ASK A-THEIST: Why claim one religious authority?

[rug]

By Aaron Scheinberg and Stephanie Lam
STAFF WRITERS
April 19, 2013

Ask A-theist is a column by Aaron Scheinberg G, an atheist, and Stephanie Lam G, a Christian, which uses contrasting worldviews to explore questions and misconceptions about philosophy and religion. This week, Aaron chose the question. Send us the burning questions you have always wanted answered by an atheist or Christian (or both), and we’ll tackle them!

Q: “Why are you not a Muslim, or a worshipper of the Hindu or ancient Greek pantheon? Why think that the Bible is more true than the Quran, the Vedas, or the Iliad?”

Stephanie’s answer:

Every religion offers a characterization of God and reality. To the extent that we can, we should test their claims. Different religions and different religious texts have very different answers. God, if he or it existed, might be a person outside creation, like in Islam or Christianity, or God might be an abstract essence that makes up all of the universe, like in Hinduism, but God cannot logically be both. Truth is exclusive in a way that fantasy is not. We can argue about whether fairies need wings to fly, but there is no truth if fairies don’t exist.

Let’s look at one factual claim. Unlike Mohammed or Siddhartha Gautama or even Homer, Jesus Christ claimed not only to be an enlightened teacher, prophet or storyteller, but God himself. From non-Biblical ancient texts outside Christianity, scholars agree that a man named Jesus existed and was killed by crucifixion in the first century CE. We have explicit eyewitness testimony in the four Biblical books that discuss the life of Jesus. In them, we see an extremely unflattering view of his disciples as cowardly, petty, and constantly confused. At the death of their teacher, they scattered. Yet, within two months, we see a transformation in these men as they go out and boldly preach the message of their teacher as the resurrected Lord at great risk. All but one would give their lives for the message. Would someone knowingly give their life for a lie?

http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N19/worldviewauthority.html

[snagglepuss]

1. "Would someone knowingly give their life for a lie?" YES YES YES YES

My god is that woman the stupidest person alive.

[rug]

2. The key word is "knowingly".

Would you?

[snagglepuss]

4. Truth is subjective. Once one believes that particular belief is true for him or her so

that particular belief can never be preceived as a lie.

[rug]

6. I agree.

Whether one believes something or not does not determine if it is objectively true or false. It follows then, that that person who dies for a belief (religious or secular) would not be knowingly dying for a lie.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. wow. Believers are unbelievable.

we should test their claims.

OK. A good start.

A claim:

Let’s look at one factual claim. Unlike Mohammed or Siddhartha Gautama or even Homer, Jesus Christ claimed not only to be an enlightened teacher, prophet or storyteller, but God himself.

The claim is that this fellow Jesus is god.

The proof:

From non-Biblical ancient texts outside Christianity, scholars agree that a man named Jesus existed and was killed by crucifixion in the first century CE. We have explicit eyewitness testimony in the four Biblical books that discuss the life of Jesus. In them, we see an extremely unflattering view of his disciples as cowardly, petty, and constantly confused. At the death of their teacher, they scattered. Yet, within two months, we see a transformation in these men as they go out and boldly preach the message of their teacher as the resurrected Lord at great risk. All but one would give their lives for the message. Would someone knowingly give their life for a lie?

Some proof. Ignoring the vast overstatement of historical proof for the existence of Jesus, the proof of divinity is "would someone knowingly give their life for a lie?". The question poses a false dilemma, as obviously the apostles could believe something that was not true without being conscious of that fact.

[Humanist_Activist]

17. As far as I'm aware of, in the canonical Gospels, Jesus never really claimed to be a god,

but the son of God, just like all of mankind is supposed to be Sons of God. It wasn't until about the 3rd century that the idea of Jesus as fully divine and fully human was codified, before this, a lot of Christians didn't believe he was of the same essence as God.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Well indeed, but that minor detail was neglected in the so called proof.

On edit, the point being that the apologists aren't interested in honest discourse. Just toss out the bullshit and hope for the best.

[Fumesucker]

5. The Gospels weren't written until about forty years after the alleged death of the alleged Jesus

I find it hard to believe that they were "eyewitness" accounts in an era when forty years was a fairly long life.

[rug]

7. But even at that, they were written within living memory.

Oral tradition was a common device in those days.

[Fumesucker]

8. "oral tradition" != "eyewitness account"

Which was my point to start with.

[rug]

9. And if the source of the written account is from a witness?

[Fumesucker]

10. Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence in a courtroom trial

The human senses are remarkably easy to fool and beyond that we see what we want to see and expect to see and often completely miss really obvious things that we don't expect to see.

[rug]

11. Tell me about it.

Nevertheless, the Gospel accounts are not about robberies and lineups. While a trial may turn on an accurate detail, they do not.

[Fumesucker]

12. The point being again that eyewitness testimony is *not* reliable

And it is called "The New Testament", correct?

I suspect "testament" is linguistically closely related to "testimony".

[rug]

13. It depends on the event.

There's no doubt the Titanic sank, though the accounts vary.

The root of the word is "testis", Latin for witnness. Curiously, it's the same root for testicle.

[Fumesucker]

14. But in the case of crucifixion and resurrection the details are critical

I seem to recall that Romans were required to give testimony in court while holding their testes, hence the sharing of the root word.

[rug]

15. Not really. If Jesus was crucified and it was witnessed and if he rose on the third day, and

it was witnessed, what type of detail would augment or diminish those events?

Does it matter what Molly Brown was wearing?

[Humanist_Activist]

19. How many people witnessed the Resurrection, who ordered the Crucifixion?

Who was present at the empty grave, what gospels account for which, and how do they vary? Why does Paul not mention any of these accounts in his letters, etc.

The fact is that most of the Jesus narrative is legend building and mythmaking 101, no different than Hercules, Perseus or Mithras.

[rug]

20. Zero, Pilate, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James.

Spend ten minutes on Google for the rest of your answers.

The fact is your last sentence is opinion not fact.

[skepticscott]

23. Enjoy your association

with the Biblical literalists...and the cherry pickets...

[rug]

26. What's a cherry picket? Is it like a lime rickey?

[skepticscott]

29. Well. It certainly isn't

a Catholic asshole. Since no such thing exists.

[rug]

32. You really should reconsider your nonblief in assholes.

Evidence abounds.

[skepticscott]

34. Well, I'll wait to see your evidence

for the existence of Catholic assholes...but if you say they abound, so be it.

[Humanist_Activist]

24. Actually you are right on the first two points, wrong on the third.

Mark 16:1 - Three women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, a second Mary, and Salome
Matthew 28:1 - Two women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene and another Mary
Luke 24:10 - At least five women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women.”
John 20:1 - One woman visits Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene. She later fetches Peter and another disciple

As far as the others, well, depending on when the Gospel is written depends on how embellished things are, this is again, legendary epic in the making. Matthew is particularly interesting, being the latest and longest Gospel, with a lot of details added in.

[rug]

27. And? Were they all not at an empty tomb?

BTW, the rest of the passage from Luke is apt:

The women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James;
the others who accompanied them also told this to the apostles,
but their story seemed like nonsense
and they did not believe them.
But Peter got up and ran to the tomb,
bent down, and saw the burial cloths alone;
then he went home amazed at what had happened.

[skepticscott]

28. So says the myth

Written by someone who wasn't there.

[rug]

30. Neither was Walter Lord.

[Humanist_Activist]

31. So your contention is that they don't contradict each other?

Even though they clearly do?

[rug]

33. Oh, the particular details certainly do. But not the event.

[Humanist_Activist]

35. Considering that they borrowed narratives from each other, and possible other sources...

that doesn't strengthen the veracity of any of their accounts.

In addition, the Letters of Paul(Saul) seem to indicate that over 500 people saw Jesus resurrected, which contradicts your first response to me, with the answer of zero. So that's 2 you have wrong so far. Do you know your Bible at all?

[rug]

36. You are confusing his appearances after the Resurrection with the Resurrection.

It's obvious where you're trying to go. Do you know how to get there?

[Humanist_Activist]

37. That is the nature of the beast though, inexact translation and language...

in addition, the accounts of how many people Jesus appeared in front of are also inconsistent.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. that is amazing. A tomb, no body. What possible explanation could there be?

I now believe. I hadn't considered this before. Tomb. No Body. => Resurrection. I might have considered other explanations, but "the burial cloths alone", that nailed it.

[rug]

40. Maybe he explained it when he talked to them.

[georges641]

41. Not necessarily contradictory.

Let's say Mary, John, Joe, Steven, and Sally were at a party.

I went to the party and said I saw Mary and John there.

You went to the party and said you saw Mary, Steven and Sally.

Your friend said he saw Joe.

Are these accounts contradictory?

No.

Each statement is true.

[dimbear]

21. This appears to be an old wives tale, but one can't imagine why old wives would want to spread

such claims. Such a sexist ceremony!

[Fumesucker]

22. Turns out the idea was actually probably Biblical in origin, not Roman

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20010214

In the book of Genesis there are several passages in which a man who is taking an oath puts his hand "under the thigh" of the man to whom he is swearing: "And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house...Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: And I will make thee swear by the Lord...." The Hebrew word in this passage is yarek, which means 'thigh' throughout the Old Testament. My Biblical expert says that this ritual seems to come from the idea that the thigh is the locus of power, probably because it's near the genitals. He also notes that some modern interpreters of the Bible envision it as a swearing on the genitals, with "under the thigh" being a euphemism which goes all the way back to the Hebrew.

I think it is very likely that these Biblical passages are the source of the popular notion that testify derived from testicle.

[dimbear]

25. Sounds right to me. Also, it makes the ceremony more official to be grabbing

somebody else's junk, not your own.

[dimbear]

16. Like the authors, I am interested in exploring misconceptions. All explorers love to go to the

highest point of the mountain, the deepest depth of the cave, the heart of the wilderness, and then they leave behind a marker. It may be a brass plaque, a box of signatures, a cairn, a flag, or whatnot. We ought to get a box of that sort here. A misconception box. "On such and such a day, xxxxxxxxxx was here."

[LTX]

38. I thought there was one claim by Stephanie that was particularly curious.

Last edited Sat Apr 20, 2013, 08:38 AM - Edit history (1)

She stated: "God, if he or it existed, might be a person outside creation, like in Islam or Christianity, or God might be an abstract essence that makes up all of the universe, like in Hinduism, but God cannot logically be both."

Aaron's reply was quite succinct, but he did not address this particular claim. I don't think it really is a "logical" distinction between different beliefs.

The very nature of the Christian pantheon embodies god as an "abstract essence that makes up all of the universe" and god "as a person outside creation." On the one hand, god simply is - as a holy spirit and inescapable omnipresence (Psalm 139 is a particularly poignant rendition of this notion). And god is also a specification as a person in rather many forms - wrestling with Jacob, walking in the Garden of Eden, appearing to Abraham, Hagar, and Moses, and of course, specifying in the form of the singular human Jesus. Hinduism is replete with these same combinatorial images.

We are talking, after all, about the supernatural, for which everything is presumably possible.

[rug]

42. I think she's drawing a distinction between person and essence.

That is, a living sentient god versus an impassive force.

[LTX]

43. Certainly. But that's really a distinction between deism and theism.

And deism has always seemed to me to be simply a distillation of preexisting theistic traditions, a simple subtraction of the supernatural arms and legs. In their traditional forms, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism each combine sentient gods and supernatural sub-critters with a concept of god as an essence and impassive force. So her distinction seemed rather off-base.

Interesting o/p, btw. Thanks.