about it, I thought it was a joke, a troll on the religious. After all, plenty of people in living memory have died for lies, martyring themselves for various dubious reasons. Some even created the lies and then subsequently believed them, thinking of a few doomsday cults as examples. Just because they believe their lies are truth doesn't change reality.

[Bretton Garcia]

86. "Faith" attacks the science, history, of the Bible

By dictionary definition, the command to follow Faith, tells us to believe things without proof. ("Faith," and "believe," Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary). Even though in the Bible, among a hundred other examples, Jesus even commands Doubting Thomas to actively probe Jesus'wounds with his fingers. To seek physical proofs for things.

The "faithful" thereby, discourage the people from learning science and reason and logic. Which are based on demanding solid proofs for things.

And once the people have, to varying degrees, been deprived by churches, of their native reason and science and intelligence? To the extent they have bought into faith, they become less and less capable of rational intelligence. And less functional in the real world. Becoming therefore, monetarily poorer than they would have been otherwise.

Related to this, to faith, is "spirituality." Which similarly tells us not to "observe" the physical material world. So, related to Faith, spirituality likewise attacks and seriously weakens science and common sense. Making the people more blind and foolish than they would have been otherwise.

Barron, here, momentarily considers the possibility that even the Bible itself did not want us to have so much blind faith. That it claimed first of all, not to be so entirely about spiritual metaphors. But to be also about physical, material - historical - things too. Real material people and events, in history.

And if the Bible supports science, or makes claims about real physical objects, physical historical events? Then the Bible desires to be proven true or false. By our applying science to it.

Robert Barron pretends to do this. But he hasn't really gone on to real physical testing of, experiments with, actual objects. He just looked at a book.

[Bretton Garcia]

87. Barron never does History

Last edited Mon Apr 17, 2017, 09:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Like a typical priest, he never really looks for documents outside the Bible. He doesn't rely on what science says is possible. He just offers yet another reading of our endlessly uncertain, equivocal Bible, as his only reference.

But? Amazingly, Bishop Barron endorses one of my main ideas: that ironically, amazingly, and contrary to what many Christians like Rug and Guil assert, Cristianity is not supposed to be based just on faith and slirituality. But also Reason and History (and I add later, Science):

'First, at its best, Christianity is not fideist, that is to say, reliant upon a pure and uncritical act of faith on the part of its adherents. Rather, it happily embraces reason and welcomes critical questions. Secondly, and relatedly, Christianity is a stubbornly historical religion. It is not a philosophy (though it can employ philosophical language), nor is it a spirituality (though a spirituality can be distilled from it); rather, it is a relationship to an historical figure about whom an extraordinary historical claim has been made, namely, that he rose bodily from the dead. '

Barron and especially Strobel to be sure, might seem to imply that when we apply real historical methods to the Bible, it will be proven true and good. However? I hold that while the Bible supports critical history, it knows well enough itself that ultimately, much of the Bible itself and its heaven, will mostly collapse, and be disproven, by really rational, historical, scientific, critical inquiry.

My view is that the Bible supports science; even though it knows that science will disprove ... much of the Bible itself.