I was looking at the postgrad prospectus the other day and one line about the chaplaincy struck me:
“Embracing all faiths the chaplaincy welcomes all students”
Now the second part of that statement I agree with but I found the first part troubling. Firstly it’s just not true. The chaplaincy was founded as a Christian Chaplaincy nearly 50 years ago when Christianity was the only game in town and it could only change to a multi-faith chaplaincy with a lot of work. None of which has actually been done. One of the most important things that needs to happen is someone needs to build a muti-faith centre and they cost about £1,000,000.
I was more concerned with the idea that I embrace all faiths. Clearly I don’t. I’m not talking here about Muslims or Jews or Sikhs or Hindus. These are all respectable faiths; I’m talking here about the Scientologists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and The Mormons. How can we embrace their doctrine?
Some things people believe... well, they are just weird aren’t they? I’m not being a blind bigot here. Can anyone seriously expect me to take a world view with Xemu the alien ruler of the Galactic Federation depositing souls here on interstellar Douglas DC-8s as seriously as... say... the Quran? Can I put the Mormons on the same footing as Hindus?
Look at Jehovah’s witnesses. On the surface they are just a bunch of slightly conservative Christians. Dig a little deeper and actually they view the “Watchtower” magazine on a par with the Bible. Then there is the Bible itself. They believe that only the Jehovah’s Witness’ authorised translation (the so called “New World Translation”) is accurate. But there are many translations of the Bible and I can’t think of a single scholar who would agree. Indeed what JWs end up having to believe is that on courses where they teach you how to read the Bible in the original, there must be a special lecture at some point. All the doors will be locked and then lecturer says “Now we all know that the JW Bible is much more accurate than all the rest but let’s all keep that a secret.” Presumably Alex Jones (the chaplaincy resident Bible translator) has been to this lecture. Of course she hasn't! THAT WOULD BE LUDICROUS. As is believing it happens.
I’m not saying that these views are not held sincerely. Nor am I suggesting that those who hold them are in any way bad or morally deficient. I’m not saying Mitt Romney can’t stand for US President, I’m just pointing out that he’s the only candidate wearing God-pants and that’s a bloody good reason not to vote for him.
I do not believe all religions lead to God, nor do I believe that all beliefs are of equal value. That’s not a problem because, if you’re being honest, you don’t either.
Despite Richard Dawkins making out that we are all nutters self evidently there are some beliefs that make more sense than others. I have to draw the line somewhere. I choose to do it on this side of “weird”.
So I shouldn’t have to pretend I embrace all religions. Should I?
Nah, I didn’t think so either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
I completely agree with you.
We had some Jehovah's Witnesses knock at our door last week and my housemate decided to humour them and listen to them and answer their questions. They left him with a book about what he could learn from the Bible. Through curiousity I decided to read some of it and was shocked by some of what I read. I was particularly disturbed by the chapter that said that "any friends who suggest you're getting too involved with JW are being influenced by Satan and you should cut them out of your life". I support people's right to choose to follow Jehovah's Witness if they choose, but I certainly do not support the religion itself and I know I would be annoyed if somebody expected me to do so simply because of my job.
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, everyone should accept that people believe different things, but nobody (regardless of their job title) should be expected to embrace every single viewpoint.
The first part of the sentence is odd however you look at it really...as is the second if you take them together. I know chaplaincy is very welcoming (to all and any within the physical limitations of the building), but what about if I came in proclaiming that I was a Jedi and tried to actively convert people?
I think that what I basically meant is that you need to be true to your own faith, and also be genuine.
The university chaplaincy I was part of was led entirely by Christians but with links to other locl faith communities.
We were often asked why there weren't other faith leaders involved and our response was generally that none had stepped forward (at times of high flippancy levels I would respond - "which one of us would you like to conver to Hinduism/Islam/Bahai?")
Our tagline was "welcoming students and staff of all faiths and none". I once raised the question of which faiths we would include and the one that none of us was comfortable with was paganism though many might argue the case for it. I think we also had similar views of JWs and Mormons.
I find this a little troubling. I can accept that your chosen faith is Christianity. You accept that there might be something to Hinduism, Islam, and other "proper" faiths. Why do you dismiss "lesser" religions though? If they find different meanings in the Bible or they have a different place for it in their religion, it doesn't necessarily make them wrong. Nor does believing in a tea pot between here and Mars! Just means that they have different views and beliefs.
I too find it unlikely that we were dropped off by aliens, but only as unlikely as some of the things I've read in the Bible. Do you want to start with Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth? Surely the important part is that you adhere to a generally acceptable set of laws and moralities and that your faith helps you get through the day?
"My religion / belief is better (more equal?) than yours" has arguably been the cause of more man made death and misery than any other. Just remember that "embrace" has various meanings; pick and choose the one that applies to the religion you are "embracing"!
I look forward to the time when the University truly embraces all religions and I can apply to be the Pastafarian Chaplain.
(Um, I realise that this may be offensive, and I apologise!)
The thing is, it's a pretty fine line, isn't it? I mean, there's a host of people with 'perfectly respectable' beliefs who think that there's a mystical being of some kind out there, watching everyone, noticing if some guy sticks some part of his body in another guy, and condemning them to eternal torment because of this. This all based on a text thousands of years old, translated who knows how many times, revised by who knows how many interested groups? They find it easy to pick and choose from amongst the myriad instructions in this book. They even find it easy to leave aside the fact that this being supposedly created these people, predilection towards this behaviour and all! Somehow, though, this belief is considered entirely credible, if a little behind the times.
The respectability of a religion seems to me largely based on its age and number of believers. If it's sufficiently ancient, it's impossible to apply reasonable standards of proof, and any inconsistencies can be easily ironed out - after all, it is an ancient text. If enough people believe it, well, it can't be that crazy, can it? All these other people think it makes sense!
"They believe that only the Jehovah’s Witness’ authorised translation (the so called “New World Translation”) is accurate.
But there are many translations of the Bible and I can’t think of a single scholar who would agree."
If you dont see maybe you see a scholar but dont agree.Since they are few ones.
But now you will hear about ONE Scholar.I think you will go on with your views.You are not looking for the truth.But looking for ways to attack the people of Jehovah.
For your information:
Jason BeDuhn's book "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament" compares nine translations (from the KJV to several 20th century translations, including the New World Translation), not with each other, but with the original Greek of the New Testament.
ACCORDING to one count, as many as 55 new English translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were published between 1952 and 1990. Translators’ choices mean that no two read alike. In order to assess the reliability of the translators’ work, Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff, Arizona, U.S.A., examined and compared for accuracy eight major translations, including the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses. The result?
"While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a “remarkably good” translation, “better by far” and “consistently better” than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available” and “the most accurate of the translations compared.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.
"BeDuhn noted, too, that many translators were subject to pressure “to paraphrase or expand on what the Bible does say in the direction of what modern readers want and need it to say.” On the other hand, the New World Translation is different, observed BeDuhn, because of “the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers.”
"As the New World Bible Translation Committee acknowledges in the foreword to its work, it is “a very responsible thing” to translate the Holy Scriptures from their original languages into modern speech. The Committee goes on to say: “The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible.”
"Since its first publication in 1961, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures has been made available in 32 languages plus 2 Braille editions. The Christian Greek Scriptures of the New World Translation, or the “New Testament,” is available in an additional 18 languages plus one Braille edition. We invite you to read God’s Word in this modern and “remarkably good” translation, perhaps in your own language."
you had better complain to the authors of the postgrad prospectus. send them a link to this blog entry...
how about rearranging it a little:
“Embracing all students[with word hugs of course] the chaplaincy welcomes all” or something??
In reply to Rueben, and as Chaplaincy resident bible translator (OT Division) alongside Rob Hunt (NT division:
Simon surely should have pointed out that some evo fundie christians will disown you too if you refuse to solely use their favoured version, ie the NIV, "the NEW IMPROVED VERSION" etc... They are as equally as ignorant.
Your wrote:
"Jason BeDuhn's book "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament" compares nine translations (from the KJV to several 20th century translations, including the New World Translation), not with each other, but with the original Greek of the New Testament.
ACCORDING to one count, as many as 55 new English translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were published between 1952 and 1990."
This fellow only compared 9 versions out of 55!?! Including the KJV which is regarded by scholars as being inaccurate due to its age, whilst having very beautiful prose?
It is true ""BeDuhn noted, too, that many translators were subject to pressure “to paraphrase or expand on what the Bible does say in the direction of what modern readers want and need it to say."
You can see examples of this in all bible translations. All translation is interpretation, due to relativism and contextualisation. Evo fundie study bibles with their little explanations for words do this. They are aimed at modern readers. The translators of the Septaguint couldn't reconcile the lack of God in the book of Esther and so added some God to their translation to make it make more sense to them. You're pointing out nothing new.
"On the other hand, the New World Translation is different, observed BeDuhn, because of “the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers.”
We do of course only have the world of BeDuhn here, and as I historian, have done a little research, admittedly only on the net, and this chap appears to be one voice, with many who disagree with him. This doesn't make him wrong, he is entitled to believe that NWT is the best translation. However I disagree. Are you Rueben in a place to disagree? Are you a biblical scholar? Do you read Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic? Are you a scholar of the world in which these texts were written, thus enabling you to make sense of the metaphors and legal codes intrinsic in the texts?
"As the New World Bible Translation Committee acknowledges in the foreword to its work, it is “a very responsible thing” to translate the Holy Scriptures from their original languages into modern speech. The Committee goes on to say: “The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible.”
Now surely those who fear and love the Divine Author would indeed be responsible and try and publish the much accurate translation. However it is far more responsible to encourage a spirit of learning, scholarship and openmindedness in their readers by admitting that their work too is an interpretation of fragmented texts, and the reader would do well in learning the ancient languages for themselves. Perhaps one day we should all write our own translations/interpretations of the bible, but until then, treating all with scepticism and respect is wiser given how fragmentary and ill provenanced the source material can be.
Sarah: I am intrigued; why the discomfort with paganism? (I'm not spoiling for a fight, I just don't know much about paganism and an interested to learn more!)
Someone called "Yellow" made this false claim of Jehovah's Witnesses, that "they view the 'Watchtower' magazine on a par with the Bible." This is simply not true. The Watchtower magazine is only a Bible study help, much like any of the literature produced by the Church's within Christendom.
He also said, "They believe that only the Jehovah’s Witness’ authorised translation (the so called “New World Translation”) is accurate." Actually, when Jehovah's Witnesses study the Bible with others, they will typically use the Bible the person they study with wishes to use. Furthermore, even within their own publications, you will often find that they will commonly use other Bible's than their own. In fact, because they publish and distribute Bible based literature in over 400 languages, and because their New World Translation is only available in about 50 languages, when preaching and teaching others, it stands to reason they would have to be using those Bible's as produced by others.
Therefore, just because of someone like this, being so uninformed, passing on such false statements and/or claims, it would be suggested that you investigate these things for yourself. After all, if I wanted to learn something about Catholics, I certainly wouldn't ask a Baptist.
See: http://www.watchtower.org/e/jt/index.htm?article=article_01.htm
Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com
@Captain Mosey and @Alisdair Owens
You seem to imply that there is a difficulty and overall confusion in distinguishing Christianity not only from other faiths but from aliens and celestial teapots.
I'm taking the assumption here that you don't believe in God.
So what's the difference between you, a Buddhist or a Chinese communist? As far as I can tell there is none because none of them believe in God. I therefore struggle to see your faithlessness expressed as nothing other than sitting on a mountain-top meditating on how to stamp out free speech and freedom of expression.
alex_fear: I'm not sure that even makes sense. In terms of my belief in a personal god, there is absolutely no difference between myself, a buddhist, and a non-theistic chinese communist. We all see no reason to believe that such a god exists. That doesn't mean there is no difference between myself and those people - I have very different politics to the average chinese communist, for example. Who a person is isn't solely defined by their faith. I don't say that there is no difference between you and a scientologist. I say that belief in scientology is no less (or more) ridiculous than belief in christianity.
What I am saying is that all religions that believe in a personal god require a leap of faith - I really can't imagine someone rationally examining the facts at hand and stating that not only is there a strong case for the existence of a personal god, but that that god behaved according to the way a specific one of the ancient texts described. I am saying that if Christianity or any other religion were at a stage when it were relatively young, and had few followers, it might seem similarly ridiculous to the JWs or scientologists. The example I provided regarding gays illustrated that.
As it stands, Christianity is accepted as 'not crazy' simply because belief in it is standard - not because from an unbiased perspective it is any less off the wall than any other faith.
At 11:56 PM, Hannah (half of The Failures) said...
"I completely agree with you.
We had some Jehovah's Witnesses knock at our door last week and my housemate decided to humour them and listen to them and answer their questions. They left him with a book about what he could learn from the Bible. Through curiousity I decided to read some of it and was shocked by some of what I read. I was particularly disturbed by the chapter that said that "any friends who suggest you're getting too involved with JW are being influenced by Satan and you should cut them out of your life"."
~~~~~~~~
I'd be VERY interested in learning what publication it was that she read the above quote, "any friends who suggest you're getting too involved with JW are being influenced by Satan and you should cut them out of your life."
Although associated with Jehovah's Witnesses for almost 40 years, I've never read anything like this.
Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
www.goodcompanionbooks.com
Tom goes off on a tangent.
To anonymous, if someone rocked up at the chaplaincy wanting to convert everyone to Jedi we would, laugh, join in, probably sign up, simon would get out his darth vader outfit, I'd go and get my lightsabre and we'd spend the afternoon playing geek chicken. Think I'm joking? There's a photo of Simon's outfit on the facey-b, and my lightsabre is Obi Wan's (and covered in fragile tape).
To Alisdair, Yes belief in God is a leap of faith, so is belief in there being no god. Neither can be proven, ask a mathmo/scientist and s/he will tell you proving a negative is impossible. Atheism is a belief, just as is any theism, not that I don't think one is entitled to such a belief, just that it should be recognised as a belief.
To Clare:
Paganism concerns me because for some it involves invocation of some very dark forces which the Bible and most Christians warn against.
@Alex Fear
Did you even read what I wrote, or did the bit about Adam, Eve and the virgin birth just make your blood boil? I can quite clearly differentiate between Christianity and other religions including Pastafarianism and my comment in no way implies otherwise. As a multicultural society surely we should be integrating all faiths, not mocking them because they are different.
>I'm taking the assumption here that you don't believe in God.
Why do you assume that?
>I therefore struggle to see your faithlessness expressed as nothing other than sitting on a mountain-top meditating on how to stamp out free speech and freedom of expression.
That doesn't make sense to my feeble mind, should the word "nothing" be exchanged for "anything"?
If it should, I will ask again. Did you read my comment? Can you point out where I'm trying to "stamp out free speech and freedom of expression". Wasn't it the original blog post that was mocking JW's? Do YOU even understand what Pastafarianism is? If you do, you'll understand how far from "trying to stamp out free speech" I am!
LOL @Mosey
Sorry for mocking your belief in the great Spaghetti Monster!
However, you insinuate that belief in God is comparable to a belief in a giant disem-bowled spaghetti bolognese, but get offended when I say atheism is comparable to communism (because they are both godless belief systems).
The fact is the FSM is parody, and does not really exist outside of the last 5 years of the internet. Whereas the Christian religion has stood up to ~2000 years criticism, is based on an even older religion, has billions of witnesses- many put to death simply for not rejecting it. There is masses of evidence for God -eyewitness testimonies at the time (see below)
Stop getting your knickers in a twist. I don't believe in the FSM because there is just not enough evidence (and it was created due to some guys outrage over teaching of ID in schools), just you are not against free speech just because you are a buddhist.. err sorry and atheist...
=)
@Alisdair,
The argument you use for the reason Christianity is accepted can easliy be applied to modern atheism (that it's standard).
Regardless if you are going to reject evidence based on 'it's old or corrupted' then where do you draw the line and start accepting it. Did the Roman Empire exist? The Vikings? The war for Scottish Independence? The bubonic plague? 100 year war? Christopher Columbus?
I could go on.. the only evidence we have of all these historic acts is through the same medium as the story of Christ. Somehow though, our ancestors managed to discern the difference between fact (Discovery of Americas) with fiction (Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet).
You may not want to believe in God but you cannot deny the evidence and you cannot say that it's gotten watered down or lost down the ages.
Sure throughout history, sects have branched off and some people have added their own interpretations but this is also recorded, and don't people do this all the time today.
Are you trying to say that in 1000-2000 years time our descendents will look at Superman and think he was a real person? Or that whatevers printed in the Daily Mail will become a matter of historical authenticity?
The way people carry on you'd think that people didn't communicate or test facts until the internet and Google came along.
Alex Fear....
>Or that whatevers printed in the Daily Mail will become a matter of historical authenticity?
If that is the only source of information that people in 1000 years have to go on then yes, it will be treated as being nearer to fact than we take it today. Much of what you think you know about historical events has been fed to you, edited by historians, sanitised by the authorities. Take an example still in living memory. The machine gunning and gassing of Kurdish villages in Iraq. No, not at the hands of Saddam, but by us Brits by the command of "Bomber" Harris (1920s). Same man who directed the bombing of residential areas of Germany during WWII killing an estimated 600,000. They forget to teach you some of this stuff in school. Same as they leave the bad bits out when writing religious texts.
I'm intrigued by this: "You may not want to believe in God but you cannot deny the evidence". What evidence? Show me real evidence. Not hearsay, not scripture, not belief. Not supposed eyewitnesses. What EVIDENCE is there of this "god"? Just about the same amount as Captain Mosey has for his deity, or Hindus for their gods, Muslims for Allah. Not knocking your faith, but claiming evidence is a little strong. If there was evidence, we wouldn’t have to believe in anything would we? And those other silly little religions wouldn’t exist.
You seem to be approaching this discussion from a standpoint that your religion is the only true explanation, that this god of yours is the one true creator. Science has explained many of the things that scared or troubled our ancestors. No longer is "god" blamed, or thanked, for many of the things that happen in our world. No longer do people truly believe that the earth was literally created in 6 days. No longer do we believe that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around us, even though the church at one time insisted these things are true. As per Mosey’s comment, do you believe in Adam and Eve, or are we now to take to represent something other than being our true ancestors?
Sarah... Christianity nicked some of the best pagan festivals and plonked their own festivals on top, so paganism can't be all bad!
:)
@Anony,
Speaking as someone who has been a Christian less than half of his adult life, I am satisfied by what I have read and seen, that God exists.
You obviously are not, but then I ask you where do you draw the line in your dismissal of evidence?
I'm curious. Are you an existentialist, someone who doesn't believe the tree fell in the wood if no-one saw/heard/felt it?
Clearly, there has to be some sort of truth for history to exist.
You sound like a conspiraloon in your first paragraph.
Do you believe the moon landings happened? After all, you weren't actually there (or is your name Buzz?)
Your argument is very vague as you seem to be dismissing everything.
I can't prove to you that I exist, let alone God. What is to say I'm not a sock puppet being used by someone else here?
My question to all who question belief in a deity is where do you draw the line in accepting evidence.
What is/was scripture?... It was a collation of letters, censor data, poetry, predictions, and eye witness testimonies.
The fact it appears in leatherbound form with same typeface throughout in a bookshop does not alter the fact that it was compiled from many, many different sources and different points in history.
Now you say science has explained many of the things that scared or troubled our ancestors.
Odd that you simply qoute "science" out of no-where. You don't make reference to any journals, papers, books, quotes or historical archives but you simply say "science".
So who is making up evidence now? I put it another way...
Show me evidence, based on scientific analysis or inquiry, that has proved God does not exist.
If that's too difficult, perhaps you could simply explain to me how human beings came to believe in a god or gods if they never had existed.
I reckon some of what makes these upstart religions seem silly is the Way of Mrs Cosmopolite effect, where wisdom seems more convincing if it comes from far away, both in space and time. Christianity has a gravitas about it at least partly because it's so old.
It's also true that Christianity and Islam and suchlike have better stories than the Scientologists and Mormons. I'm not sure what makes them better stories. Maybe it's that they talk about things which are what Scott Atran calls minimally counterintuitive, that is, they change our everyday notions enough to be interesting but not sufficiently to seem completely bizarre.
Alex Fear is right to point out that cod religions like the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUHHH) or the FSM are not really like Christianity (although his logic is broken when he tries to apply it to atheism, because nobody is arguing that Pastafarianism is identical to Christianity, merely that it should have equal weight). The point of these religions is parody, that is, to throw the sillier assertions of proper religions into sharp relief, and penetrate the screen of gravitas that these religions have acquired. Thus the IPU is about how circular assertions and faith in something you can't detect are silly: "like other religions, we are based on faith and reason: by faith we know she is pink, by reason we know she is invisible, because we cannot see her". The FSM is specifically crafted to deal with explicit creationists (and the stealth ones, the Intelligent Design advocates), the point being that if you want to teach one creation myth, you need to teach the Pastafarian one too, because there's no reason to prefer the Christian one unless you reveal your prior preference for Christianity, at which point your claim that you merely want to "teach the controversy" is shown up as a subterfuge.
To Alisdair, Yes belief in God is a leap of faith, so is belief in there being no god. Neither can be proven, ask a mathmo/scientist and s/he will tell you proving a negative is impossible. Atheism is a belief, just as is any theism, not that I don't think one is entitled to such a belief, just that it should be recognised as a belief.
This argument is tired, and massively discredited. I don't believe that there is 100% certainly no god - few people do. I simply think that there's little more reason to believe in god than there is a giant jelly shaped like my face orbiting saturn. This is not a belief system. I agree, a statement that god certainly did not exist would be a belief, since it's basically impossible to prove/disprove god as things stand now.
Alex_fear - are you seriously trying to suggest that the evidence for the existence of the Roman empire is comparable to the evidence that Jesus not only existed, but was the son of god? The historical evidence for the existence of the roman empire is vast - and convincing. Sure, I see your point that you can change the point at which you accept something as likely to be true - and indeed, some are more skeptical than others, but if we applied the same standards of evidence to history in general that people do to their religions, we would be a massively credulous people. In areas other than religion, people tend to set their bar of skepticism much higher - and that interests me.
I'm sure you understand that there are differences in the burden of proof depending on the novelty of what we are asked to accept. If I said to you "I'm an atheist", you'd probably accept that. Lots of people are atheists in this world, and until you know me to be a liar, there seems no reason for me not to be telling the truth in this matter. If I said to you "NASA have placed a jelly shaped like my face in orbit around saturn", you'd want some pretty hard evidence before you accepted it as truth - because it's such an incredible thing. Someone being the son of god is vastly more incredible even than that. It's not to say that I can't be convinced, just that the burden of proof is higher than it is for things that are likely anyway (such as there having been civilisations and illnesses in the past).
You seem to say that I don't want to believe. That's not really the case - I don't mind if god does exist, although I think he cares about some really odd things and acts in a really odd way if he does. The difference between you and me is that I don't have a desire to believe. I can honestly say I've never heard of someone who didn't already believe saying "I've looked at all the historical evidence, and I've concluded with a fairly high degree of certainty that Christianity is correct, and all other religions were wrong. Jesus as the son of god is as good as historical fact". Without it being at least historically likely, why on earth would I believe in it, without that inbuilt desire?
Are you trying to say that in 1000-2000 years time our descendents will look at Superman and think he was a real person? Or that whatevers printed in the Daily Mail will become a matter of historical authenticity?
I sincerely doubt that they will think superman is a real person, written as it is in a fictional style, but who can say? There is a tiny outlier of a possibility that superman might be considered a mythic (rather than fictional) character of our time, depending on whether we have a great deal of information loss or not. More information is recorded these days, but stuff does get lost or degraded in history - for example, we *think* that Thales was the first western style philosopher. The thing is, we only know of him through hand-me-down accounts from other, later philosophers. I have absolutely no doubt that some information available about him is entirely wrong. Working out what he said is a matter of examining the quality of the available sources, and determining a best reasonable guess - and even this no-one would stake their life on. Likewise the content of the bible - many people feel much of the content, particularly of the old testament, to be allegorical (creationists excepted), but there is no doubt truth in there too - you'd just need a lot more information than a simple book to convince me to swallow it whole. Even a trash newspaper like the Daily Mail has elements of truth about it *grins*.
You may not want to believe in God but you cannot deny the evidence and you cannot say that it's gotten watered down or lost down the ages.
So, what evidence in particular was it that made you plump for Christianity over all the other religions out there? Why did it convince you? I am genuinely interested to know. I note with interest that there's a high tendency for people born to parents or a nation of a particular religion to adopt that religion.
The fact it appears in leatherbound form with same typeface throughout in a bookshop does not alter the fact that it was compiled from many, many different sources and different points in history.
Sure. Now tell me how you know that those sources are credible? Tell me how you know that the people who compiled all the information did so fairly? Why they chose to include one story, but not another? Was it because they felt that some were inaccurate, or because some didn't fit their world view? My compiling a book of fairy tales, binding them together, and leaving them in a cave for a few thousand years won't make them any more true when they're excavated.
Again, I'm not saying that there is no truth in the bible. I just wonder why your standard of evidence to believe in as huge an assertion as god, jesus, et al. is so massively below what your standards of evidence must be if you function well in the real world.
Show me evidence, based on scientific analysis or inquiry, that has proved God does not exist.
If that's too difficult, perhaps you could simply explain to me how human beings came to believe in a god or gods if they never had existed.
There is none. I know no-one who claims to have evidence that god does not exist - god is clearly impossible to disprove or prove. By the same token, there's no evidence that my jelly face orbiting saturn does not exist, so you have to believe in that too, by your standards - at least until you've commissioned a thorough survey of the area.
Humans have believed a lot of things that are completely and utterly wrong. it's quite possible that a tendency to believe in gods is an evolutionary advantage for humanity as a whole - it eases death-related anxiety, and makes you more likely to sacrifice your life for the greater good. Too, rulers have fostered it, because it's easier to rule by divine right, and if people believe they're going to get rewarded in the next life, they're less likely to rebel in this one. Not to say that these explanations are correct, either, but pretending that the only way a belief could exist is if the thing that is believed in exists is patently foolish.
You obviously are not, but then I ask you where do you draw the line in your dismissal of evidence?
I set the bar higher than the bible. Where do you draw the line? Why are the JWs wrong and you right? Why are your pretty sure that my face-jelly isn't out there on its lonely orbit? Are the ancients more likely to be correct than people today?
Alex Fear
>What is/was scripture?... It was a collation of letters, censor data, poetry, predictions, and eye witness testimonies.
You missed out the word "edited". At which point we agree.
>Show me evidence, based on scientific analysis or inquiry, that has proved God does not exist.
Therein lies the problem. I see no evidence that your god (or any other) created everything or even exists and I tried to suggest that as science in general progresses more and more of "god’s will" is explained. You demand that I disprove the existence of god? I'm far too busy trying to establish whether I exist or whether the observable sun is really there. I have no time to start disproving a figment of a collective imagination which through education is now deemed fact by so many. What if the Muslims are right? How about the Hindus? Between them they outnumber Christians, individually they aren't far behind. Which religion do I disprove first?
>If that's too difficult, perhaps you could simply explain to me how human beings came to believe in a god or gods if they never had existed.
Surely the root belief in the many different gods worshiped by man is the fear of the unknown. Why does the sun rise? Erm, well, erm, dunno, don't get scared... oh, let's say that's the sun god's thing. Why do the seasons change, oh, that's the sun god, mother nature, HIM, whoever. Why do apples fall from trees? Oh, that's god's will. Or, as science now calls it, gravity. Evolution has taken away the once held belief that Adam and Eve were 2 real humans. The earth wasn’t created in 6 days. It isn't really turtles all the way down. I don’t think you really need me to quote books, papers or journals do you?
>My question to all who question belief in a deity is where do you draw the line in accepting evidence.
Mine is how tightly will you clutch onto the last straws of your so called evidence as we understand more and more about our universe? You keep referring to evidence, can you give me a concrete example of your evidence of god? Just one piece of evidence that doesn’t require "well you come up with a better explanation".
I in no way mean to mock your faith (I have none and so you are better off than I am), but it scares me that throughout your comments you claim that you are right, god must exist, just because something you read says so. You want evidence that god DOESN'T exist which surely is the most desperate plea you can make? In the UK you are deemed innocent until proven guilty. There is no true evidence for any god(s) or their actions otherwise we wouldn't require faith or belief. There is no way you can pin anything on any of them beyond reasonable doubt, so perhaps you should stop this uncalled for defamation of him, them, us? (There's intended humour in that paragraph, just in case you aren’t sure).
Paul Wright, re: the Way of Mrs Cosmopolite, see also Russell's Teapot. The further away you keep your "truth", the harder it is for someone to disprove it. The longer you keep claiming it to be true, the more true it becomes.
Quite busy lately so I'll just try and respond to a few things.
Re: If God is real, which religion is correct eg. Muslims, hindus etc...
That is really a point of theology, and really a debate for theists than non-theists (unless it is a non-theist who is genuinely seeking which religion they should follow).
Re: Why I believe.
What I have read, what I have seen and what I have heard.
I also believe that man landed on the moon, but I can offer you no proof of that, I just read it in the history books- who's to say the conspiraloons are right that the moon landings were faked. I believe based on probability and rationality like everyone else.
What I've experienced and learned allows me to rationally believe in God.
Re: Adam and Eve
I can tell you've not actually read the bible, or not enough anyway, since you seem to be dead certain that it is so reliant on the story of Adam & Eve.
The fact is Genesis is written in a poetic way and if you study carefully you will see 2 contradictory passages in Genesis. So did God create Adam and Eve, or did God create human beings?
Re: 6 days,
A thousand years is 1 day to God.
Real bible scholars will not assert that creation in 6 days is a dead-cert, neither will I, though I do believe God created everything and that the particular theory of adaptive mutation is a stretch. I have no quarrel with the most other theories that make up the overall theory of evolution.
You see, the theory of gravity simply tells you how and why the apple falls, but that doesn't challenge the notion that God created all these things. Just like my ability to see how the engine of a car works, doesn't mean there wasn't an original mechanic that built it.
@Alisdair,
There's not much I can think to disagree with you on. We are both looking at an object with many sides, the trick is to see the other persons side as well as your own.
I have chosen to believe in the texts I have read that make up the bible. I have read and studied many things both in support for and against the bible.
What you may be failing to realise is that most intelligent criticisms that can be levelled at the bible have come from bible scholars. I'm not talking about the Religious Wrong of America here, I'm talking about real believers who are the first to point out inconsistency, error and doubt.
I still say where do you draw the line in assessing your evidence- I have accepted the evidence presented by the bible in the context that it was written - and still I learn more the more I study it and works that criticise it.
You say If I said to you "NASA have placed a jelly shaped like my face in orbit around saturn", you'd want some pretty hard evidence before you accepted it as truth
A few weeks ago you may not have believed in a virgin birth, but now scientists, intellectuals and biologists has discovered (caught up) that a virgin birth is quite possible.
The science was always there- it just had to be seen by doubters to be believed.
Wow….what an interesting discussion this post has triggered off…and I though we were just taking the mick out of JWs...
Let me throw in my six pennyworth…
@ anonymous
“There is no true evidence for any god(s) or their actions otherwise we wouldn't require faith or belief.”
What you should have said is there is no evidence you will accept…it’s a judgement you make on the evidence…I make a different one. A tiny example, I believe the evidence of Paul when he says he met Jesus on the road to Damascus. But even if I’m wrong (and of course I’m not :p) it is still evidence.
“I have no time to start disproving a figment of a collective imagination which through education is now deemed fact by so many.”
Because, of course, you can’t….but what education would that be anyway? I taught (Science) for twenty five years, the prevailing belief system in state schools today is agnosticism or atheism…certainly not Christianity (or any other religion).
“You missed out the word "edited". At which point we agree.”
Yeah, yeah, that old chestnut. I would argue that the early church fathers did what any sensible group have to do…come up with an accepted body of knowledge about a particular idea. In the same way most historians reject Irvin’s holocaust denials when describing the Second World War. Have you read the gospel of Judas?…my goodness, what a crock!
It comes back to nature of evidence again and what we accept. You use a courtroom expression…that’s interesting. What happens in a courtroom? We weigh and shift evidence…we look at Irving’s stuff and reject it…the church fathers looked at the gospels of Judas and James…and rejected them. And of course you the average atheist sees a conspiracy in that…the average neo-nazi sees a conspiracy re Irving. (And no! I’m not comparing atheists to Nazis….I just thought that Irving is an example that most people would get!)
@Alisiar
“are you seriously trying to suggest that the evidence for the existence of the Roman empire is comparable to the evidence that Jesus not only existed, but was the son of god? The historical evidence for the existence of the roman empire is vast - and convincing.”
Two things…I think you might be missing the point, belief in the Roman Empire IS based on faith….it might be a reasonable faith, but just suppose there was some group of conspirators that faked Julius Caesar’s writings, made a bunch of coins and statues that mention the emperor Claudius etc. etc. Ridiculous, but is it reasonable to believe that a bunch of conspirators made up Jesus, His miracles, His resurrection and were seemingly happy to die before admitting the joke? Actually a lot of the evidence for the Roman Empire is self fulfilling…as we all believe in it in the first place, any statue dug up that looks Roman is counted as further evidence.
But actually, the Roman Empire is perhaps not the best example to make the point(forgive me, Alex) as we are then comparing a single Man with a huge military/political entity…which one would we expect to generate more evidence at the time? Better might be Socrates…most philosophers have no problem believing his existence and discussing his ideas despite the fact that not one primary piece of his work exists. The four main sources for his “teachings” give very different accounts – and Aristotle, often taken as the best, never even heard him direct, he got it all from Plato!
Now, you might say, it doesn’t matter if all we know about Socrates is wrong….it’s not as vital as what we believe in relation to Christ….because Christians claim he is God….yes I’d agree. But we were talking about the nature of evidence.
@captain mosey
"My religion / belief is better (more equal?) than yours" has arguably been the cause of more man made death and misery than any other.
And arguably not, another old chestnut…the 20th C is a pretty good argument against that… Stalin is generally thought to have killed 20million (actually that’s fairly conservative as many already in prison died after he died) – not bad for an atheist and rather “better” than the nutters of the IRA (not that most sensible people would believe that had much to do with any faith!). Or Hitler, 11-12 million, and I know the arguments that Hitler was “religious” but I know of few sensible claims that his motivation for the holocaust was!
I don't believe that there is 100% certainly no god - few people do. I simply think that there's little more reason to believe in god than there is a giant jelly shaped like my face orbiting saturn.
If I said to you "I'm an atheist", you'd probably accept that.
No, I do not. You, in the first paragraph, have clearly described yourself as an agnostic, check a Dictionary. Hence Atheism is a belief, agnostisim, however is probably not, rather it is an absence of belief.
Also, Alisdair, you disscuss the evidece of the existance of Jesus, I'm lead to belive by historians,(No, I can't quote anyone, try a bit of googling) that the fact there was a bloke called Jesus who lived around Nazareth about 2000 years ago, who was crusified by the Romans, for going around making outlandish claims is comparible, if not greater than that stating Julius Caesar existed. Whether he was and is God, well thats another matter.
Cap'n Jim: Alisdair is a weak atheist or negative atheist. An agnostic was originally someone who claimed that the existence of God is, in principle, undecidable, although there are shades of meaning there too.
There are apparently people who claim that Jesus never existed, but I'm not sure how seriously to take them.
Ok, though I'm not sure how well defined such things are. (as the wikipedia articles you referance piont out) The point i was (poorly) trying to make is that my arguement was made on the (incorrect) assumpton that Alisdair belives God does not exist, rather than is heavily sceptical.
I'm not sure either, they als seem to claim that nazareth is a made up town, amongst other things.
Post a Comment