Indeed. The Bible speaks only of ‘justice’. There’s a reason for that. As soon as the word is prefaced by some qualifying adjective you know that we are on a slippery slope.
I kept looking to see if he had a unique argument or at least one I have never read before, but I could not find one. He says science handles facts and that the resurrection and virgin birth are empirical claims, but he doesn’t make a scientific argument that neither of them happened. In fact, it is as far as I know impossible to make a scientific argument about two single events that happened millennia ago, that left essentially no physical evidence. I am very open to considering arguments that Christianity is false, but flat assertions are never persuasive. Honestly, the world “obvious” is my biggest red flag that someone is not interested in persuading.
Sad that all along the lack of empirical evidence was never challenged. It’s about time our intellectuals of all persuasions just googled ‘Shroud of Turin’ and ‘Fr Spitzer’. Then we might get a really interesting conversation going!
I think the implicit argument is that these events would violate the known laws of physics, so... absent some fairly compelling empirical evidence to the contrary they would be assumed not-to-have-happened by default.
If the resurrection and virgin both obeyed the known laws of physics, then you would be saying that’s little evidence that God exists. In order to believe in religion, things that violate the laws of physics have to occur. You can say there is insufficient evidence for those events, but if you assume the laws of physics have never been violated, you are essentially begging the question that all religions are false.
I'm not saying evidence for the divine should be ruled out a-priori, but the bar for accepting the claim can reasonably be set higher than would be the case for other historical reported events. I've heard it plausibly argued that the evidence for Jesus' existence is stronger than the evidence for the life of Herodotus, but Herodotus isn't presently claimed to have returned from Hades or to be the literal Son of Zeus.
I understand your point, and it's valid, but it applies equally to the Japanese cultural belief that the present emperor, and all preceding emperors, have directly, and literally, descended from the sun goddess.
If we reject this claim, by the same grounds we can reject the claims of the resurrection and the virgin birth; if we accept these Christian claim, the logic dictates that we must accept the emperor's literal relation to the Shinto divinity.
I think the evidence for Christianity, including the resurrection and the virgin birth, is stronger than the evidence for Shintoism. You can probably find a million arguments on both sides, but I think this is one of the better, modern ones, and is written by someone Agnostic, so it might be more persuasive to you. https://open.substack.com/pub/benthams/p/steelmanning-christianity?r=1ivtg6&utm_medium=ios
I still admit the evidence for both is rather low, but it makes sense for the evidence to be low if a Christian god wanted to encourage his followers to adopt the virtue of faith. Once you admit Christianity is unlikely, not impossible, then arguments about what leads to a better society really matter.
I don't see how the two are connected? The evidence for Christianity could be ironclad and its social effects could be terrible, or vice versa, but neither is going to retroactively rewrite history.
You know, you are right, but I guess it’s weird for me to assume something is false, and then talk about why we should still believe it for prosocial reasons. Technically such a thing could be the case, but it makes me personally squeamish.
Heh.. the discussion made me think about some quotes by Gomez:
“Modern history is the dialogue between two men: one who believes in God, another who believes he is a god. “
And “The death of God is an interesting opinion, but it is not one that affects God” 😅… a shame we are limited by our languages - I have listened to some very interesting dialogues and conversations between orthodox elders and priests (in Russian) where these topics are explored. Somehow though I find this conversation very simple when focusing on virginity and resurrection.. but that’s probably because I’m more into the symbolic aspect that is being mentioned further down. It is way to simple to divide into “two types of Christianity”.. being in Portugal now, and simultaneously exploring the orthodox teachings these days.. there are so many nuances and differences. I’m fascinated by how differently my American friends view Christianity and the focus on Jesus though. Thank you for writing the piece!
Beautifully done. This article can be easily expanded into a book on the topic. It addresses two (of several) key aspects to the topic that are rarely addressed in the debates around christianity and the areligiosity that has taken hold of the modern world:
1. The futility (and infantility) of the argument against the metaphorical and metaphysical elements of christianity.
"asserting that they are false because they are narrowly or scientifically untrue is like asserting that the line “Or to take arms against a sea of troubles” is false because troubles are not actually a sea against which one can take arms. "
2. Christianity's effect on our society; how it urges and demands that we continue to strive for our higher selves...
"... another psychological benefit of Christianity, one that is important in a post-affluent society: Humility and discipline. One of our great temptations is hedonism, a life of indolent pleasure. And this temptation is especially strong in wealthy, comfortable societies, where, protected from the vagaries of nature, we survive not by hunting and gathering but by clicking buttons on a computer screen. Wealth engenders laziness and boredom; and laziness and boredom engender hedonism.
Christianity counters this process of degeneration."
Well done! I wish Ayaan Hirsiali had brought up these points during the debate with Hawkins at the Dissident Dialogues.
At this point in my life I understand Christianity as a positive behavioral template that seeks to assert its authority to regulate human behavior by referencing mythology.
Its positive social aspects are reason enough to adopt the model.
"First, Christianity explains the existence of the universe."
In light of Philo's ridiculous statement above, I will have to side with Meander. Christianity and no other religion explain the existence of the universe. That is preposterous. When major religions began, there was no concept of a universe.
If there is a God then He must predate all religion, indeed predate everything, exist outside time itself. Science is rapidly moving on, both cosmology and biology are now pointing to an intelligent creator with ever greater certainty. According to Pew Research back in 2009 just over half of scientists polled believe in a higher entity, the percentage among younger scientists being larger. I suspect as time moves on the % will grow.
Because human beings are social animals, we evolved mechanisms to suppress a portion of our own individual needs for the good of society. Religion is simply a framework for encoding this behavior and providing a narrative basis for it. As the importance of religion diminishes, other control mechanisms will take its place. The reasons given for why people are abandoning religious participation (a trend that is accelerating) include no longer believing in the religion's stories, and being repelled by the disconnect between religious morality and the actions of others who claim to practice it.
Interesting dialogue. I suggest to both debaters to read this pamphlet wrote by a prominent French catholic philosopher. I think everyone will find it intellectally stimulating, though many ones could disagree with her analysis and conclusions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Fin_de_la_Chr%C3%A9tient%C3%A9
Meander wins, Philo arguments are all about mental-lifestyle health and metaphor card, Noah's ark, Adam and Eve, Jesus miracles etc... are written literal as hell in the bible
I think it applies to all religions that rely on supernatural events to assert its authority to proclaim a unique truth.
E.g., a religion may have a prophet who teaches X, and X is neither popular nor easy, but in the value system favored by the religion, Xis essential.
So to convince/intellectually coerce adherence to X, the prophet needs to have more authority than any simple human, otherwise the prophet's teaching ares simply one more opinion out of many others.
Not to get all postmodern (I'm not a postmodernist or a social constructionist, I'm an empiricist) but there are different kinds of truths which need to be parsed for essays like these. Eg, that a husband loves his wife is a truth, but it's a subjective truth.
Psychology as an attempted science began in 1875 in Germany with Wilhelm Wundt and his experiments on introspection. This is still a frontier science today.
Does Christianity even need to be defended now that it has brought within reach what it promised: a new heaven and a new earth?
The faith of our ancestors has clearly turned the world upside down. The evidence is all around us, on the basis of which it can plausibly be argued that Christ has in fact already returned, whatever the fate of those who made it all possible. Do you doubt me? See here for what the actual argument is: https://shorturl.at/KNoVA
There are two types of christianity, the devotee-ist version which we see in evangelical christianity with its direct relationship with jesus is lord type fealty, and the obedience machine we see in Orthodox & Catholic churches where faith in faith is a heresy that undermines the role of the church as thought police via the latterly invented conscience.
Christianity is important to consider because it was an Imperial government department of the Roman Empire (The Catholic Church is a govvie department gone rogue, e.g. Pope Boniface VIII "I am emporer" comments...) It was an attempt to emplace an imperial cult over the top of all local city allegiences and gods, and ethnic idiocyncracies. One size fits all, It didn't really work then or now.
"Cultural christianity" is just a failure to recognize that process. Modern pagans have more authenticity and that is not saying much.
Great dialogue but, and I don’t think I’m being egregiously “Inclusiony” here:
Why only Christianity or cultural Christianity??? Are you really so sure that is the only genealogy of values that can lift humanity?
Islam has massive problems right now and its current political expressions are indeed a threat to decent civilization. but even it had its relative golden age once.
Not every Jew is going to want to move to Israel (and the “Judeo-Christian”
Presumably, nobody’s going to kick out every person from a Hindu or Jewish or yes even Muslim background from America. And wherever it ought to end up on the continuum between multi-cultural and assimilationist melting pot, Christianity can’t be the only way to pull off being an American. Or even European.
I see this kind of framing as kind of arrogant. You don’t have to be a cultural relativist to be a pluralist.
I took the specific use of Christianity to be a symbolic stand-in for all religions that found their moral authority in supernatural events to betaken literally.
It simply made the rhetorical focus clearer and less cumbersome. Imagine have to come up with a case for Islam, Judiasm, etc. when they, to one degree or another, justify there doctrines by using supernatural demonstrations of power. I think Islam is the least likely to use miracles of the three mentioned, FWIW.
But any time you make a claim that God speaks directly to a prophet, it amounts to about the same thing.
Christianity vs atheism must be framed in terms of morality vs amorality. People may not believe God exists, but they all believe morality exists. Christianity provides a coherent first-mover narrative from which morality can be established. Atheism does not.
"Christianity vs atheism must be framed in terms of morality vs amorality."
I am an agnostic atheist, and I absolutely disagree that being an atheist requires an amorality position. I do not see Christianity any differently than other religions. I see them as controlling entities. One does not have to believe in a god to be moral. Why should a genuinely moral person need the fear of a god?
"Christianity provides a coherent first-mover narrative from which morality can be established. Atheism does not."
Religions provide a ready-made template for a set of shared values we call morality.
Barring the template, we're free to make our own set of moral values. By circumstance rather than design we may find others who share most/many of them and we'll have the makings a a compatible community. Those who do not share the bulk will be outsiders, with all the attendant risks of conflict.
I'm not interested in wasting time trying to defend Christianity to an atheist. As an atheist, the only thing of value you could contribute here would be to explain how I am wrong when I claim that atheism gives no firm basis for moral values. By refusing to do that, you continue to indict yourself. You either don't understand this or don't want to acknowledge it, so this is the last time I'll bother repeating it.
[Social Justice is] "like a religion, but its only god is resentment"....is well said.
Indeed. The Bible speaks only of ‘justice’. There’s a reason for that. As soon as the word is prefaced by some qualifying adjective you know that we are on a slippery slope.
Which is also well said! Have you read my essay on this very theme? https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/love-of-the-people (I'm going to keep plugging away at you Gerry!)
I must admit I haven’t as yet, but will do so!
"These assertions, which are crucial to Christianity, are obviously untrue. Jesus did not rise from the dead. And Mary did not conceive as a virgin."
Assuming the conclusion, innit?
I kept looking to see if he had a unique argument or at least one I have never read before, but I could not find one. He says science handles facts and that the resurrection and virgin birth are empirical claims, but he doesn’t make a scientific argument that neither of them happened. In fact, it is as far as I know impossible to make a scientific argument about two single events that happened millennia ago, that left essentially no physical evidence. I am very open to considering arguments that Christianity is false, but flat assertions are never persuasive. Honestly, the world “obvious” is my biggest red flag that someone is not interested in persuading.
Sad that all along the lack of empirical evidence was never challenged. It’s about time our intellectuals of all persuasions just googled ‘Shroud of Turin’ and ‘Fr Spitzer’. Then we might get a really interesting conversation going!
I think the implicit argument is that these events would violate the known laws of physics, so... absent some fairly compelling empirical evidence to the contrary they would be assumed not-to-have-happened by default.
If the resurrection and virgin both obeyed the known laws of physics, then you would be saying that’s little evidence that God exists. In order to believe in religion, things that violate the laws of physics have to occur. You can say there is insufficient evidence for those events, but if you assume the laws of physics have never been violated, you are essentially begging the question that all religions are false.
I'm not saying evidence for the divine should be ruled out a-priori, but the bar for accepting the claim can reasonably be set higher than would be the case for other historical reported events. I've heard it plausibly argued that the evidence for Jesus' existence is stronger than the evidence for the life of Herodotus, but Herodotus isn't presently claimed to have returned from Hades or to be the literal Son of Zeus.
Which is why he said the most reasonable conclusion is agnosticism.
I understand your point, and it's valid, but it applies equally to the Japanese cultural belief that the present emperor, and all preceding emperors, have directly, and literally, descended from the sun goddess.
If we reject this claim, by the same grounds we can reject the claims of the resurrection and the virgin birth; if we accept these Christian claim, the logic dictates that we must accept the emperor's literal relation to the Shinto divinity.
I think the evidence for Christianity, including the resurrection and the virgin birth, is stronger than the evidence for Shintoism. You can probably find a million arguments on both sides, but I think this is one of the better, modern ones, and is written by someone Agnostic, so it might be more persuasive to you. https://open.substack.com/pub/benthams/p/steelmanning-christianity?r=1ivtg6&utm_medium=ios
I still admit the evidence for both is rather low, but it makes sense for the evidence to be low if a Christian god wanted to encourage his followers to adopt the virtue of faith. Once you admit Christianity is unlikely, not impossible, then arguments about what leads to a better society really matter.
I don't see how the two are connected? The evidence for Christianity could be ironclad and its social effects could be terrible, or vice versa, but neither is going to retroactively rewrite history.
You know, you are right, but I guess it’s weird for me to assume something is false, and then talk about why we should still believe it for prosocial reasons. Technically such a thing could be the case, but it makes me personally squeamish.
At least Caelsus made an explicit accuse (Jesus son of Panthera, I, 28).
Heh.. the discussion made me think about some quotes by Gomez:
“Modern history is the dialogue between two men: one who believes in God, another who believes he is a god. “
And “The death of God is an interesting opinion, but it is not one that affects God” 😅… a shame we are limited by our languages - I have listened to some very interesting dialogues and conversations between orthodox elders and priests (in Russian) where these topics are explored. Somehow though I find this conversation very simple when focusing on virginity and resurrection.. but that’s probably because I’m more into the symbolic aspect that is being mentioned further down. It is way to simple to divide into “two types of Christianity”.. being in Portugal now, and simultaneously exploring the orthodox teachings these days.. there are so many nuances and differences. I’m fascinated by how differently my American friends view Christianity and the focus on Jesus though. Thank you for writing the piece!
Excellent quotes Roxanne!
Beautifully done. This article can be easily expanded into a book on the topic. It addresses two (of several) key aspects to the topic that are rarely addressed in the debates around christianity and the areligiosity that has taken hold of the modern world:
1. The futility (and infantility) of the argument against the metaphorical and metaphysical elements of christianity.
"asserting that they are false because they are narrowly or scientifically untrue is like asserting that the line “Or to take arms against a sea of troubles” is false because troubles are not actually a sea against which one can take arms. "
2. Christianity's effect on our society; how it urges and demands that we continue to strive for our higher selves...
"... another psychological benefit of Christianity, one that is important in a post-affluent society: Humility and discipline. One of our great temptations is hedonism, a life of indolent pleasure. And this temptation is especially strong in wealthy, comfortable societies, where, protected from the vagaries of nature, we survive not by hunting and gathering but by clicking buttons on a computer screen. Wealth engenders laziness and boredom; and laziness and boredom engender hedonism.
Christianity counters this process of degeneration."
Well done! I wish Ayaan Hirsiali had brought up these points during the debate with Hawkins at the Dissident Dialogues.
At this point in my life I understand Christianity as a positive behavioral template that seeks to assert its authority to regulate human behavior by referencing mythology.
Its positive social aspects are reason enough to adopt the model.
"First, Christianity explains the existence of the universe."
In light of Philo's ridiculous statement above, I will have to side with Meander. Christianity and no other religion explain the existence of the universe. That is preposterous. When major religions began, there was no concept of a universe.
If there is a God then He must predate all religion, indeed predate everything, exist outside time itself. Science is rapidly moving on, both cosmology and biology are now pointing to an intelligent creator with ever greater certainty. According to Pew Research back in 2009 just over half of scientists polled believe in a higher entity, the percentage among younger scientists being larger. I suspect as time moves on the % will grow.
Because human beings are social animals, we evolved mechanisms to suppress a portion of our own individual needs for the good of society. Religion is simply a framework for encoding this behavior and providing a narrative basis for it. As the importance of religion diminishes, other control mechanisms will take its place. The reasons given for why people are abandoning religious participation (a trend that is accelerating) include no longer believing in the religion's stories, and being repelled by the disconnect between religious morality and the actions of others who claim to practice it.
Interesting dialogue. I suggest to both debaters to read this pamphlet wrote by a prominent French catholic philosopher. I think everyone will find it intellectally stimulating, though many ones could disagree with her analysis and conclusions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Fin_de_la_Chr%C3%A9tient%C3%A9
Meander wins, Philo arguments are all about mental-lifestyle health and metaphor card, Noah's ark, Adam and Eve, Jesus miracles etc... are written literal as hell in the bible
If you assert the universe is godless then you're a strong atheist as an agnostic
will say is unknown
Yes. I would think that an agnostic would say that "the universe *appears* to be godless", but not with absolute certainty.
Is there a reason why this argument is limited to the Christian God?
I think it applies to all religions that rely on supernatural events to assert its authority to proclaim a unique truth.
E.g., a religion may have a prophet who teaches X, and X is neither popular nor easy, but in the value system favored by the religion, Xis essential.
So to convince/intellectually coerce adherence to X, the prophet needs to have more authority than any simple human, otherwise the prophet's teaching ares simply one more opinion out of many others.
Not to get all postmodern (I'm not a postmodernist or a social constructionist, I'm an empiricist) but there are different kinds of truths which need to be parsed for essays like these. Eg, that a husband loves his wife is a truth, but it's a subjective truth.
Psychology as an attempted science began in 1875 in Germany with Wilhelm Wundt and his experiments on introspection. This is still a frontier science today.
This was a very enjoyable read. I was rooting for Philo.
Does Christianity even need to be defended now that it has brought within reach what it promised: a new heaven and a new earth?
The faith of our ancestors has clearly turned the world upside down. The evidence is all around us, on the basis of which it can plausibly be argued that Christ has in fact already returned, whatever the fate of those who made it all possible. Do you doubt me? See here for what the actual argument is: https://shorturl.at/KNoVA
There are two types of christianity, the devotee-ist version which we see in evangelical christianity with its direct relationship with jesus is lord type fealty, and the obedience machine we see in Orthodox & Catholic churches where faith in faith is a heresy that undermines the role of the church as thought police via the latterly invented conscience.
https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/sister-wendy-on-love-as-an-obedient
https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/to-build-a-better-world-we-should
Christianity is important to consider because it was an Imperial government department of the Roman Empire (The Catholic Church is a govvie department gone rogue, e.g. Pope Boniface VIII "I am emporer" comments...) It was an attempt to emplace an imperial cult over the top of all local city allegiences and gods, and ethnic idiocyncracies. One size fits all, It didn't really work then or now.
"Cultural christianity" is just a failure to recognize that process. Modern pagans have more authenticity and that is not saying much.
Great dialogue but, and I don’t think I’m being egregiously “Inclusiony” here:
Why only Christianity or cultural Christianity??? Are you really so sure that is the only genealogy of values that can lift humanity?
Islam has massive problems right now and its current political expressions are indeed a threat to decent civilization. but even it had its relative golden age once.
Not every Jew is going to want to move to Israel (and the “Judeo-Christian”
Presumably, nobody’s going to kick out every person from a Hindu or Jewish or yes even Muslim background from America. And wherever it ought to end up on the continuum between multi-cultural and assimilationist melting pot, Christianity can’t be the only way to pull off being an American. Or even European.
I see this kind of framing as kind of arrogant. You don’t have to be a cultural relativist to be a pluralist.
I took the specific use of Christianity to be a symbolic stand-in for all religions that found their moral authority in supernatural events to betaken literally.
It simply made the rhetorical focus clearer and less cumbersome. Imagine have to come up with a case for Islam, Judiasm, etc. when they, to one degree or another, justify there doctrines by using supernatural demonstrations of power. I think Islam is the least likely to use miracles of the three mentioned, FWIW.
But any time you make a claim that God speaks directly to a prophet, it amounts to about the same thing.
Sorry, ignore that bit about “Judeo-christian” stuff, what I wanted to say was too tangential anyway
Christianity vs atheism must be framed in terms of morality vs amorality. People may not believe God exists, but they all believe morality exists. Christianity provides a coherent first-mover narrative from which morality can be established. Atheism does not.
"Christianity vs atheism must be framed in terms of morality vs amorality."
I am an agnostic atheist, and I absolutely disagree that being an atheist requires an amorality position. I do not see Christianity any differently than other religions. I see them as controlling entities. One does not have to believe in a god to be moral. Why should a genuinely moral person need the fear of a god?
"Christianity provides a coherent first-mover narrative from which morality can be established. Atheism does not."
Why would one need to be taught morality?
Religions provide a ready-made template for a set of shared values we call morality.
Barring the template, we're free to make our own set of moral values. By circumstance rather than design we may find others who share most/many of them and we'll have the makings a a compatible community. Those who do not share the bulk will be outsiders, with all the attendant risks of conflict.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
Because morality so easily becomes subjective if there is no higher authority than, well, yourself.
Yes, exactly. Morality is subjective and individual, and religions supply a suggested (or required) template.
"Because morality so easily becomes subjective if there is no higher authority than, well, yourself."
What authority is that? A make-believe god. Does god talk to you directly or through another?
If I thought that there was a god, I'd never accept a middle man.
I want to talk directly to the boss.
Your spent your comment attacking Christianity, rather than explaining how morality can be established under atheistic beliefs.
Without an external set of moral precepts, it's every man for himself so far as creating a moral base.
Then the test: can this subjective moral base coexist in the broader society in which it finds itself?
It's where the rubber meets the road.
"Your spent your comment attacking Christianity, rather than explaining how morality can be established under atheistic beliefs."
You seem to fancy yourself an expert on atheism. Perhaps you could share some of that wisdom.
You are the one who disparaged atheism. People who need a god to be moral are losers.
Yes, I did disparage atheism. Your inability to expound upon your own beliefs proves my point.
"Yes, I did disparage atheism. Your inability to expound upon your own beliefs proves my point."
You refused to answer my pertinent questions. You are just another dogmatic thumper.
I'm not interested in wasting time trying to defend Christianity to an atheist. As an atheist, the only thing of value you could contribute here would be to explain how I am wrong when I claim that atheism gives no firm basis for moral values. By refusing to do that, you continue to indict yourself. You either don't understand this or don't want to acknowledge it, so this is the last time I'll bother repeating it.