We begin episode #88 of DXP by discovering, through sheer trial and error, that veganism is just cannibalism in seed form. We respectfully and dignifiedly make fun of the pro-gun woman whose toddler shot her, and then address an off-color metaphor (ahem) that one of us used in our last episode (doesn’t matter who). We take a phone call asking about the prudence of voting for the lesser of two evils, which confused us because we were under the impression that that’s what all voting just is. We then turn our attention to the existence of God, tackling such thorny topics as the problem of evil, free will, the Holocaust, and that one kid who died, went to heaven and saw a bunch of amazing stuff, and then came back to tell about it (scoring a killer book deal in the process, as luck would have it). We discuss the nature of evidence and probability when used to argue God’s existence, all of which Christian thinks is just bulls**t. Our DMG segment introduces us to a man whose prospects for love were shattered by a bunch of construction workers, and finally, Jason is biebered by hotel amenities, while Christian’s bieber involves that Geico lizard.
Also, this episode of Drunk Ex-Pastors is brought to you by sarsaparilla. “Sarsaparilla: That stuff that only agnostics and cowboys drink.”
Podcast #31: Nihilism, Dinosaurs, and Church Dress Codes
Podcast #323: Our Election Erection
Podcast #498: The Substance, Free Speech, and Trump on the Lam
Podcast #94: Sacred Propaganda, Secular Morality
• In factory farms, a lot of chickens are kept in cages where they can’t really move and they just churn out eggs. Many places offer cage-free eggs that are the more humane, but also more expensive solution.
• I feel awful for that kid. He has to live with nearly killing his mother. What the hell is that going to do to him?
• Or the dozens of other kids who have the same damn thing happen every year? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/
• A story with a less happy ending: http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/sean-smith-fatally-shot-little-sister-florida-gun-storage/
• Just stick with the word “shit”.
• Because some people enjoy that feeling of moral outrage and superiority that they get from taking ‘righteous’ stands.
• Re: voting for a third party candidate: let’s all take a moment and remember that it was the people voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 that made the Florida election close enough that we ended up with President George W. Bush instead of President Al Gore. I’d be curious to see through the looking glass into the parallel dimension where that didn’t happen and see if the country was better off.
• It’s the prisoner’s fallacy writ large.
• There are ballot qualifications you have to meet per state to get your party’s candidate on the ballot. These qualifications are set by the state legislatures which are dominated by Republicans and Democrats who end up voting for restrictions that make it more difficult for third parties to qualify and gain notoriety and momentum.
• I remember this because back when I was a libertarian, the libertarians wouldn’t stop whining about how difficult it was to qualify to be on the ballot in all 50 states. They also wouldn’t stop whining about everything else too.
• We can’t really have it both ways. If God is active in the world than he is inactive in many cases involving human suffering. If God gives a gift of healing to some, why don’t we see men and women of God clearing out hospitals? Free will doesn’t really escape the question of evil. The only answer is the one that says that for some inscrutable reason to human beings, God allows their suffering in this world and we must have faith in His goodness.
• Much of the suffering in Africa can be traced back to the colonialism of European countries.
• Having said that, “there’s a reason for your suffering” is one of the most callous answers someone can give to someone that has been victimized. Child soldiers, children deliberately crippled so they can better beggars for their handlers, sex trafficking, war, famine, poverty, disease. At some point, the amount of shit is just overwhelming and you really have to ask, “Is this the best plan an omnipotent, loving God could have come up with? Is He really there?”
• More and more, I do like the idea I mused about that Christ’s death was in some sense God both acknowledging our suffering and taking responsibility for it. Not just to resolve our own personal evils, but to say, “It’s okay. Blame me. Let me suffer for these evils. Let me bear the pain for letting it happen.”
• If you do become a religion, you could stop paying taxes. That’d be nice.
• I am a licensed Dude-ist, myself, so I’d have to, you know, mostly relax and keep listening because, you know, whatever’s good for you, man.
• It could be true. A child could have gone to heaven. But memory is a tricky thing. You can induce false memories in people pretty easily, which police will tell you. They have to be careful when giving potential eyewitnesses a photo lineup, they have to be careful not to lead the eyewitness in a particular direction. So is it possible this little boy went to heaven and met Jesus and his grandfather? Yeah… it’s possible. It’s also possible that the combination of a lack of oxygen to his brain combined with his religious upbringing and influence from his parents or religious leaders led him to construct a false memory of going to heaven and meeting Jesus.
• We don’t know what will happen when we die. Even for the Christian, to face death is itself the final test of faith.
• I don’t think reincarnation would sound that odd. Reincarnation is a cycle, like the sunrise and sunset, like the seasons. That’s where the idea likely came from, much like the idea of the dying and resurrecting god that appears in various mythologies. Our earliest ancestors noticed the cycles of the world and came up with various ideas about the universe based on what they saw. If we had never heard of Christianity, we would likely have some sort of religion that included something based on the cycle of the seasons or sun.
• While we’re sharing anecdotes, I have had what I called ‘dreams’ where I lived my entire life. Married. Had children. Had a job. Had grandchildren. Grew old and died. Then woke up. I’ve had feelings occasionally of deju vu and traced those moments back to those dreams. I’ve had the occasional moment where my rational mind told me that this was reality, but every other feeling I had told me that this wasn’t real. Sometimes I do wonder if when I die, I will wake up in bed and be me, young again, but in an entirely different life.
• The human mind is a strange thing, is what I’m saying. I recommend anti-depressants and alcohol. Or, I guess y’all can do the weed up there.
• The thing about my wife is that she can talk back to me. It makes it easy to have a relationship with her. It makes it easy to love her. To share experiences with her. To enjoy her. One doesn’t have that with God.
• Maybe the rituals within Catholicism make it easier to feel that God is real and God is there and gives you a sense of tangibility that is lacking from Protestant Evangelicalism, but to me, that sense of absence makes it very difficult to carry on with Faith sometimes.
• How much of our faith is really based on objective reasoning and how much of it is based on emotion or our cultural experience and framework?
• I, personally, would regret believing in something that turned out to be a lie. I do regret it. And I felt and struggle with a great deal of anger over it sometimes. I wouldn’t trade my experiences, but I regret the myopic point of view I was taught and believed.
• My Bieber is Daylight Savings Time. I’ve felt jetlagged all day, almost fell asleep in a meeting, and I’m wondering why the hell we have to go screwing around with time and our internal clock twice every God damn year?
While we’re sharing anecdotes, I have had what I called ‘dreams’ where I lived my entire life. Married. Had children. Had a job. Had grandchildren. Grew old and died. Then woke up. I’ve had feelings occasionally of deju vu and traced those moments back to those dreams. I’ve had the occasional moment where my rational mind told me that this was reality, but every other feeling I had told me that this wasn’t real. Sometimes I do wonder if when I die, I will wake up in bed and be me, young again, but in an entirely different life.
That is a super trippy idea that I really, really like. Ha!
Inception meets ground hogs day
1 – You guys really don’t understand cancer, do ya? lol
2 – I like how Kenneth’s main point was that trying to use probabilities for God isn’t a good approach, and then that’s exactly what ya’ll proceed to do haha (Yeah, I know he asked about it at the end, but I got the feeling that’s not really what he was getting at.)
3 – Jason, you need to talk more Caputo (and Rollins)! I’m about 90% finished with Hoping Against Hope, and I’ve read some of his other work (and loved it all). I guess I’m curious how you think the ideas of their radical theology interact with “traditional” Christianity. It seems as if it should be entirely compatible (I think you’ve mentioned before how Catholicism really shouldn’t have a problem with the ideas), but I’ve brought up similar things with friends who wouldn’t have any of it. For them, eternal salvation from Hell is the main point, everything else is just a means to that end. Is there no compatibility about something so fundamental? Are they even the same “religion” at that point?
You’ll have to remind me what you’re referring to with the cancer. I have a fairly good grasp on cancer cells and what they are and do and Jason’s mom almost died of cancer, so.
As far as the odds thing, Kenneth’s point seemed to be to me that odds are pretty good that God exists, so why be willing to take the chance that he doesn’t. Perhaps I misheard some of his points. Being from Texas and having family there, I only hear about 50% of what Texans say. 😉
Here are some initial thoughts:
http://heavyforthevintage.com/2016/01/20/nihilism-grace-religion-rose/
I’m just joking about it 😛
I think it was Jason who was talking about people getting cancer from the cell phones and “power towers” (lol) and then (I think) he jokes about how people don’t believe the sun causes skin cancer. haha
haha
I imagine Kenneth will clarify, but how I understood it was that the calculating/probabilistic approach just isn’t a great way to approach the question of God.
Which is something I (surprisingly) appreciated. I think “Christianity, just go for it! Have hope!” is far more convincing (and closer to the truth) than all the crappy apologetics that are utilizing the same probabilistic approach as an atheist might use against it.
So the study you discussed is not all that surprising, where the theist and atheist both presented “evidence” for God’s probability, with the only difference being the weights and quantity of variables. I think the more interesting idea is that it’s the wrong approach regardless as to the conclusion.
Or maybe I’m reading into it what I wanted to hear. 😛
For my part, I’ve never been much of an evidentialist. I just think the criterion is kind of unnatural and artificial. Most of the beliefs we hold about the world are not argued-for, but are more intuitive and basic.
This is wonderful. There is no need even to comment. So needlessly I submit the comment that the first few minutes of this podcast were a true blessing, not eye-opening or anything, but gratifying. Thanks.
” yeah, I’m glad I’m not calvary chapel anymore because then I would be judgemental. Telling gays they are going to hell and stuff….. Glad I dodged that one! But anyways, like I was saying, republicans are gullible, xenophobic, racist, religious nuts, that don’t care about poor people.”
Ohhh the irony 🙂
I thought it was cool that y’all played my voicemail. We will agree to disagree on marriage being a poor illustration. Both Jason and Christian picked up on the two points I was trying to make so I’m happy it was communicated properly. Its not enough to simply hope for a fairy tale. It has to be a reasonable dream. Which is why I still think marriage is a good analogy. You are betting half your assets and a large portion of your time on that “I do” after all.
I don’t think the reasons christian has given against faith are enough to warrant apostasy. None of us can do Bayesian probability calculus, but we don’t really need to in order to make an assessment (that was my first point in the voicemail). The religion merely needs to be “reasonable” to merit taking the leap (my second point).
Christians main complaints, as communicated via the podcast, are as follows:
1. Hell is not just
2. Alleged biblical and historical inaccuracies
3. Old Testament God was mean.
4. Prayer isn’t answered in the way the bible describes.
5. Evil and suffering.
Numbers 1-4 aren’t arguments against theism. They are arguments against inerrancy. At BEST, if they all succeeded, they show that the bible is not inerrant. Number 5 shows AT BEST that its improbable that an all good God exists. Fine. But now put that on the scale next to the 20 or so solid arguments that show God existing is probable. Throw in the historical argument for the ressurection too. Now where are the scales? At .0000000000000000001%……. ? I think much higher than that. High enough to be reasonable. High enough for hope. High enough for faith.
All that is left is to filter in the worldview challenge and take Pascals Wager. Just like marriage. What does my life look like with this person? Without? What do I have to gain? What do I have to lose? All things considered is it worth the leap?
You guys should watch and review “Miracles from Heaven”; I think it comes out this week. It is about the real life healing of a kid. Jennifer Garner, who stars in the film, after talking to the doctor brought her faith back.
“I remember this because back when I was a libertarian, the libertarians wouldn’t stop whining about how difficult it was to qualify to be on the ballot in all 50 states. They also wouldn’t stop whining about everything else too.”
I just learned that the mascot of the Libertarian party is a porcupine. I thought it was surprisingly fitting.
“Ohhh the irony :)”
Haha!
Christian: “Lane would say that I’m a horrible sinner”
And I wouldn’t regret it. Compared to an average sinner, you are probably not awful, but that isn’t exactly the standard. You aren’t special, I think something similar about the vast majority of people. I want you to be repentant of your sins – not to ignore or dismiss them. I don’t want you to fall into the delusion that your actions are just fine, that you somehow deserve heaven, deserve communion with God. When you come before the judgment seat of God, I want you to ask for and accept forgiveness, to desire mercy. I don’t want you, out of a sense of pride, to deny God’s authority to judge you – or insist that you don’t need forgiveness.
But maybe that isn’t true about your line of thinking. Maybe I have nothing to worry about. [continues to listen to podcast…]
Christian:“If there is a God and He is going to judge me for being who I am. Who I don’t think is a bad person… Then He is not somebody I’m going to serve. … I do my best to be a good person and if God is going to go ‘you’re going to Hell for that’… then whatever…”
Well shit…
Christian: “…there was no way around it for me.”
But there is! Be repentant, desire and seek forgiveness! My goodness, you use to be a pastor! The only sin that can’t be forgiven is not accepting forgiveness! All the specifics of Catholicism or mainstream Christianity might be wrong, but if there is a loving God, how could He not respond to cries for mercy and forgiveness.
If that makes me judgmental, whatever, I can live with that.
The moment you grasp at a truth claim, in so far as the idea is significant, you will offend others simply by holding a view contrary to their own. If you say there is no truth, you offend those who claim to know something about the world. If you claim you are not so arrogant to proclaim knowledge of truth it becomes doubly offensive. There is no “nice” in the marketplace of ideas. This is the one market that all agree can’t be “socialized” or brought under central control. We gobble each other up or go out of business. Pure blooded capitalism. To pretend like your own claims are somehow “above” this system is both naive and snobbish. Jason and Christian haven’t changed as much as they imagine. They merely stopped offending one group and began to offend others.
it’s only ironic if you can’t grasp the difference between judgment and opinion. I never said I wasn’t opinionated. Telling someone that God is sending them to hell for being gay is worlds apart from telling someone you don’t like the fact that they’re gay. Telling someone they’re going to hell for listening to secular music is completely different than telling someone you don’t like their music.
Thinking that someone’s ideas are dumb is not the same (in any meaningful way) as telling someone that they’re going to hell for their ideas. I am glad that I don’t live by the judgmental standards I grew up under. I’m not going to apologize for having opinions about people’s ideas and deducing what type of person would hold those ideas, unless I somehow fall back into also telling them that God has pronounced judgment upon them for their ideas and let me tell them what that judgment is using verse x.
If there is a God who is upset because I’m not good enough, and he wants to forgive me, I accept!
Even if deciding to believe something I don’t think is true is something I could just do (Is that how Christianity even works?), I think there are loads of problems with Pascal’s Wager. I’m sure you can do a Google search and find his wager efficiently refuted pretty easily. If his wager worked, Christianity is probably not the religion I would go with anyway. Based on his wager, I’d need to pick the religion with the worst punishment and the greatest reward.
Is your experience with fundamentalism limited, Kenneth? I used to think most people were going to hell, based on what I believed about the Bible and what God said in it. I thought my family that didn’t believe was going to hell. I thought if someone was gay they were going to hell. I thought most Catholics were going to hell! Maybe you don’t realize how much that type of thinking affects someone, but I and those who have experienced it can tell you that it’s a big change when you don’t think that anymore, and it changes you as a person.
Again, deducing what type of person someone is based on the ideas they hold is worlds apart from judging someone’s eternal destiny based on their ideas or lifestyle.
I think you’re showing your ignorance here. (But I don’t think you’re going to hell for it.)
Christian,
That’s why I said pascals wager coupled with a world view filter. This is just asking you to make the decision in the same way we make decisions every day. We can reasonably have faith that our marriage will last throughout our lives even if we wrestle with it for decades. We can both play the “google it” game and get lost in link after link. But that isn’t the way we all live our lives. I don’t google something ad nauseum before making a choice. You just go with what you have in front of you and try to make an educated decision. If probabilities can’t carry the day, given certain worldview benefits, hope and trust CAN. If you have to google something to find an argument against a proposition you aren’t being open minded. The vast majority of your beef with theism pertains specifically to inerrancy. If all you have is the problem of evil and suffering…. There should be enough room for faith hope and love!
I’ve already made my decision, Kenneth. You just want me to make a different one.
Bringing Pascal’s Wager into the argument as some kind of convincing factor for me to change my mind and then not allowing the discussion to move on to whether or not his Wager is even reasonable seems a bit disingenuous. I’m fine with it though as I have a lot of other things to do today.
I’m making 12 batches of The CHILF to feed my son’s frat during finals week. 🙂
I understand that your belief in hell offended people. But now your non-belief in hell surely offends people. Again, you didn’t really become less of an “ass hole” you just changed clothes.
I understand you already made a decision. But your decision was to become an agnostic….. Which is kind of like a non decision lol
All I’m saying is there is no point in doing some hypothetical play of pascals wager that no one really does. All the arguments against it insist that we are all some kind of super computer that needs to factor in some 6k years of human thought and consider each and every single possibility ever imagined. Ain’t nobody got time for that! Consider just the two possibilities agnosticism vs theism. I don’t think you can reasonably say that the ONE argument you have against theism (not just inerrancy) trumps the many arguments pro-God and pro-resurrection. It at least brings the scales close to 50/50. If so, pascals wager takes the cake! At least when the field is narrowed to those two options. Get off the fence agnostic boy!!!!
What frat?
Psi U.
Agnosticism and theism are not exclusive to each other.
Rejecting a religion that controlled the first 35 years of your life is nowhere near a “non decision.”
It makes me sad that you don’t seem to be able to grasp the difference between pronouncing (or believing in) judgment upon people and having an opinion of them and mostly their ideas. I’m not going to try to explain it any further because I think most people get that idea.
Its a real decision but only a tentative conclusion! And I think you skipped a few intellectual steps along the way.
You aren’t being careful with your language. “Pronouncing judgement upon someone else” by the authority of your own opinion or self righteousness is definitely shitty. Warning others that there is such a judge is something else all together dude. If I run up and say
“i will inflict pain upon you for using drugs because they are bad!!!”
That person can fuck off…. But if I said
“If you use drugs there is an authority that will lock you in a cage for a long time”
There is nothing “judgmental” about that. Although it might be delusional.
I’m right you’re wrong.
🙂
What about telling someone, “There is an authority that considers you repugnant the moment you were conceived because the guilt from someone else’s sin, committed millennia ago, was charged to your account, and if you die having gotten even the smallest part of your theology wrong you’re going to be kept alive for all eternity to ensure that you feel every last part of the torment that that authority will inflict on you”?
Is that different from telling someone who disagree with their opinions about healthcare?
Good, I hope to be at your party! (Luke 15:24)
Nope. It could be delusional. It could be really bad news. It could mean we are all under a tyrants thumb. But it doesn’t make the deliverer of said truth claim “judgemental”. Its a truth claim you find distasteful. Just as you find laissez-fair capitalism distasteful.
Hi, I’m Nuance, have we met?
(Insert out-sticking tonged happyface emoticon here)
Kenneth, you really should go spend some years in a legalistic, fundamentalist environment. Then you coming back here and telling me I haven’t changed (only changed sides) will carry some weight.
It is a conclusion, Kenneth. it’s just a conclusion that you don’t like. If 10 people invite me to 10 separate parties, but I decide I don’t want to go to any of them (for whatever reason) and I’m going to stay in for the night, that’s the conclusion. I don’t have</em to go to a party to make a decision or come to a conclusion.
Changing sides is a change. And you dont offend Tue same group of people anymore so that’s a change. But so long as you have an opinion on something important you will always be an ass hole to somebody. Embrace it.
Sure. But just two weeks ago you said you revisited the question after contemplating sickness and death. So it seems appropriate for me to chime in where I think you missed a step.
Christian, I have a DXP website question. Does your Recent Comments section work on your browser? For the last several weeks it has just been a list of all the same person repeated (possibly the last comment made). It acts the same across every device/computer I use.
You’re not getting the point. At all. Since I can’t be any clearer about it, I’ll just let you continue thinking that you made some great ironic and clever point in your original post. Enjoy.
I think it’s healthy for anyone to be consistently challenging what they believe or don’t believe, and I think about death on a daily basis. I’m always open to new (or old) ideas. I think a person who doesn’t hold their views in that way is behaving foolishly. I didn’t say I was close to changing my mind, because I’m not.
Funny. I didn’t even realize there was a “Recent Comments” section. It doesn’t look like it’s working for me either. It just has all comments by Kenneth Winsmann. Man, that’s really annoying! 🙂
Ha, I saw what you did there!
Oh thanks!
That’s cool. Maybe in some future episodes we can hear about why the scales are loaded against theism (and not just inerrancy). Until then…… Please God don’t let Donald Trump win Florida and Ohio
PS,
I have the same morbid personality on death!
I have a heart murmur that constantly reminds me I’m always at death’s door. Ha.
Again, agnosticism and theism are not mutually exclusive.
Trump takes Florida. So does Clinton. Looks like barring some GOP convention shenanigans that this will be the race for an election that is still 8 months away. Once again, it’s nice to live in the most populous state in the union and not have a say as to who the nominees will be.
There are two ways to argue. One is to argue to arrive at wisdom. The other is to argue to be right.
A fundamentalist will almost exclusively choose the latter style.
I freely admit that I still have many fundamentalist traits, but if I can purge the need to be right from my system and instead seek wisdom in conflicts, I will die contented.
Yes, given the diversity of opinion and arrogance that I saw (and okay, indulged in) I am frankly surprised that a Libertarian party exists at all.
I will die contented….. Probably never. Haha! Resist the light at the end of the tunnel!!!!
I made a couple posts yesterday that seemed to disappear. Anybody else having that issue?
Mike, when I get on a computer, I will check the moderation page and see if there’s anything I can do. Bummer they let Kenneth’s posts through and not yours. It’s like God is on his side or something. 😉
I couldn’t agree more, Chris. So the two people (although I’m not giving up on Bernie) who are going to be the nominees aren’t even liked by 50% of their own parties??? Depressing. Trump won’t be the nominee though. My money is on Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney through a contested convention. It will split the Republican party but I think that’s inevitable anyway.
No problem man. Haha, what a sound and reasonable conclusion to make!
A forum where ideas are exchanged need not be competitive or “mean”, as though the point of dialogue is (necessarily) to defeat or humiliate someone who disagrees with you. (One can imagine a conversation in which each of the participants value truth above all else, and are virtuous enough to pursue truth together reasonably with mutual respect.) Of course, a lot of forums (such as DXP and Old Life) are of the purely rhetorical variety, in which the “other” is by definition an asshole / enemy who requires only to be mocked. Anyway, Kenneth, I agree with you that the DXPers are still “assholes” in the sense of holding offensive opinions about other people and promulgating those opinions in offensive ways (the corollary of this claim is that they are–still–judgmental as well), but I don’t think that you are going to have much luck convincing them of your point. Heck, they can’t even manage to properly apologize for comparing black people to pieces of shit. “We promote progressive policies!”
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/03/16/jared-fogle-reportedly-beaten-up-in-prison/
I was in a serious depression last night, mostly over watching footage of Donald Trump and realizing that he has such broad support in this country. It’s scary.
I know. I honestly think, at this point, that there would be riots if the GOP doesn’t give Trump the nomination, and at that point, once violence has become an acceptable solution for political differences, we’ve opened a Pandora’s box that doesn’t have Hope at the bottom of it.
And of course, it will go without saying that if Hilary wins the election, there will be screams of ‘voter fraud’ and they’ll view her as illegitimate too.
And the cries of fraud will center on whether Trump is just a false flag candidate whose sole purpose was getting H in the white house. . . .
I’m trying not to give up on Bernie, but after yesterday it’s getting pretty hard to believe he still has any real chance.
It appears his chances have gone from 10% before yesterday to 3% now. “So you’re saying there’s a chance!” Ha ha.
get your tinfoil hat ready….https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
On the issue of anecdotal evidence, I submit that there is no other kind when dealing with matters of spirit. Christian, your mistrust of other people’s subjectively experienced stories (anecdotes) is inextricably tied to your own subjective experiences. And so it is for everyone. There is simply no such thing as empirical evidence that is sufficient to prove the hypothesis that God exists or that Christianity is the True religion. Said another way, you are relying on the anecdotal evidence you have assembled to conclude that other peoples anecdotal evidence is not trustworthy. And there is nothing better than anecdotal evidence because of the observer effect–Christian can’t compile truly objective evidence about the seen and unseen world around him because he can only interact with them subjectively.
I thought Kenneth’s phrasing of the question was interesting in that he asked something like how probable would it have to be to simply “hope” that it’s true. While I certainly appreciate that the Christianity is much broader than the Calvary Chapel flavor, the idea that God created billions of souls to serve as eternal matchsticks for the fires of hell so that he could have a few followers tell him how great he is forever, would I suspect, lead Christian to “hope” that the story is NOT true.
Finally, what does it mean to “believe” in this context. Much of modern Christianity insists that there is a magic formula you have to understand, a magic spell that needs to be said and/or a magic bath you have to take. But how is this any different than the Pharisee’s list of prescriptions and proscriptions to which Jesus took obvious exception. It simply doesn’t make any sense that thinking the right things and performing the right magic gives you a get out of hell free card and $200 when you pass Go on your way through the pearly gates.
I find Kierkegaard’s leap of faith to be both challenging and helpful here. Faith only matters because this Jesus/Christianity/Afterlife paradigm simply doesn’t make any rational sense. But am I going to trust God anyway? If the answer is yes, what does that mean and why does it matter? The conclusion for me can never be about practicing the right magic. This is why some of Jason’s musings on Rollins’s idea of God as love and the experience of that God by loving our neighbor are really resonating with me currently.
Rollins and Stellman-Christianity’s last gasp for Aaron Fountain – God help us all.
Have you seen this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHLcy1Duk8c
I hadn’t. But I just watched it. Really good. 😉
Aaron, I don’t mean to high-jack the thread but just wanted to respond to your thoughtful post in order to hopefully add a different perspective.
Right. So based on this conclusion, no matter what your worldview or bias is, what makes Christianity (in any of its several forms) reasonable or even necessary? The only explanation for the reasonableness of being a Christian that makes sense to me is that it might make you feel good, give you a sense of belonging, do good things for others, and maybe make you a better person (depending on your personality and environment). However, it is also reasonable to think that you can lead a happy healthy life without having to believe that a travelling Jewish teacher rose from the dead. It seems to me you are headed that way from the rest of your post, but I could be wrong.
Jason referred me to this video a while back over at the “heavy for the vintage” blog and I was really confused by the end of it. Maybe that was Rollins purpose (he seems to be all about disarray, chaos, and angst). I don’t know. Here’s what I said to Jason right after I watched it and I think it’s still my feelings about it:
Mike, I think your point aligns with Christian’s conclusion that if universalism is true, why should he care about believing.
But what about this idea supporting the reasonableness of being a Christian. A good friend of mine is an atheist, but he also claims to be a Christian. His justification is that he claims to follow Christ’s teachings (minus the first and greatest commandment under a traditional understanding of its admonitions), which he claims is the quintessential meaning of “Christian.” He has simply decided that the very best version of himself is one that is patterned on Jesus’s example of self-sacrificing love of others without any justification based on theology or belief. And he is one of the best people I have known.
i have not, but I will listen to it in the car instead of DXP.
“There is simply no such thing as empirical evidence that is sufficient to prove the hypothesis that God exists or that Christianity is the True religion.”
Seems you are unnecessarily limiting your acceptable evidence. If held too tightly this is scientism; and it is a self-refuting system. Besides, empirical evidence through the scientific method doesn’t prove hypotheses true anyway. Science doesn’t prove anything. It only fits observations to mathematical models. It is a great way to systematically make sense of observations. However, not every question can be answered with science. For example, there is no experiment that can prove some action is moral, nor prove something is beautiful, nor prove God’s existence. And those aren’t dismissible questions! They are quite meaningful to the human experience. Scientism is simply inadequate by itself to make sense of the world.
That said, as I’m sure you are aware, there are plenty of philosophical arguments for God’s existence. I find some of them so compelling that I don’t think I could ever be anything less than a Deist. There are also historical arguments utilizing historical evidence for the Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. So there is evidence that God exists and for the truth claims of Christianity, even if not empirical.
Also, this is what I think of whenever someone says sarsaparilla, so now I’m always going to think “rootin tootin, sure as shootin” when I agree with something Christian says. (FYI, all of the drinks at the bar are sarsaparilla)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kk9HBlS9SQ
He sounds like a very interesting person! But the teachings of Jesus are quite strong, and difficult, if not nearly impossible, to follow fully. True self-sacrificing love for others, especially your enemy, and striving after heroic virtue, in my view, would require Faith. To make sacrifices of worldly goods such as celibacy and vows of poverty, giving up your very life for another, would be quite difficult to justify without supernatural Faith of some kind. If your friend, an avowed atheist, is following Jesus as well as you describe, he may actually have a saving Faith in Jesus.
What’s interesting is that if he does have a saving Faith in Jesus, he does so despite getting all of the magic bits completely wrong. It very much reminds me of the parable of the 2 sons in Matthew 21:28-31.
Lane, I think you and I are in agreement on this one. My point was that Christian’s rejection of anecdotal evidence as relevant to answering spiritual questions is somewhat paradoxical because its the only kind of evidence that is possible for answering such questions, whether in the affirmative or the negative. The very idea of empirical evidence for such things is nonsensical.
And I may be splitting hairs, but I don’t consider arguments to be evidence, even when they are compelling. That being said, I agree they are very valuable to make sense of the anecdotal evidence we do have.
I would be pumped for Paul Ryan. But I still think Cruz will take it via convention.
You’re buddy sounds like a great secular humanist, not a Christian. If he doesn’t believe in the resurrection why even call your self that?
“I think you and I are in agreement on this one.”
I thought we might be. I’ve recently been dealing with one of my friends who has decided to be a really annoying reddit style new atheist, and couldn’t help myself.
I thought Kenneth’s phrasing of the question was interesting in that he asked something like how probable would it have to be to simply “hope” that it’s true. While I certainly appreciate that the Christianity is much broader than the Calvary Chapel flavor, the idea that God created billions of souls to serve as eternal matchsticks for the fires of hell so that he could have a few followers tell him how great he is forever, would I suspect, lead Christian to “hope” that the story is NOT true.
Yes but that is an argument against at best a certain theology and at worst biblical inerrancy. The vast majority of Christians arguments fall into this category. Which is why I think he misjudged his decision to leave the faith for agnosticism. At my count he only has one argument against theism which is the problem of evil. I don’t see how that one argument justifies apostacy given the many arguments for theism.
I understand the logic. I was just struck by your word choice given the question’s intended audience. In my experience, many former Calvary Chapel acolytes have a deep mistrust and skepticism of most theology. It’s almost like agnosticism (or apostacy) is the result of some bizarro form of the “do no harm” part of the Hippocratic oath.
On a different note, I’m not sure where in the great expanse of Houston you live, but it might be fun to meet up for a beer sometime.
It won’t be fun. At all. 😉
Just kidding. I’d meet up with Kenneth for a beer, especially if he is buying.
but that is an argument against at best a certain theology
Which orthodox version of Christianity doesn’t believe that out of the billions of souls to have lived, that many follow the road to destruction, and only a few find the gate that leads to life? It certainly wasn’t Jesus.
Let me just leave this here:
https://newrepublic.com/article/131743/poor-get-trapped-depressed-areas
I’ll grant you that science may not always be able to explain everything. However, that in no way proves, and I don’t know how you can presuppose that, the Christian god is the ultimate and final answer to the inexplicable.
I would like to see some historical evidence of the resurrection that is not put forth by someone who holds a presumptive theological belief that it really happened.
Imagine that, as a child, someone ran up to you… someone you trusted, and told you that the world was going to end in a nuclear war in 30 minutes and your only chance of survival was to follow them into a room. So you follow and you enter the room.
The room is small and dimly lit. It has pictures of trees and lakes etched onto the walls. You are told you must stay within the room or risk death. You are given a set of rules to obey and if you fail to obey them you might wake up outside of the room and face certain death. You are told not to question the rules. You are also told that the chalk etchings of the trees and animals and lakes are real trees, animals, and lakes. Over time, you come to accept this, because questioning what you are taught also means the possibility of ending up outside of the bunker.
And then one day, perhaps an ant tunnels into the room. And you are curious. Perhaps there is an outside of the room… perhaps there is life outside of the room. But no, there cannot be life outside of the room. You have been told it is only death that awaits you there. But… maybe…
So you fight the doubts, convince yourself that your memories of outside were wrong. The ant must have always been in the room too. But… the thought keeps you awake at night… what if? And you move your sleeping bag closer to the door. Not much closer at first, but night after night, you wake up with the thought “What if…?” Worse, you have started to dream of actual trees and grass and open sky, not etchings on a wall, but the real things you almost forgot from when you were a child.
Others notice you drifting and try to talk or shame you back in. “Don’t you know what you will find outside the room? Death!” they say. Maybe it works, but the “What if…?” and the thought of blue sky and warm sun compels you.
And soon you find yourself at the door. Afraid… terrified really… once you go outside, you can never come back. What is waiting for you out there?
And you open the door and walk outside. With a loud clang the door slams behind you cutting off your escape. But you don’t want to escape anymore. Stretching before you as far as you can see is a field of green grass, open sky, and life… beautiful wild flowers, foxes, rabbits, butterflies… you had forgotten how beautiful a butterfly was… it’s all here and it’s all in front of you. You are free. Free to live without fear. Free to love and laugh and ask questions and dance. So you do. You dance until you’re tired and collapse in the grass as the sun sets and billions of stars appear in the open sky above you. This is no wasteland… this is what you were made for. To live.
And then as days flow by, you see other rooms and you may pop your head in and listen to them. They all try to convince you that the only way to survive the certain death outside of their room is to stay in their room. But you don’t believe them anymore. Because every time you step outside of their small dimly room, there is the sun warming your body, the grass tickling your feet, and the smell of a bright Spring morning.
You can’t go back even if you wanted to.
There have been early church fathers that believed this, and there are people in just about every denomination today that think this way. But who cares about counting heads? Its all about what you think. My point is that even if you were convinced that scripture teaches hell is the broad path, and no other interpretations were plausible, that would be reason to jettison inerrancy. Not Christian theism. Make sense?
That would make my week! I live out in Cypress.
There are scholars that believe that Jesus’ disciples believed they saw Jesus resurrected, even if they don’t personally believe it is true. However, why does the beliefs of the person offering evidence matter? It isn’t their personal testimony. It’s like: “Oh you believe the evidence, well, I don’t accept it then.” The evidence is the evidence, accept it or not.
I’ve never really associated Plato’s Cave Allegory with Calvary Chapel, Christianity, or Religion before. But after reading this, the parallels are pretty obvious. I guess the “fight” is about which group is still in the cave.
And I believe that people who believe they’ve been abducted by aliens really believe they were abducted. That doesn’t prove they were actually abducted.
It matters because of confirmation bias. Do you really think that someone who’s whole religious identity and worldview hinges on whether or not the resurrection happened would ever come to the conclusion, regardless of the available evidence, that it didn’t happen? I really don’t care if people believe in the resurrection or not and I do not think that people who do are idiotic or unreasonable people, but I do have a problem with apologetic theological believes and assertions being described as “historical evidence”.
We’re near the Beltway and I10, which although not around the corner, is close enough to make this feasible. I’ll do a liitle research on midpoint possibilities.
Dude I pass I10 and beltway 8 every day for work. We can meet up anywhere any time 🙂
Again. The historic evidence is not affected by the conclusion drawn by the person giving it to you. I don’t understand why you think it does. Unless, you are talking about evidence from the historical people themselves, and not the modern day scholars like I was. If that’s the case, you have rigged your conclusion by not accepting evidence from historical people that believe opposite from you. “He saw Jesus resurrected, can’t use him, he’s biased.”
“And I believe that people who believe they’ve been abducted by aliens really believe they were abducted. That doesn’t prove they were actually abducted.”
But it is evidence regardless of whether it is sufficient to prove the conclusion by itself.
We wouldn’t drink beer though. Whiskey until one of us drops!
By the way, have you tried T-X whiskey? Firestone and Robinson. The lid is made from the boots of people who visit the distillery. Its bad ass easy drinking. You will be impressed.
Gay
Of course the evidence itself is not affected, it is what it is. The problem is the conflation of historical evidence with theological belief. Do you really not think that a practicing Christian scholar does not have a vested interest in saying that the historical evidence points to the resurrection having really happened? It’s like a scientist who’s entire research on fracking is paid for by a fracking company saying fracking definitively does not have any geological consequences.
Like I said, I don’t care what people believe or how reasonable they think someone rising from the dead is. Just don’t assert it as historical fact.
I thought we agreed to keep our relationship a secret, Kenneth.
Do you really not think that a practicing Christian scholar does not have a vested interest in saying that the historical evidence points to the resurrection having really happened?
If a scholar believes that the resurrection happened, then they are probably a Christian. But you don’t accept evidence from Christians… how convenient.
“Like I said, I don’t care what people believe or how reasonable they think someone rising from the dead is. Just don’t assert it as historical fact.”
How dogmatic of you. What other conclusions are completely off the table for you? Let me guess, anything that a worldview limited by atheistic materialism can’t accept.
“I only accept evidence for global warming from scientists that don’t believe in global warming.”
What?
“If a scholar believes that the resurrection happened, then they are probably a Christian. But you don’t accept evidence from Christians… how convenient.”
Let’s make sure we stay on point here – proof of the resurrection. I’m saying that I am highly skeptical of any christian evidence definitively proving jesus rose from the dead. I’ll gladly accept evidence from christians as long as what they are saying doesn’t cross the line into theology. There are many agreed points between non-christian and christian new testament scholars based purely on the historical evidence and context. I generally do not accept Christian “evidence” for anything when it is theological/religious belief disguised as evidence. It’s a leap of faith and that’s ok. What is wrong with saying it’s faith-based?
“How dogmatic of you. What other conclusions are completely off the table for you? Let me guess, anything that a worldview limited by atheistic materialism can’t accept.”
The false equivalence of religion with non-belief, ugh. Yes let me go consult my holy book, “the god delusion” and light incense for the four horsemen. Come on now. I do not understand how not believing that someone rose from the dead is dogmatic.
Nothing is off the table for me, anything is possible. Show me though. Convince me. Biblical dudes asked for definitive proof all the time and got it (see Elijah, Moses, James). If you can’t without involving your personal theology, then tell me you believe it because deep down you know it’s true and can feel it. I’m cool with that.
Maybe I misunderstood your original objection. How do you define “Christian evidence”?
Apologetic theological assertions/claims held out as independent and accurate evidence.
Give me an example.
I suggest going to reasonablefaith.org or desiringgod.org for a good idea on what apologists are touting as historical evidence for the resurrection.
What historical evidence does WLC tout that you claim isn’t historical? Seriously, I’m not trying to be obtuse, I’m trying to understand which historical evidence isn’t historical evidence in your view.
Sorry, just saw this today.
First of all I think WLC is a master of conflating opinions and theological beliefs with facts. Let’s take three “facts” he typically lays out as historical evidence for the resurrection:
“Fact” 1: How is this a fact? He’s basing this evidence on nothing more than hearsay from a very unreliable source. Hardly evidence. If you follow up with him on this point, he’ll say regardless if it’s based on hearsay, there is no other likely natural explanation for the empty tomb. He has no basis for that assumption other than a theological belief.
“Fact” 2: To support his claim these “appearances” have to be Jesus in the flesh appearances, right? There is no reliable source to support this “fact”. Even still there is debate on whether even early Christians believed in a physical resurrection or if this was attributed to him by the authors many years later.
“Fact” 3: Other than what was attributed to the disciples in the gospels, how can WLC possibly claim this as historical fact? Martyrdom? We can have a discussion about that if you’d like.
I give WLC a lot of credit for being really good at leading people away from standard new testament scholarship in order to promote his particular theology.
Ah, I see. You think all the historical sources are unreliable. Are they unreliable because they point to a supernatural event? Again, rigged.
I do not think all historical sources are unreliable, but I will not be so myopic as to say that certain ones are unquestioningly reliable based on my personal theology. The bible (the NT in particular) is not a reliable source only because of its supernatural accounts. Read any credible biblical historian. Like I said in another post, there are many things scholars agree on when it comes to biblical accounts, but when you cross the line from biblical scholarship to apologetic assertion as WLC does, I have a problem. It’s like saying I believe the events of the Trojan War occurred because of what it says in Homer’s Iliad. You can’t prove that it didn’t happen the way it did in Homer’s writings and there isn’t any other natural explanation for it, so it’s fact. Do you see how absurd that is?
Ok, I at least understand your objection, even if I don’t agree.
Fair enough.
I’ve been somewhat following this conversation. So, Lane, do you give the same historical weight to events mentioned in the Koran as you do the Bible? If not, why not? That seems like the obvious question at this point unless I’m missing something.
I don’t really desire to get into a back and forth on the reliability of the NT. However briefly, there are lots of reasons to believe that the NT is historically accurate. Such as they were written as historical books as opposed to myths; there isn’t enough time for legends to develop between events and being written; Jesus’ ministry was public and many of the appeals in the Bible are to “you saw” and thus would have been contradicted by “no we didn’t”; they include many historical and cultural references that have been verified by non-biblical sources; there are other historical records that mention Biblical events like Josephus and Tacitus. Also keep in mind that as a Catholic I also lean on the witnesses of both the Tradition of the Church and her Saints (the fruit).
I hope you have a happy Easter!