Unless you’ve been hiding in a cocoon for the past ten years, you can’t have failed to notice the New Atheists and their public challenge to religion and Christianity in particular. Men like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris (to name perhaps the three most famous examples) have proclaimed from whatever atheistic minaret they could find their call that the very idea of God is a delusion, that the God of the Bible is not great, and that ‘faith’ should be at an end.
Here in Australia they have been particularly successful in breaking into the mainstream media. The Global Atheist Convention was hosted in Melbourne in 2010, and in 2012 the event is returning to our shores. During the 2010 convention a number of speakers made media appearances, most notably Richard Dawkins on the ABC panel discussion show Q&A.
Their influence is immediately apparent to anyone in Christian ministry, from the full-time church pastor engaged in public evangelism to the believing office worker or homemaker trying hard to commend Christ. The arguments we’re all hearing are coming directly from the New Atheist movement, and many of us feel floored.
Apart from the content of their arguments, I’ve noticed a consistent trait on display—that of boorish and arrogant dismissal of their opponents. I’ve lost count of the times in my various discussions with New Atheist disciples when insults have come in thick and fast. This is then coupled with what can only be fairly described as an almost complete unwillingness to discuss the arguments being put forward by Christian apologists. We are, apparently, beneath the New Atheists, and do not actually need to be engaged with, so shallow is our own reasoning.
Now, none of this is to say that there have not been a number of very good responses to the New Atheists. The best I’ve read in recent years is Alister McGrath’s The Dawkins Delusion, where he systematically works through Dawkins’ similarly named book and exposes the numerous errors for all to see.1 But who has the time and mental faculty to work through not only everything the New Atheists pour out, but additional books in response? If you’re like me and you have a full-time job to hold down, coupled with a busy family, then the idea is daunting.
All of this is why I was so pleased to read Dr John Lennox’s Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target. What McGrath did so well for one of Dawkins’ books, Lennox has managed to do for the whole genre of New Atheist argument. No doubt, I picked up the book enthusiastically—I’m a bit of a John Lennox fanboy, you see. Some of my favourite segments of the 2011 Oxygen conference were the seminars where Lennox systematically worked through a vast number of apologetic arguments. Over the past five years in particular, he has made a name for himself writing and debating against the New Atheists. If anyone has the experience to respond to their arguments and manner, then it’s Lennox.
What makes Gunning for God such a good read is the orderly way in which Lennox moves from chapter to chapter, drawing you along a pattern of thought from the initial point of contact—the ‘conflict’ between science and religion—through the assertions that religion causes harm and the questions of morality (both in the Scriptures and then more widely in our world) till we arrive at the Bible’s specific claims to recount supernatural events. Finally, we are led to the central supernatural claim of the Christian faith—that Jesus of Nazareth physically rose from the dead. Along the way Lennox examines the arguments of his opponents, points out their weaknesses, and then most helpfully shows their inconsistency of approach. It’s no surprise that chapters 2 and 3 are titled ‘Is Religion Poisonous?’ and ‘Is Atheism Poisonous?’ respectively.
Some of what Lennox writes has now become recognizably standard fare in this field, but no less palatable because of it. First is the confusion between whether the laws of nature describe or control events. Lennox is not afraid to address the giants in these fields. Responding to Stephen Hawking’s argument in A Brief History of Time that the universe has no need for a creator, he notes along with philosophers and physicists that physical laws describe rather than explain:
Physical laws… are merely a (mathematical) description of what normally happens under certain given conditions. Newton’s law of gravitation does not create gravity; it does not even explain gravity, as Newton himself realised. (p. 33)
That is, in Hawking’s insistence that the universe needs no creator because of the existence of gravity, he “has signally failed to answer the central question: why is there something rather than nothing?” (p. 35).
Also helpful in this chapter is Lennox’s clarification of the usage of the term ‘faith’, highlighting the false disjunction between faith and knowledge that has caused endless trouble ever since being introduced by the Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant (pp. 42‑43). The New Atheists have made this disjunction their paradigm for understanding religious claims, and Lennox helpfully demonstrates that this is in the face of no end of theists who argue in very different ways. We begin to see, yet again, their deliberate blindness to anything that does not fit their prejudiced assumptions about their opponents.
Where Gunning for God started to really engage me was in the next few chapters, as Lennox moves into a more philosophical field—that of morality. As with the rest of the book, this is a mixture of apologetic and polemic argument (or, if you like, defensive and offensive play). In this arena the polemic is well justified: the New Atheists lump the Islamic suicide bomber in with the Christian evangelical. Lennox is scathing:
There is a deep irony in the New Atheists’ failure to discriminate between religions; for they clearly expect everyone else to discriminate between atheists. They themselves, as self-confessedly peace-loving people, would not like to be arbitrarily classified with violent extremists of their own worldview persuasion, such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. (p. 61)
It is to Lennox’s credit that he is prepared to go on the offensive to point out this “blatant inconsistency”. In fact it’s a strength of his whole presentation—he relentlessly points out the double standards of his opponents. Yet he is, unlike those he criticizes, equally ready to affirm where they do not behave in this way. Nevertheless, Lennox compellingly presents not only the weakness of the New Atheist claim, but more importantly the paucity of their method: they misrepresent Christ’s teaching on violence and the subsequent history of Christendom (p. 69); they make no distinction in understanding between those born into Christian cultures and those with genuine Christian belief (p. 71); they give next to no credit for all the good brought about by Christians in our Western culture (pp. 73-74), and so on. So weak is their methodology that Lennox shows us other less strident, but no less atheistic, scientists who criticize their work in this field.
Without a doubt the strongest part of the whole exercise is Lennox’s tackling of the question of morality in and of itself. Lennox drives to the heart of the New Atheist dilemma—they wish to portray us as, ultimately, no more than the random (but naturally selected) product of our DNA, while at the same time they consistently make strong moral statements about us. Yet how does this strong materialistic view give them the right to make claims of morality?
We are clearly dealing here with an extreme form of materialistic reductionism that views human beings as nothing but their genes… Generations of human beings are merely machines or vehicles for reproducing what Dawkins calls “selfish genes”. But in what sense, then, is it possible to base morality on our genes? (p. 107)
How can Dawkins’, Hitchens’, or anyone else’s standards be anything but limited human conventions: ultimately meaningless products of a blind, unguided evolutionary process? Thus, far from delivering an adequate explanation for morality, this particular New-Atheistic acid dissolves it into incoherence. (p. 113)
Thus the New Atheists “have not really begun to understand the implications of their own atheistic beliefs” and “do not appear to have taken on board the fact that their atheism removes from them… any moral values whatsoever” (p. 114).
It’s a compelling argument, and one that holds true in my own personal engagements. One discussion partner told me that his basic moral values were “minimization of harm” and “optimization of choice” but he couldn’t provide me with any rationale at all for that position. More recently, a far more belligerent opponent conceded that his moral code, while possibly the product of evolution, “just seems right”! And that’s all he had! It doesn’t, of course, prevent him sending almost daily email screeds decrying the apparent depravity of all religion. I’ve long since given up asking him on what basis he can know that they’re depraved. Who is he to judge? What is the foundation of his moral claim? What I have been seeing on the ground Lennox has brilliantly exposed.
But there is still more. The most challenging section of the book is where Lennox deals in a sustained manner with the arguments of philosopher David Hume. It is in doing this that Lennox most clearly demonstrates the difference between his own approach and that of those he criticizes. Dawkins arrogantly dismisses Thomas Aquinas’s ontological argument in a few pages and Anselm in little more.2 Lennox, in contrast, engages at depth with Hume on the topics of morality and the supernatural over the span of two chapters, returning again and again as the developing argument requires. Some of it was admittedly a little hard going, and required re-reading to make sure I’d understood the nuances of what was being put forward. But then, that’s the point! Lennox does what the New Atheists almost always fail to do—give due respect and attention to the best of the arguments that his opponents are providing. In doing so we get to grips with some of Hume’s crucial axioms, particularly at the point where they intersect with the central Christian apologetic claim:
One can agree with Hume that “uniform experience” shows that resurrection by means of natural mechanism is extremely improbable, and we may rule it out. But Christians do not claim that Jesus rose by some natural mechanism. They claim something totally different—that God raised him from the dead. (p. 184)
Again, what is striking is that Lennox actually properly understands and respects the arguments he is writing against. Of course, one area in which the New Atheists do not do this is the question of the resurrection:
I know of no serious attempt by any of the New Atheists to engage with the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Indeed, it is even worse than that. Their whole attitude to history in general is characterized by sheer closed-mind prejudice: light-years removed from the open-minded scientific attitude that they pretend to hold in high esteem. (p. 187)
Like their precursor Bertrand Russell, Lennox shows us that the New Atheists are “talking in sheer ignorance of the facts” (p. 189). By contrast, we get a well-laid out argument of the historicity of this momentous event that lies at the heart of Christianity.
It is this combination of both well-reasoned arguments and engagement and criticism of his opponents that makes Gunning for God such a great read. Time and time again Lennox patiently sets out his case in great detail, interacting with what the other side have to say but also having the courage to call them out on their bad arguments, boorishness and plain ignorance as required. There’s never a moment where you feel he’s over the top about it; in fact, for someone like me who is all too prone to the temptation of taking the occasional cheap shot, Gunning for God is a great encouragement that the more effective means of debate is sound, responsive argument.
Others will also be greatly encouraged. If you’re feeling like you’re on the back foot in trying to respond to the relentless fastball pace of the New Atheist attack, then Lennox’s book will leave you cheering on every page. He guides you past the bluster and rhetoric, pulling back the curtain on the Great Oz of the New Atheists. This is also a book for the middle-ground; in fact, I think this is the book to give to your discerning unbelieving friend. They will have, no doubt, read Dawkins. Reading Lennox will more than compensate, for not only will they get a detailed rebuttal of the New Atheist claims, they will also read an equally detailed defence of the Christian faith on the same terms.
Bottom line, I can’t think of a better book on this topic. High praise? Indeed, but only where it’s due.
David, thanks for this review. I also was impressed by the book which I received at the Oxygen conference. Well worth the read, and yes, Lennox is firm, but mostly really seems to engage, unlike some of his opponents, as both he and you point out.
Just a footnote for accuracy’s sake, I think you will find that it is in Hawking’s more recent book, co-authored with Mlodinov (2010), The Grand Design not A Brief History of Time, where Hawking claims definitively to have done away with the need for God because given the existence of the laws of physics like gravity, then (according to him) the universe is inevitably self-assembling. (See Gunning for God p9, p31; although on p33, Lennox says it was hinted at in the former book.)
From an atheist perspective I’ve lost count of the times in my various discussions with Christians disciples when insults have come in as “fool has said in his heart..” These Ad Hominem are ingrained as words come from the Holy Spirit inspired “good book”.
Regarding atheists’ “arrogance”; a Christian says he has a personal relationship with creator of the universe and an atheist dismisses that claim. Who is the arrogant here?
Lennox is generally considered sub-par by atheists. His arguments are generally simply poor and misguided. He sometimes even misstates facts to make his position appear better. Lennox usually sidesteps issues and does not properly address questions. I have noticed that in debates he repeats his old arguments without considering previous answers given to him. McGrath is usually considered better and has better formed and thought out arguments against New Atheists Dawkins. His book was good and discussions with Dawkins were fun to watch.
So when discussion with atheists you will probably be dismissed if you mention Lennox, but using McGrath’s work you will get further.
A poor example of Lennox’s reasoning is in the article:
“That is, in Hawking’s insistence that the universe needs no creator because of the existence of gravity, he “has signally failed to answer the central question: why is there something rather than nothing?””
Notice how answering the questions “why is there something rather than nothing” has nothing to do with gravity and universe needing a creator. Lennox should have address Hawking’s claim and argued about gravity and creator. Atheists see these kind of red herrings and dismiss his “argument”.
Another example of Lennox’ poor reasoning in the article:
“New Atheists… would not like to be arbitrarily classified with violent extremists of their own worldview persuasion, such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.”
This is clearly nonsense as atheism is not a worldview, just like not believing in unicorns is not a worldview. Worldview contains a lot more. Again when Lennox does not understand atheism and gets ignored.
Based on the article Lennox is also confused about atheists and morality. He does not seem to understand atheist position. Some atheist claim that with morality it seems to be theists that have the problem grounding on their morality as theists don’t seem to agree on any moral code or grounding.
Perhaps the poorest comment was:
“I know of no serious attempt by any of the New Atheists to engage with the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ”
Clearly Lennox has not read many atheist books. Plenty of atheist biblical scholars have addressed the biblical evidence and many others extra-biblical evidence of resurrection. This type of writing is a prime reason to ignore Lennox’s work. If you use these kinds of arguments with atheists, you’ll get dismissed as ignorant.
Jon,
When you say “atheism is not a worldview” I’m sure you’re not suggesting that atheists don’t have worldviews!
If someone defines “atheism” as “a lack of belief in the supernatural” (as I suspect you might) then there’s a good chance their worldview is some form of philosophical Naturalism or Materialism. From what I’ve read of Dawkins and Harris et al I think they’d be comfortable with those labels.
As Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin are communists, I think it’s a safe bet they also were Materialists. I expect that’s what Lennox has in mind when suggesting the New Atheists share the same “worldview persuasion”.
So, rather than seeing Lennox as using “poor reasoning” I think he’s looking beyond what the New Atheist authors don’t believe, and engaging with what they do believe. Which is always a more interesting discussion.
Jon,
You claim Lennox is using poor reasoning when discussing gravity. I fear that you may have gained this impression through David’s brief quote. Here is a longer quote from Lennox (p35) …
“Hawking has signally failed to answer the central question: why is there something rather than nothing? He says that the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity come into existence in the first place? What was the creative force behind its birth? Who put it there, with all its properties and potential for mathematical description?”
The question “why is there something rather than nothing” has everything to do with Hawking’s argument that the existence of gravity explains the universe, and therefore the universe doesn’t need a creator. Lennox is addressing Hawking’s claim head-on.
Jon, I found it interesting to read your opinion and weigh carefully your thought that McGrath is a more impressive apologist than Lennox.
A couple of quickies.
I did find it ironic that you began your comment criticising ad hominem attacks by countless Christians who make insults like the “fool has said in his heart..” Given that no one has cited that Scripture here, I wonder if it is an ad hominem attack itself to hang it on David Ould as the author of this post.
I think Ken makes a worthwhile point about worldviews. I hear you and other atheists when you say the atheism feature itself is not a worldview per se. But I think it is fair to say that scientific materialism is a worldview, and one common to many atheists.
Lastly, on the point about Lennox’s claim the New Atheists do not seriously engage with the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus… I agree this comment is probably overstated. I am aware of atheists who do engage with the issue.
But I suspect Lennox is using the title New Atheists to refer not to all modern atheists, but especially to the prominently published ‘New Atheists’, such as Dawkins, Hitchens, (and the older Bertrand Russell he mentions in this section).
In the spirit of you informing us of the views of atheists of the relative merits of Lennox and McGrath, I think it is worth saying that serious, historically minded Christians do find it frustrating that people like Dawkins and Hitchens in their hugely popular anti-Christians works dismiss the evidence for the resurrection in very cursory ways, when there is certainly a much higher standard of scholarly debate available.
Perhaps you could give us an example of a published work of someone like Dawkins or Hitchens or Russell or Onfray or Dennett or Harris which deals with the evidence for the resurrection (or the historicity of the life of Jesus more generally) in more than just a few dismissive pages. There may well be such efforts, but I would like to know where they are.
Personally most recently on this topic, I have been impressed by Michael Licona’s The Resurrection of Jesus, a New Historiographical Approach. Heavy at 700+ pages, but I think a real effort to do more than the standard Christian apologetics on the topic and to account for one’s own biases.
Ken,
Some atheists believe in supernatural, some don’t. Philosophical Naturalism or Materialism are not worldviews, just part of it. Google “worldview” and you’ll understand all that it means.
Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin might have been materialists, but I don’t know what “worldview persuasion” implies. I know some spiritual and Christian communists so I’m not sure what inspired those dictators. Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin might have loved their families just like you do but it does not make their worldview similar to yours.
Lennox needs to understand what are and what is included in worldviews.
You quote Lennox:
“Hawking has signally failed to answer the central question: why is there something rather than nothing?”
Was this aim of Hawkins book, and did Hawkins need to do this? Lennox knows that we don’t know the answer to this, so Lennox’s observation is dishonest.
“[Hawking] says that the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity come into existence in the first place?
Hawkins does not need to know how gravity came into existence to make his point. As WL Craig puts it; you don’t need an explanation to an explanation otherwise you get to infinite regression. You just need to choose the best explanation. Of course Lennox knows this and offers us a Red Herring here.
“What was the creative force behind its birth? Who put it there, with all its properties and potential for mathematical description?”
Here Lennox is stacking the deck. Notice how he uses “who” instead asking a broader question how it come about. He is priming people to accept a personal being without broader investigation. Of course he knows this standard apologist approach, but he offers us this fallacy.
You seem to think that the question “why is there something rather than nothing” has everything to do with Hawking’s argument. It is like asking why is there a God rather than not, when the discussion topic is gravity and the beginning of our universe. The question is interesting but irrelevant. Lennox is addressing an irrelevant claim head-on.
Jon,
Thanks for your reply.
You suggest Lennox is being dishonest when he says “Hawking has signally failed to answer the central question: why is there something rather than nothing?”, questioning whether this question was the aim of Hawking’s book.
Hawking’s book is entitled The Grand Design and on pp9-10 he writes …
“To understand the universe at the deepest level, we need to know not only how the universe behaves, but why.
“Why is there something rather than nothing?
“Why do we exist?
“Why this particular set of laws and not some other?
“This is the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. We shall attempt to answer it in this book.”
So when Lennox argues Hawking has failed to answer the central question, it is because Hawking has declared that it is the central question. Lennox is not being dishonest in critiquing Hawking’s answer to this question. It’s not an “irrelevant” question to Hawking: he believes the answer will give us a deep understanding of the universe.
Also, I don’t see that Lennox can be accused of “stacking the deck” by using the pronoun “who”. In the previous sentence he asks “what … force” so he acknowledges that the cause is either some impersonal mechanism or the act of some person. He argues that a personal creator is the best explanation of what we observe: a universe with a beginning.
Ken,
What has “Why is there something rather than nothing” or “Why is there God rather than no God” to do with the discussion of gravity and the beginning of our universe?
Lennox does not argue that a personal creator is the best explanation of what we observe as you claim. He asserts it. Understand the difference.
Asking:
“Who put [the gravity] there, with all its properties and potential for mathematical description?”
is stacking a deck like it or not. It is up to you to lift your game above the fallacies of Lennox. Read better apologists to survive in secular world. It is up to you.
Pingback: Gunning for God – Book Review in the Briefing
Sandy,
I find it interesting that when an author of this article states:
“I’ve lost count of the times in my various discussions with New Atheist disciples when insults have come in thick and fast.”
you don’t react even when no New Atheist seem to have insulted anyone here. But you wonder if it is an Ad Hominem when I make a similar statement. I think this might show your bias.
See how the author of the article attacks the atheists in the beginning to prime Christians for the later praise of Lennox attacking atheists. Why do you think the author writes about “atheistic minaret” for example? If you do a book review there is no need to poison the well if the book delivers what it should.
Thanks for seeing that atheism is not a worldview. Some atheists are scientific materialist, some are not. I would say most of them have not even thought about it. Obviously Lennox’s comparison of New Atheists worldview to Stalin is a fallacy.
Most new atheists think the resurrection of Jesus is a non-starter. First you have to show that there is clear/objective evidence of the Christian God of your denomination. Only then they’ll let you move to resurrection issues. Hitchens and Dawkins are not scholars, but have referred to scholarly work. They write to popular audience and scholarly approach is not needed. It’s like asking your average Pentacostal preacher to present NT variants in his sermon. Some atheists produce scholarly works, some popular works. Attacking writers defined as “popular writers” not writing scholarly works is just silly, especially coming from a non-biblical scholar.
And let’s make it clear. There is no good historical evidence of Jesus’ resurrection. Most apologists quote Habermas’ stacked deck nose counts or alleged multiple eyewitness reports. Other religions have better eyewitness reports so why should New Atheists write more than a page on this faith based position.
I’m planning to read Licona’s book soon. Notice how Licona lost his professorship and position in the North American Mission Board. He also lost his invitations to lecture in several places. And what about his position at Evangelical Theological Society? And all this because of exegesis of Matthew 27:52-53 even when he is an inerrantist! How can you trust the work of any of these evangelical “scholars” who has to obey the statements of faith or the Chicago statement of biblical inerrancy? Imagine a historian who signs a statement of faith that his source material is inerrant. That would be unbelievable naive, but in biblical circles admirable and often demanded. This is why New Atheists dismiss that kind of “scholarship”.
Jon, thanks for commenting again. On the Ad Hominem argument I think Christians make them and you have probably shown some examples. I think you may be a little myopic if you think New Atheists do not, and if you think you may not have slipped towards such arguments at one or two points. But Gary Habermas can look after himself.
More substantially, I think I hear that you are saying – sort of presuppositionally – that the resurrection is a non-starter because one must establish the likelihood of (your) God’s existence first. In other words, there seems to be some kind of world view presupposition of a closed universe, which means that the resurrection claim cannot be treated by historical investigation because it is just not possible, unless you prove (or strongly suggest by evidence) God’s existence.
OK, I guess that rules it out of consideration. For myself I am not sure why one cannot investigate a resurrection claim as an event without presuming to know the explanation for it.
My only other observation is that you have largely worked by assertion here, not by demonstration, nor supply of evidence. You assert about Habermas’ inadequacy. You assert other religions have better eyewitness claims. You assert Hitchens and Dawkins have referred to scholarly work. But no details. No references. No evidence.
Fair enough. That’s your right. Maybe you think it is a waste of time. And perhaps your assertions are all correct. But we’ll have to figure it out for ourselves in the absence of substance.
Sandy, I know some New Atheists resort to insults and anger especially online. I was just wondering why you picked on me on that issue, but not the author of the article who wrote about the same subject.
New Atheists do not
“presupposition of a closed universe, which means that the resurrection claim cannot be treated by historical investigation because it is just not possible”
as Christians often build this strawman. New Atheists have concluded that there isn’t sufficient evidence for God’s existence. Please understand the difference.
I’m with you when you say:
“For myself I am not sure why one cannot investigate a resurrection claim as an event without presuming to know the explanation for it.”
Osiris seems to have similar, but earlier, resurrection claim just like Jesus. Somehow Christians want to “investigate” only Jesus’ resurrection claims and ignore everyone else’s resurrections. So Christians actually just want everyone to investigate their claims and are not open minded for anyone else’s claims.
You are right that I asserted Habermas’ stacking the deck nose count. But Habermas strangely ignores the Jesus scholarship in Arabic speaking world stacking the deck to his side’s favour. And the nose count issue – that is not the way to find the truth.
Mormons have better eyewitness accounts for their Golden Plates, and in India you can talk to millions of people who can witness to you how they have personally seen miracles performed by avatars and gurus. It’s not difficult to find resurrection eyewitness reports there either, but Christians of course ignore all of those and rely on worse 2000 year old eyewitness accounts. If you can’t trust modern resurrection eyewitnesses who you can actually meet, how can you trust 2000 year old reports? Why would those be any better.
If you have listened to Hitchens’ talks you know he is really well read and often refers to especially Catholic and Jewish theologian and scholars. Or just check “God is not great” endnotes you see the references from Augustine, Aquinas and Maimonides to more modern scholars. Dawkins refers less to scholars, but more popular Christians like non-scholar C.S. Lewis. If you check “God Delusion” index pp 400-406 you see names you recognise, but not many conservative scholar. I remember hearing Dawkins referring to Erhman, but I’m not sure if he has read Ehrman’s books. Like I said they write to popular audience and scholarly approach is not needed. So there is your evidence but please check that those are true.
Thank you all for your comments on my article. I thought I might take the opportunity to respond to a few things that Jon is writing:
New Atheists do not
“presupposition of a closed universe, which means that the resurrection claim cannot be treated by historical investigation because it is just not possible”
as Christians often build this strawman. New Atheists have concluded that there isn’t sufficient evidence for God’s existence. Please understand the difference.
It’s not really a straw man. As Lennox points out the argument goes like this:
Christian: The Resurrection of Jesus is the key historical event upon which we base our claims.
Atheist: Resurrection? That’s a ridiculous notion since we know that people don’t rise from the dead. Hume argues strongly that it cannot naturally happen.
Christian: Yes, but we’re not arguing it’s a natural event – quite the contrary, it’s a supernatural event but well-attested nevertheless.
Atheists: well, it’s implausible in the Universe as we understand it.
The last sentence is the “closed Universe”. The New Atheists often discounts the possibility of such events and rejects them on that basis. It is simply not accurate to say “there isn’t sufficient evidence” since the claims of evidence are dismissed on principle as being impossible. When any further attempt is made to argue the historical facts these, too, are dismissed. Lennox discusses these exchanges in some detail on pages 187ff (chapter 8).
Osiris seems to have similar, but earlier, resurrection claim just like Jesus.
This is an oft-made claim. I would appreciate you setting out in some detail the exact parallels between Osiris and Jesus and the ancient sources you use to establish the Osiris account.
If you check “God Delusion” index pp 400-406 you see names you recognise, but not many conservative scholar. I remember hearing Dawkins referring to Erhman, but I’m not sure if he has read Ehrman’s books. Like I said they write to popular audience and scholarly approach is not needed.
Frankly, I think that all speaks for itself.
David, Thanks for reviewing Lennox’s book. I’m sorry you don’t see the straw men here. Lennox might be confusing your thinking.
You should really talk to some New Atheists. They don’t claim that we live in “a closed universe” and therefore resurrection claim cannot be treated by historical investigation because it is just not possible. Atheists who have read Hume would probably say that there is no good evidence of resurrection of Jesus. Hume readers would be unlikely to make a knowledge claim which requires proving a negative. New Atheists are all about evidence, not about presupposing something. Have you met and talked to any atheists?
Perhaps you can quote New Atheists, Hitchens?, Dawkins? who “presuppose a closed universe, which means that the resurrection claim cannot be treated by historical investigation because it is just not possible”, and settle the straw man matter?
You wrote that “It is simply not accurate to say “there isn’t sufficient evidence” since the claims of evidence are dismissed on principle as being impossible.” Can you name couple of New Atheists who have not investigated supernatural claims but have dismissed those on principle as being impossible? Dawkins for example has stated that he used to believe in God but once he started to investigate the matter as an early teenager he left the faith.
This is probably not the place to go in details of Osiris and Jesus parallels. Anyone can read Plutarch online and get books about pyramid texts. Those describe Osiris’ life, violent death, resurrection and becoming an afterlife Judge. Pyramid texts are of course older and better preserved than Christian writings, so those can be treated as more reliable than Christian writings. If you write an article about Osiris or paganism and Jesus perhaps then I can go into details.
I don’t get your last comment about Dawkins’ references. “God Delusion” was written to popular audience and did not try to refer to conservative Protestant scholarship. You seem to criticise the book and Dawkins’ approach based on false assumptions. I doubt that Lennox’s book refers to non-Christian biblical scholars, but again it does not need to do that either.
Could it be that your extreme negative views towards atheists skew your judgment? You seem to be fairly loud and negative towards atheists and other minorities, so I can see how some of them might think you hate them, and thus have been rude to you. I apologise that some atheists have been rude to you, please forgive them.
Atheists are people like Christians. They are mothers, fathers, children, co-workers, teachers and friends just like Christians. Atheists don’t commit more crimes or divorce more often. Atheists are nice, ethical, trustworthy and loving people just like Christians. Please go and meet at least one atheist with a friendly approach and an open mind. You’ll be surprised they are nice people just like Christians. And please write an article here of you encounter of an atheist person in your neighbourhood.
David, Thanks for reviewing Lennox’s book. I’m sorry you don’t see the straw men here. Lennox might be confusing your thinking.
You should really talk to some New Atheists. They don’t claim that we live in “a closed universe” and therefore resurrection claim cannot be treated by historical investigation because it is just not possible. Atheists who have read Hume would probably say that there is no good evidence of resurrection of Jesus. Hume readers would be unlikely to make a knowledge claim which requires proving a negative. New Atheists are all about evidence, not about presupposing something. Have you met and talked to any atheists?
In my review above I write: ” I’ve lost count of the times in my various discussions with New Atheist disciples…”. Perhaps you just missed that.
Perhaps you can quote New Atheists, Hitchens?, Dawkins? who “presuppose a closed universe, which means that the resurrection claim cannot be treated by historical investigation because it is just not possible”, and settle the straw man matter?
I think Lennox does a good enough job of doing that. You have, no doubt, read his book since you have such a large number of opinions about it. As I point out in my previous comment, chapter 8 deals with the subject in some detail.
This is probably not the place to go in details of Osiris and Jesus parallels. Anyone can read Plutarch online and get books about pyramid texts. Those describe Osiris’ life, violent death, resurrection and becoming an afterlife Judge. Pyramid texts are of course older and better preserved than Christian writings, so those can be treated as more reliable than Christian writings. If you write an article about Osiris or paganism and Jesus perhaps then I can go into details.
Well, you brought it up. I don’t think any one of the Christians currently commenting in this thread (all of whom I know personally) would mind in any way you taking the time to lay out the argument. You were the one who made the claim and so I’m sure it will be relatively simple for you to back it up.
I don’t get your last comment about Dawkins’ references. “God Delusion” was written to popular audience and did not try to refer to conservative Protestant scholarship. You seem to criticise the book and Dawkins’ approach based on false assumptions. I doubt that Lennox’s book refers to non-Christian biblical scholars, but again it does not need to do that either.
On the contrary (and this is exactly the point that Lennox is making) when Dawkins does not even begin to engage with the best conservative scholarship then he lets all of his readers down. He claims to be writing a definitive “smackdown” of theistic claims and yet doesn’t even begin to engage with any of the classic modern conservative Christian scholars in the field. Ehrman, as I’m sure you know, is not the same man at all as someone like Baukham or NT Wright in this field. If you claim to be putting something to rest then whether you’re writing for serious academics or laymen is irrelevant – if you’re not dealing with the best that your opponents have to offer then you’re not really dealing with the subject at all. This is, of course, Lennox’s critique of Dawkins.
Atheists are people like Christians. They are mothers, fathers, children, co-workers, teachers and friends just like Christians. Atheists don’t commit more crimes or divorce more often. Atheists are nice, ethical, trustworthy and loving people just like Christians. Please go and meet at least one atheist with a friendly approach and an open mind. You’ll be surprised they are nice people just like Christians. And please write an article here of you encounter of an atheist person in your neighbourhood.
The last convinced atheist I talked with at any detail has to be one of the most obnoxious men i have met in a long time. Having spoken to a few other prominent local people I find that my opinion is not a unique one. That is, of course, a purely anecdotal piece of evidence but then you made an anecdotal claim. Frankly, I’d much rather talk real statistics. Such as the recent England Citizen Survey which shows different levels of monthly social volunteerism between atheists and those who report a religious belief. Of course, there’s more work to be done on those figures but I don’t think your claim stands up.
But, actually, I’m more interested in your Osiris claim and I look forward (along with others) to you putting flesh on its bones.
David
David,
I asked you
“Perhaps you can quote New Atheists, Hitchens?, Dawkins? who “presuppose a closed universe, which means that the resurrection claim cannot be treated by historical investigation because it is just not possible”, and settle the straw man matter?”
and you did back up you claim. Names please or your claim was a straw man.
I don’t believe you have talked to new atheists. They don’t claim that we live in “a closed universe” and therefore resurrection claim cannot be treated by historical investigation because it is just not possible. Provide some evidence or admit that you are making stuff up.
I’m afraid Lennox and you have misunderstood the requirements on objectives of Dawkins’ book. He does not need to engage with the best conservative scholarship to dismiss your God. Just like you don’t need to engage with the best Jewish, Muslim, Mormon or Osirian scholarship to dismiss their Gods. Dawkins is dealing with the best his opponents offer; you and Lennox just don’t see it. Just see how Dawkins is single handedly winning against the multi hundred billion dollar Christian operations. Just keep on attacking him and he keeps on winning. Open your mind, and read Dawkins’ book and you’ll see it. Read it again and you’ll even get the message.
Your blog might attract obnoxious atheists. Please write an article here of you encounter of an atheist person in your neighbourhood.
Interestingly you claim that the recent England Citizen Survey “which shows different levels of monthly social volunteerism between atheists and those who report a religious belief”. As you know christianpost.com wrote about it stating “Atheists Just as Servant-Minded as Christians, British Study Reveals”. Maybe you want to provide blood donation stats. Blood donations are not in-group donations and gives a good picture of true altruism. Maybe you want to provide stats of foreign aid vs. religiosity of the countries. Or maybe not. Why are you so eager to show Christians are better? Why are you so bitter towards atheists?
David, I’m sorry if some atheists have been rude to you or trespassed against you. Atheists are not perfect. Forgive them, and try to get to understand an atheist who is you neighbour, friend, co-worker, shop owner or postman. Try with love, not with hate. Atheists are humans just like Christians.
I don’t believe you have talked to new atheists.
Well then we are at a bit of an impasse, aren’t we? What with you now having to call me a liar.
Out of interest, have you actually read Gunning for God?
I await your detailed info on the Osiris “resurrection” with great anticipation.
Dawkins is dealing with the best his opponents offer; you and Lennox just don’t see it.
I think this is probably the crux of the issue, Jon. Perhaps you might point us to the section in on of Dawkin’s books where he comprehensively addresses the historical claims about the resurrection of Jesus?
You see, from where I’m standing in order to “deal with the best his opponents offer” Dawkins would have to do some detailed engagement with the likes of Baukham. Perhaps I just missed it when I read his stuff. No doubt you’ll be able to point us to that “dealing with the best his opponents offer”. After you’ve pointed us to the Osiris material, of course :)
David,
I don’t think you are a liar, you are just mistaken what New Atheists claim. I have read and talked to New Atheists and none of them would claim “that we live in “a closed universe” and therefore resurrection claim cannot be treated by historical investigation because it is just not possible.” Apologists often talk about “closed universe” where science and typical atheists don’t because they just don’t know that. I asked you to provide some evidence of your claim, but you haven’t. So rather than being standoffish, just provide the evidence.
I haven’t read “Gunning for God” and based on your review and quotes of the best parts I don’t think I will. Lennox’s arguments seem to be so poor and fallacious that I’ll rather read better and more thoughtful apologists. I showed above many fallacies in short sample of quotes. Lennox and his disciples can be ignored.
If you are interested in Osiris, just Google “Plutarch on Osiris and Isis” and read about Osiris’ magical birth, earthly life, violent death, resurrection and becoming an afterlife Judge. It’s a short read, just like Mark’s Gospel. Why don’t you write an article about Osiris or paganism and Jesus perhaps then I can go into details.
I still think you don’t get “God Delusion”. Dawkins doesn’t need to address the historical claims about the resurrection of Jesus, Mithras, Osiris, Zalmoxis, Hercules, Moses, Apollonius and a boat load of others. I understand Christian apologists think their “historical claims of Jesus” are the better than others and the best foundation for their beliefs. Dawkins’ audience doesn’t see it that way. He addresses the best claims his audience thinks, and Dawkins is clearly winning. Until you understand Dawkins he’ll keep on winning. Just check the UK religiosity stats and you’ll see who gets his message.
David, why do you hate atheists? Why can’t you forgive them and be nice to them?
Advances in science and technology (as wonderful and amazing as many of them have been) have lured many to believe that we can close the windows to everything beyond the visible and tangible universe. This has increasingly promoted the notion of a world without windows (to borrow from Peter Berger’s “Against the World For the World”).
The reigning viewpoint of the academy is that the physical, material universe is all there is, was, or ever will be. The only real world is the world of the five senses. We call this physicalism, philosophical naturalism, scientism, or secularism. In this kind of a world, the ceiling is secured; the windows are shut and the blinds pulled. We’re stuck in a world without transcendence, mystery, and especially without God –or, so we’re told.
And we’re also told that naturalism is the only view that has the backing of science. So if you want to believe in God, the soul, immaterial beings, transcendent values, intrinsic meaning, mystery, or teleological vision. If you want to believe in the supernatural, the spiritual, the eternal and the unseen, well, you’re certainly free to believe those things but you’re on your own. You won’t have science to back you up. Would someone please open the windows? It’s getting a little stuffy in here.
The dominant view of public and much of private education is that the physical world is a self-contained system that works by impersonal, blind, unbroken natural laws. Supported by a ludicrous overuse (and abuse) of evolutionary biology, naturalistic philosophy declares that nothing beyond nature could have any relevance to what happens in nature.
Of course, one of the problems with this view is that there is not one shred of scientific evidence to support it. Honest scientists (and there are still plenty of them) know that it’s simply outside the function of science to resolve such matters. Only faith could allow you to believe the conclusions of philosophical naturalism. Stretching science into philosophy (or a form of religion) has given people the misleading impression that the science of evolution offers more than it can.
Science can describe in fascinating detail what is within the universe. Science can speak of purposes related to adaptability and survival in the physical world. Only God can speak to purposes of eternal significance beyond the limitations of the physical world. God prescribes what is beyond the descriptions of scientific inquiry.
As science and technology assisted us in rationalizing, classifying, calculating, and controlling much of life, less and less of life was connected to anything outside of the physical world of the five senses. God, religion and spiritual matters were marginalized, personalized and privatized. They became matters of personal taste and preference. God received visits at church services, weddings, funerals, baptisms, and times when life seemed beyond our control. But most of life was lived with the windows shut, under our own management. The horizontal was all that really mattered and (we were told) was all that is actually real.
We are the managers here:
This leaves the beguiling impression that we can be our own managers. We’re in control. So we’ve sinned against the vertical (by ignoring God) and disoriented and sabotaged ourselves on the horizontal. We’ve turned the good gifts of the creator against ourselves because we’ve failed to honor him. We defined our own reality; our own morality and foolishly believed we could be the captains of our fates and the masters of our souls.
This led us (albeit unknowingly for many people) to live life apart from any deep intrinsic purpose or any transcending standard. As a result, we live each day from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. in the world of the mundane—tending to everyday concerns in a world that has closed in on us—a narrow world without windows.
But when we ignore God or set ourselves up as God or try to define God on our own terms, we inevitably sabotage ourselves. We’ve lost our sense of reference and direction. Just look around at the mess we’ve made! Our homes are dysfunctional and broken, our police, judicial and prison systems are straining under unimaginable stress. Our economy is out of control. Our social programs are barely holding up (if they can get beyond their own dysfunctions). Our educational system is surviving at best. I fear we’ve been imploding.
And here’s a cold fact: “Western culture has been surviving off of a borrowed capital of a Judeo-Christian worldview and the loan is past due” (J. P. Moreland, Kingdom Triangle, p. 38).
Steve, if anything, science has opened the windows to reality and objective truth. The reigning viewpoint of the academy is that we can investigate any claims, not close windows. By attacking science you are cutting the branch you are sitting on. If you want to believe in the supernatural, the spiritual, the eternal and the unseen, well, you’re certainly free to believe those things but you need to provide evidence for the rest of us. Of course, one of the problems with this view is that there is not one shred of scientific evidence to support it.
Calling only scientists who believe in supernatural “Honest scientists” is dishonest. There are plenty of honest scientists that don’t think like you. No need to insult them while you are enjoying the products of their work.
Steve, no need to panic and write that our homes are dysfunctional and broken, our police, judicial and prison systems are straining under unimaginable stress. Our economy is out of control. Our social programs are barely holding up (if they can get beyond their own dysfunctions). Our educational system is surviving at best. I fear we’ve been imploding.
Things are way better than when Christians were in total control couple of centuries ago. Maybe you could suggest churches to contribute to our limited tax pool just like everyone else, if you think it is fair.
And here is a real fact: Christianity has borrowed capital from western society. Christianity halted the scientific development for millennia. Christianity took people’s wealth, killed nations in Americas, organized crusades, inquisitions and slave trades, and got people to trust faith healing. It suppressed women, minorities, other religions and democracy. It is time for Christianity to pay it back to humanity
Please contribute to the Lennox discussion and don’t turn this in to creation discussion, thanks!
Jon,
You claim that Christianity is guilty of evils such as the Inquisition, and we’re better off than when Christianity was in “total control”. But if that’s true, that makes modern evils all the worse.
Firstly there’s the issue of culpability. If you want to claim Christianity was an evil system, then its presence mitigates and possibly excuses the evils of Christians. I mean its hard to imagine an Inquisition without Christianity, isn’t it? But Modern, Enlightened people don’t have that excuse. We are more culpable than our forebears who were burdened with Christendom.
Secondly there’s the issue of scale. The Inquisition claimed 6,000 lives over a period of 350 years. However, Stalin’s regime claimed 6,000 lives per week, taking a total of 20 million lives.
The Troubles in Northern Ireland claimed 3,500 lives over 30 years. However the French Revolution claimed 3,500 lives in 1793-94 alone. While it’s unclear that the Troubles can be completely attributed to religion, it’s plain that Robespierre’s Terror was entirely secular.
If you want to suggest the Modern world has progressed, then that makes it’s evils worse than that of Christendom, measured in terms of both culpability and scale.
Ken, I don’t get you “makes modern evils all the worse”, could you expand?
I’m not saying that Christianity was an evil system, but how do you explain Inquisition? 85 popes ran it. They have torture chamber and torture instrument design department and they institutionalize thought crime torture. It was not like run away group like Al-Qaeda or national Taliban regime. It was multinational centuries long, well-funded and organized torture system. The Church owned half a Europe and could have done great things, but why Inquisition? Only Christians like you try to defend it not being too bad. We know a church by its fruits…
I don’t get your enlightened people excuse, could you expand?
Every time I hear the Inquisition death count it keeps on getting smaller. I bet in ten years Christian will claim that only handful of people were killed. The scale of Inquisition killings in Europe was smaller because it was design to torture people, not kill. Only people wanting to be martyrs were killed. The Church needed the people as workforce as they owned the place. But just look what happened in Americas.
We both think Stalin’s regime was horrible. But only you are trying to defend and brush the inquisition under the carpet. People who ignore the inquisition might stumble on defending Churches pedophilia cases. External not internal pressure stopped inquisition and will stop the pedophilia cases.
It is interesting how Christians always bring up Stalin, but nobody cares to quote Queen Victoria’s, the head of Church, death count.
All this seems to be a bit off topic.
Jon,
I could have made my point better. Rather than distracting you, I’ll let you focus on your Osiris discussion with David.
Ken
Ken, Ok then, I’ll respond to David then. Here are some facts about Inquisition for you to study. According to Rummel’s meta-analysis Inquisition killed only in Spain, Netherlands, Portugal and New World about 350.000 people; low estimate 251.000/high estimate 477.000. Numbers only for 16th – 18th century and exclude some of the countries Inquisition was active. This also excludes witch hunts, 100.000 deaths; low estimate 20.000/high estimate 500.000. Your claim was two orders of magnitude too small making your claim close to Inquisition denialism.
Source, Google: “Rummel Statistics Of Pre-20th Century Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources” Table 2.1a
Jon,
I’ve been holding off on replying to your post, as you thought this was a side issue. I’m not an apologist for the Inquisition, but I want to close the loop.
Thanks for your reference to Rummel’s study of The Statistics of Democide.
Rummel’s thesis is that a concentration of Power (as we might see in a Totalitarian society) leads to an increased tendency toward Democide (which Rummel defines as murder sanctioned and committed by governments for whatever reason: political, ethnic, or indiscriminate). Rummel’s observation is that Democracies don’t have as strong a tendency towards Democide, and he attributes this to the distribution of Power within democratic institutions, which act to prevent any one person or persons acquiring too much Power.
But even Democracies commit atrocities. Witness the US Democides in the 20th Century: Rummel estimates the US government killed 575,000 people (both domestic and foreign) between 1900 and 1987, which excludes the Gulf War and the Afghan and Iraq conflicts. This estimate of US Democide in the 20th century lies in a range from a low of 282,000 to a high of 1,634,000.
I found the study illuminating but not surprising: the Bible informs my understanding of the inherent evils in the human heart, and Rummel illustrates the propensity Power has to give full expression to that evil.
So what about the Inquisition?
Jon, I’m not an apologist for the Inquisition. One death in the name of Jesus is too many, and I find 6,000 to be horrific, let alone the higher estimates. Note that Jesus is the strongest critic of the Inquisition: he said “love your enemies” and “my kingdom is not of this world”. I suggest this second quote undermines any claim the institutional church might have to secular political power (though of course it doesn’t forbid individual Christians participating in a democracy).
Why do our estimates diverge?
The numbers I quote come originally from Professor Edward Peters of the University of Pennsylvania. They concern the Spanish Inquisition only. I note they are consistent with the estimates contained in the Wikipedia article of that name.
I don’t know why they diverge from Rummel’s estimate of 175,000 killed by the Spanish Inquisition. I note that Rummel’s number is the same magnitude as the number of people Wikipedia claims were processed by the Inquition (of who it claims 2% were killed). Perhaps it is because Rummel is looking at murders committed by governments: perhaps his numbers include deaths due to the secular authorities that Peters didn’t count.
My earlier post
I don’t think I expressed myself well in an earlier post. I’ll try and do better.
Firstly, the issue of scale. Even if we accept Rummel’s numbers, the death toll of the Inquisition pales in comparison to the 20th century totalitarian states, and is less than the murders of civilians committed by the USA. I’m not defending the Inquisition: I’m just pointing out that nation states are more efficient killers. In popular thinking, and Monty Python skits, the Inquisition is seen as violent and repressive: yet in fact its the USA that “no one expects”.
Secondly, the issue of culpability. I don’t accept that Christians under Christendom were less culpable for their evils than modern people are. However, sometimes the rhetoric of modern authors suggests that Christianity was evil and repressive, and that we Moderns (and Post-Moderns) are enlightened. That line of thought can be seen in the writings of the New Atheist authors (God is a delusion, Religion poisons everything, Faith is dogmatic and not rational, etc). Indeed, The God Delusion includes this quote on p235:
Rummel’s evidence refutes that claim.
I personally reject this Enlightenment rhetoric, but there’s a danger for anyone claiming that they are Enlightened: it makes one more culpable than someone who is Darkened in their thinking. And the claim to Enlightenment is one the Modern world would be wise not to make, given our track record.
Ken,
I’m not an apologist for the Inquisition.
Then don’t down play it and claim that it only killed couple of thousands people. Acknowledge that Inquisition killed hundreds of thousands of people and this was conducted by Christians inspired by the Bible.
Note that Jesus is the strongest critic of the Inquisition: he said “love your enemies” and “my kingdom is not of this world”. I suggest this second quote undermines any claim the institutional church
So you are the pick-and-choose Christian. I thought Jesus asked you to go buy a sword and why does his parallel have “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me”. I remember he said “until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”. And the law said: don’t let the witch live and killed law breakers. Bible heroes followed God’s orders and killed their kids and accomplished multiple genocides as your God wanted. Christians have plenty of material to justify their killings. After all inquisition killings were part of the God’s plan. Jesus could have stopped inquisition by choose not to do that.
The numbers I quote come originally from Professor Edward Peters of the University of Pennsylvania. They concern the Spanish Inquisition only. .. I don’t know why they diverge from Rummel’s estimate of 175,000 killed by the Spanish Inquisition
You wouldn’t take Nazi sympathizer’s numbers of holocaust death counts, but you offer Catholic view of Catholic killings. Could that have anything to do with the divergence? Get your inquisition info from non-Catholics. Protestants claim Catholic biased in Peters’ book on Amazon reviews. See for yourself.
I don’t accept that Christians under Christendom were less culpable for their evils than modern people are.
Read Steven Pinker’s latest book and change your mind…
Jon,
I agree that science itself has opened many amazing windows. But anyone who suggests that the discipline of science has enabled him to dismiss the possibility of a Creator is either being intentionally deceptive or simply speaking out of ignorance. The science of evolution is not meant to postulate on such matters. If a science professor suggests that science can lead to knowledge about ultimate origins, I encourage students to politely ask if the class can stick with the science and not get into philosophy or religion. It’s simply outside the function of science to resolve such matters.
Whether one embraces philosophical naturalism as the answer to ultimate origins or “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), both are faith-based conclusions. Actually, the scientific evidence lends more logical support for a personal designer than the notion of impersonal and unbroken natural laws. But let’s not pretend that the science is capable of offering conclusive evidence on life’s origin.
A friend of mine once said, “In truth, many academics are naturalists or atheists as much or more on the basis of such wish fulfillment as they are on the basis of any reasoning or evidence.” (Dr. Michael Murray).
For an example, see: “I hope there is no God” http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/i-hope-there-is-no-god-thomas-nagel/
On the matter of religion as a source of violence, old myths die slowly. See: “Blaming Religion for violence” http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/blaming-religion-for-violence/
Steve – Christian sponsorship of ‘peace through violence’ across the centuries and continents is surely self-evident.
In the Christian context, this is entirely expected, given the orthodox belief that has a Father killing his Son to reconcile humanity – a foundational vindication of violence at the heart of the mainstream Christian message.
Your version of the atonement as some sort of bizarre act of a sadistic Father killing his son is a common misperception of the Christians gospel. It is a failure to understand and account for the triune nature of God. The matter is cleared up quite well by Jesus’ own words in John 10:11-18: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me — just as the Father knows me and I know the Father — and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
The inner life and cooperation of the triune God (who is infinitely and transcendently outside the full grasp of human minds) lovingly and sacrificially came near and made himself known to us through a mysterious convergence of love in a brutal scene of death at the hands of wicked individuals. Death is my future (and yours) but using death to destroy the power of death? Yes. And to deliver those who through their fear of death were all their lives in bondage. Human versions of atonement involve human efforts to propitiate a deity. But God is both the propitiator and the propitiation. No other system of religion has ever presented this accounting of forgiveness for sinners. The beauty and mystery of it is crushing to human ego — perhaps the greatest obstacle to receiving God’s gift.
The Scripture unfolds this great gospel in amazing detail: (see: Rev. 13:8; Matt. 24:34; 1 Pet. 1:20;John 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:7; John 3:16; Rom. 8:32; Rom. 5:8; 1 Jn. 3:1; 1 Jn. 4:10,14; John 1:14; Heb. 2:14; Heb. 10:5-9; John 5:30; 6:38; 8:29)
Steve, if something is simply outside the function of science then it is a wishful thinking. If science can’t answer something why on earth would you think religion could? Can you provide an example were religion provided an objective truth where science was unable?
You are confused what “faith-based conclusions” is. Religion provides those, science doesn’t. Just check the track record and please don’t drag science to the level of religion. And about your Genesis quote: Do you realize the Genesis myth is borrowed capital from Sumerian creation myth?
I notice how you call “honest scientist” and “honest atheist” people who think according to your thought patterns. You should realize that honest people can come to different conclusion what you expect. No need to indicate that they are somehow dishonest.
You are simply perpetuated misinformation by quoting:
More people were killed by secularist regimes in the twentieth century than in all the religious persecutions in Western history, and perhaps in all history. More than one hundred million human beings were killed by secularist regimes and ideologies in the last century.
Secular regimes were not responsible for more than one hundred million human beings were killed. Around 200M people were violently killed in the twentieth century, so even in last century religious regimes killed more than secular ones. Google Rummel’s meta-analysis for mid point estimations.
Your linked article claimed that Hitler was not a Christian and that religiously motivated “extermination of millions of Jews” which was somehow non-religious killings. so I stopped reading that skewed ignorant propaganda.
It is interesting how Christians always bring up Stalin, but nobody cares to quote Queen Victoria’s, the head of Church, death counts and how many wars did she start. Care to guess? Why don’t you write an article about that?
You evidently missed my point by somehow turning it around to serve a different purpose. I am saying that people should not suggests that science offers any evidences about God. And I am perplexed that you seem to suggest that science is the only source of reliable objective information. Can you start by proving that propositional statement? Is epistemology controlled by science? This is a very strange way of seeing things. Does science control ethics and morality? I am quite puzzled by the pervasive moralizing in the writings of Militant atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Their books are full of vilifying moral appraisals (with fundamentalist tones) and readers are somehow obliged to see things through their moral grids. When reading them, I continuously felt the urge to ask why they so strongly believe their moral conclusions are superior. Although they avoid this question by changing the subject (an endless trick of atheists), thoughtful readers will not be fooled. See Six Difficulties Atheists Encounter: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/6-difficulties-atheists-encounter/
Your effort to dismiss the Genesis account with the Sumerian creation myth is an old untenable viewpoint. See: Is Genesis Myth: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/is-genesis-ancient-myth-or-actual-history/
Be sure also that had Hitler truly been a Christian and followed the teaching of Jesus, he would not have committed the atrocities of which he is guilty. He was not a Christian but used Christianity by manipulating it to serve his evil. What he did had nothing to do with Christianity. By the way, do you direct outrage toward Muslim extremists or do bow to cultural PC and give them a pass?
how you going with that Osiris source yet, Jon. Found anything definitive you can show us to back up your claim?
how you going with that Osiris source, Jon. Found anything definitive yet that you can show us to back up your claim?
I only ask since I’m sure you wouldn’t accept as evidence for anything from me the statement:
just go and google it – you’ll see that I’m right.
It would be helpful for us if you:
provided an actual quotation from a pre-Christian text that spoke of Osiris’ “resurrection”.
gave us a reference and (hopefully) URL.
Again, I remind you that it was you that made the claim. You’ve obviously researched this area for yourself so I don’t understand why you’re not forthcoming.
David, you seem to be really keen on Osiris, so here are some details to get you started. For example Pre-Christian Ikhernofret Stela from Upper Egypt describes the Osiris’ Eucharist ritual and the resurrection [ceremony] of Osiris. There is no doubt it is pre-Christian text that spoke of Osiris’ resurrection as you requested. Google “Ikhernofret, Stela of Mark-Jan Nederhof”. The first result is PDF file translation describing Osiris as “Truly risen is the lord of Abydos”.
For details of that and other pyramid texts of the resurrection accounts check the good old E. A. Wallis Budge, Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection, Volume 2, start with pages 5 – 14 and keep on reading. Other volumes are good too. Budge is easy to read and has nicely the pyramid text pictures with interpretation next to it. Or you could try Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: Volume 1: The Old and Middle Kingdoms, University of California Press, 1975, around page 123 might interest you. You could also try ancient Julius Firmicus Maternus who wrote in “The Error of the Pagan Religions” about Osirian ceremony stating “our God appears as saved! And we shall find salvation, springing from our woes”. My Julius Firmicus Maternus copy has it in Chapter 22, but it might vary, read the whole short chapter once you find it. I’m sure you can find plenty of more and better sources. I think articles/books about Ikhernofret Stela are more interesting than Plutarch, but I recommended Plutarch because it is online and has nicely narrated overview of the Orisis beliefs and stories, and it is a good starting point for beginners. Plutarch resurrection account also nicely compliments the Ikhernofret Stela account.
Unfortunately you need to go bookstore or library to get sources. I couldn’t find much online, but Budge could possibly be found. In Sydney, Fisher Research Library should have all of those and many more. It has a great section of ancient Roman and Egyptian religions and its open for everyone to read. Level four south-east corner has Roman religion section and I think maybe level eight has Egyptian books. If you come on Sunday afternoon you might see me on one of those level four reading booths near Roman and Greek religion section against the southern wall. I’m more of a Greek/Roman guy to be honest :-)
I hope that helps in your study of Osiris.
David I asked you to provide some evidence of your claim that New Atheists think “that we live in “a closed universe” and therefore resurrection claim cannot be treated by historical investigation because it is just not possible.” Found anything definitive yet that you can show us to back up your claim?
David, not all atheists are evil. Please love your neighbour.
hi Jon,
thanks for your reply. I’m afraid I remain ignorant as to what your specific argument is. You point me to a number of books that you (rightly) recognise are not currently on my bookshelf. So I’d be really helped out is you could lay out your argument in a little more detail.
What is the exact nature of Osiris “resurrection”? Could you provide a quote and source for your quote?
How do argue that the Christian “myth” draws upon this Osiris “resurrection”? ie what are the themes that are clearly “taken” in the Christian myth?
I note that you point me to a number of sources but, I’m afraid, that’s not in and of itself an argument. I’d be grateful if you could actually clearly lay out the evidence for your original claim:”Osiris seems to have similar, but earlier, resurrection claim just like Jesus.“”
btw, you have on many occasions said this (or something similar) to me:
David, not all atheists are evil. Please love your neighbour.
I am not aware of ever claiming that “all atheists are evil”. In fact I am on public record as stating the exact opposite.
I don’t understand your statement “please love your neighbour”. Presumably you are inferring that I am, somehow, being unloving. I’m not sure why. Surely it cannot simply be because I disagree with some?
David, I have made no claims of “exact nature of Osiris resurrection”, or argued that “Christian “myth” draws upon this Osiris resurrection”, or “claimed that there are the themes that are clearly “taken” in the Christian myth”. My Osiris comment was in a context of how to investigate different resurrection claims.
So let’s recap:
My specific argument in full detail was (check it above):
Osiris seems to have similar, but earlier, resurrection claim just like Jesus.
You asked me to “provided an actual quotation from a pre-Christian text that spoke of Osiris’ “resurrection””
I provided:
1) An actual quotation from pre-Christian text in an archeological artifact (Ikhernofret Stela)
2) Osiris’ resurrection account from multiple sources: Stela, non-Christian Plutarch, Christian Maternus and couple of modern sources.
3) As requested I provided you references online (Plutarch, Stella) and books (Maternus, Budge, Lichtheim). I knew that you would not have those on your bookshelf, so I pointed to a Library level and section where you can go and easily check my references.
So I have clearly laid out the evidence and backed up my claim as you requested.
I have asked you to provide evidence for your claim that New Atheists think “that we live in “a closed universe” and therefore resurrection claim cannot be treated by historical investigation because it is just not possible.” Have you found anything definitive yet that you can show us to back up your claim? Hitchens? Dawkins? Lennox’s book?
So far I provided evidence and you seem to run away when asked to back up your claim. So your turn; please provide the evidence to support your claim. I await your detailed info with great anticipation.
Jon,
It’s probably worth putting the Osiris thing in a bit of perspective. Like so many supposed parallels its value diminishes significantly when the details are examined a little more closely. His “resurrection” is not a consistent feature of texts relating to him and even in those interpreted thus it is uncertain (note the varying translations of the epithet applied to the funerary barque of the Ikhernofret Stela, the only pre-Christian source you’ve cited — Breasted, for example, renders it “Shining-in-Truth”).
What we do know of Osiris is that he goes from this world through death to become ruler and judge of the underworld (curiously Gilgamesh occupied a similar position in Mesopotamian mythology and there’s no talk of his resurrection since you don’t need to be resurrected to get to the underworld, you get there by not being resurrected). This leads a number of scholars to follow Gunter Wagner who wrote that “Osiris knew no resurrection, but was resuscitated to be a ruler of the Nether World” (Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries, 261; cf. R. Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks, 292).
One other point, we really don’t want to rely too heavily on Budge. Even Stargate got that one right!
Martin, I actually think many parallels actually appear to the reader when details are examined a little more closely. If you read books that try to explain, not explain away, parallels you might be surprised. For example anointing of the hero, meaning of the names of the characters, role of women in the death of the hero just like in Baal story or other Greek literature, and aren’t the Osiris’ tombs empty now?
There is no uncertainty that Osiris died, and his body was chopped in 14 pieces, and then put the body back together. Then something miraculous happened (call it what you like) before he become the ruler and judge of the afterlife. I’m well aware the Christian apologists don’t want to use the word “resurrection” but prefer “resuscitated” when talking about other gods.
I think you are wrong when you state:
What we do know of Osiris is that he goes from this world through death to become ruler and judge of the underworld
Ordinary people die and go to afterlife. Osiris and Jesus needed a bodily miracle after their death and before they become the rulers and judges of the underworld. Both of them also come back to Earth short time after the resurrection, but later never to bodily appear again on Earth. They did not just die and become ruler and judge of the underworld.
If you read Plutarch you’ll see how Egyptians, just like followers of Jesus, did not agree on all details. I also think Plutarch could be classified as pre-Christian text as it was written at the time pretty when much nobody had heard about Christianity.
I know Budge is a bit old and I agree not the best, but my evidence does not rely on his work. I recommended Budge, as I hinted above, because the copyright on his work has expired and should now be freely available on some web sites. Bugde also has pyramid text (=pictures) of the temple of Abydos where Osiris death, resurrection and offered salvation was celebrated. It is a classic eye opener of what I think is a circular yearly corn king story, where I think Osiris’ son Horus story seem to be more astrotheology. When all that is contrasted with Mark’s circular year(ly) Gospel (Read the whole Gospel of Mark by starting from the Chapter 16 and just the short ending) one can clearly see the parallels of the frame and individual markers once those are pointed out.
Jon,
You are entitled to this opinion, but I think it is not borne out by the evidence. Let’s see, Osiris was married to his sister and they had a child, he was murdered by his brother, his body was cut into pieces, distributed throughout the land. His wife/sister retrieved all but one of the pieces (and she manufactured a facsimile of the missing part), reassembled him, and then restored him to life. Yes, the details do sound very much like the death and resurrection of Jesus.
This reflects a methodological flaw. The appropriate approach is to read scholarly works which present differing perspectives, not just those which support your position. Scholars, too, can present biased or tendentious arguments. Moreover, opinions are often coloured by a lack of information which results in misinterpretations. There is a tendency toward parallelomania in some circles, so that every triad is a precursor for the Trinity, every resurrection a source for the NT accounts, every god (or even goddess) an antecedent of the biblical God.
You cannot simply dismiss dissenting opinions. Characterising those who disagree with your understanding as “explaining away” represents only a failure to engage with them.
Perhaps you could elucidate on these supposed parallels, they are not clear to me. There certainly are many parallels between the Baʿal cycle and some versions of the Osiris/Isis myth, but the strongest parallels are not reflected in the story of Jesus which is not centred around fertility and fecundity.
Is Osiris’ tomb empty? Reading Plutarch’s work gives the impression that not all Egyptians felt that it was!
Except for those sources which have 16 pieces! And of course Isis couldn’t find all the pieces of Osiris’ body.
Here’s where the Egyptian sources lack uniformity, but also where you seem to have conflated the post-mortem topography of Egyptian cosmology. Osiris was a ruler and judge in the underworld, not the afterlife. These are distinct in most ancient Egyptian cosmologies as far as I’m aware. One had to pass through the underworld before arriving — hopefully — in the afterlife.
Why was it necessary for Osiris to be resurrected bodily before assuming his role? It wasn’t required of Gilgamesh!
That’s a strange definition of “pre-Christian.” Plutarch wrote de Iside et Osiride toward the end of his life, so probably around 110–120 AD. Few scholars would date any part of the NT that late.
It’s also worth remembering that Plutarch was not writing as a disinterested historian. He wrote with an agenda, explicitly choosing aspects of the myth which suited his primary purpose in expressing his middle-Platonic ideas. He even asserts a Greek etymology for Isis and other elements of Egyptian mythology. Furthermore he doesn’t seem to have been able to read hieroglyphics.
I understand why you’d like to imagine that Mark’s gospel can be read as representing an annual cycle, but really, what gives you the impression that Mark’s gospel has this form?
In the end the real question is why would the authors of the NT appeal to Egyptian mythology when there already existed Jewish notions of resurrection with which they and their readers would have had far greater familiarity?
Martin,
You are entitled to this opinion, but I think it is not borne out by the evidence.
The appropriate approach is to read scholarly works
I don’ think you have read Egyptian scholars. Remember I quoted experts in Egyptian history. You quoted Wagner who is a Christian writer. Once you have read experts in Egyptian history then you can assess if my opinions are borne out by the evidence. Of course Jesus’ life and death story were different from Osiris’, but you are missing the grander picture and meaning of their life and death. It’s like PCs and Macs completely different but does the same thing.
[try to explain, not explain away] reflects a methodological flaw. The appropriate approach is to read scholarly works which present differing perspectives.
I completely agree. This is why I quoted Christian and non-Christian, modern, old and ancient writers. I also mentioned that I have read McGrath and Dawkins arguing about the same issue. You only quoted a Christian author who agrees with your position attacking paganism. This is why I hinted for you to read sources that disagree with your current view.
There is a tendency toward parallelomania in some circles
This is a Christian myth. What actually is true that there is a parallelophobia. Try to mention to any Christians religious parallels and see the deer in the headlight look just before they start explaining those away.
You cannot simply dismiss dissenting opinions. Characterising those who disagree with your understanding as “explaining away” represents only a failure to engage with them.
I did study both sides not dismissing either side. I have just noticed how experts in Egyptian history shed light on parallels and Christian writers try to explain those away. It was an observation of the methodology.
Comments here are probably not the best place to go through the parallels. Presentation would need plenty of illustrations. Maybe I should actually write out my view and theories on this, but that might take a bit time. I’m more interested in Greek/Roman religions, so maybe I could approach the issues from that side one day. Jesus story is not centred around fertility and fecundity, but you can find vestiges of this in Mark’s Gospel even when it has more Astrotheology/Horus/Hercules type of Gospel frame.
There is no uncertainty that Osiris died, and his body was chopped in 14 pieces…
Except for those sources which have 16 pieces!
I believe Christians call this multiple independent attestations from hostile sources, making the case for truth even better.
Osiris was a ruler and judge in the underworld, not the afterlife.
You are right. Thanks for the correction. Osiris’ team would check if you followed his commandments and weighed you heard. Then Orisis could grant you the access to afterlife on the next sunrise. Sloppy writing from me.
Why was it necessary for Osiris to be resurrected bodily before assuming his role? It wasn’t required of Gilgamesh!
I believe scholars think it is because of the yearly farming/fertility cycle issue. Gilgamesh story serves a different purpose.
[Plutarch] a strange definition of “pre-Christian.” Plutarch wrote de Iside et Osiride toward the end of his life, so probably around 110–120 AD
I agree. The point I was trying to make, not successfully, is that there was no possible way that Osiris’ stories in Plutarch would have any Christian influence. We know that from around 112 CE Pliny the Younger’s letter that even educated Roman did not know about Christianity. Apologist often try to claim the other religions copied from Christianity.
I understand why you’d like to imagine that Mark’s gospel can be read as representing an annual cycle, but really, what gives you the impression that Mark’s gospel has this form?
I understand why you’d like me to be imagining that Mark’s gospel can be read as representing an annual cycle, but really if you look at the events and yearly astrological signs many parallels are obvious. Just remember to shift the celestial signs back one month to align to seasons 2000 years ago. If you also look at the yearly farming/life cycle events in Mark’s Gospel those align nicely with astrological evens and the position in the Gospel. I don’t think there is any doubt about it. But the question is why it is so and what it means. There are not many answers to that in Christian literature which is understandable as it would get you kicked out from any Christian Uni (See my Licona comment above)
In the end the real question is why would the authors of the NT appeal to Egyptian mythology when there already existed Jewish notions of resurrection with which they and their readers would have had far greater familiarity?
That is a wrong question to ask. NT is clearly based on Jewish writings, stories, ideas and prophecies. NT writers did not copy Osiris’ story. The real question to ask is why there are so many parallels with NT stories and non-Jewish saviour God stories. As a stepping stone practise question which you should to understand first: Why would a pre-Pauline law following Jewish sect become a religion which has a central ritual to drink God’s blood and eat God’s body?
Jon,
I was going to reply earlier, but Charade was on last night. Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant in the one movie — something not to be missed!
This is probably true. I don’t know many Egyptian scholars ;-). OTOH, I have read some Egyptologists and have tried to read diverse opinions.
Even here the details undermine the parallels. You can maintain some sort of parallel if you stop at “Osiris presides as judge ruling on each person’s access to the afterlife” and “Jesus stands as judge over access to the afterlife.” But look more closely and differences emerge:
1. Osiris’ bodily resurrection is likely, on your admission, necessitated by his association with the annual cycle of nature, with fertility (a notion supported by the association of the resurrection accounts with fertility oriented texts). Jesus’ bodily resurrection is understood as affirmation of his singular defeat of death, a one-off event.
2. In the underworld Osiris serves to judge the dead as they seek to gain access to the afterlife. This role is not connected to his resurrection — some sources seem to depict him in this role without resurrection, some seem to imply he dies again in order to enter the underworld and assume this role. Jesus is raised from the dead to assume his role as judge, his judgment is depicted as eschatalogical in nature, the basis of his judgment is unlike anything Osiris undertakes.
So beyond some role in admission of the dead to the afterlife, there are many significant differences between the two.
If this is the case it was not reflected in your earlier rhetoric which simply dismissed dissenting opinions with expressions such as “explain away.”
My point was not the integrity of the sources but instead the integrity of your assertion that “there is no doubt…” The Egyptian sources are far more diverse than sources about Jesus!
This is likely true when Osiris is associated with fertility where such annual cycles are common (the same is true of the Baʿal cycle). It may also explain the lack of clarity in texts focusing on Osiris’ role in the underworld which is largely distinct from this. Either way, it highlights the very different focus of resurrection in Egyptian and Canaanite mythology when compared with Jewish thought where there is no connection to fertility or annual cycles.
The problem here is not that Christianity had little or no influence, rather that early on it was considered a Jewish sect. The question then is whether educated Romans and Greeks were aware of Second Temple Judaism, particularly since resurrection occupied a place therein.
But I also agree that it is unlikely that Plutarch’s accounts were significantly influenced by Jewish or Christian concepts of resurrection. My reasons are twofold: (1) there is little similarity between Jesus’ resurrection and the resurrection of Osiris aside from the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead and Osiris was sometimes in some sources said to have been raised, and (2) Plutarch’s purpose to expound middle-Platonic thought required no appeal to any Christian or even Jewish notion of resurrection.
Clearly your definition of “obvious” differs from the one my dictionary offers. Can you cite any examples to substantiate your claim that this is “obvious”? I’m not a Markan scholar, but I haven’t seen significant discussion of this idea in Christian or non-Christian scholarship. It is difficult to evaluate your claims without any actual evidence to support them.
One significant problem with any such interpretation of Mark is that it fails to note the close proximity of the text with the events it relates. If I were to publish a book on WWII claiming it lasted only 18 months, would it be believed? Yet Mark’s gospel — on all scholarly estimates — was composed considerably closer to the events it relates than we today are to WWII.
First, as I’ve said before, the parallels you claim are exaggerated — as they were in the case of Osiris. Consequently it is not “a wrong question to ask” since the parallels to concepts of resurrection already present within Second Temple Judaism are closer than those of Egyptian or Canaanite mythology. Why appeal to these sources when more relevant ties are closer at hand?
Second, I’m not sure I even understand what “As a stepping stone practise question which you should to understand first” means.
Third, the question you pose presupposes an awful lot of unsubstantiated information and seems to be a red herring in the current discussion unless you can demonstrate its relevance.
Martin, I haven’t read many Egyptian scholars either… my silly writings are silly.
So beyond some role in admission of the dead to the afterlife, there are many significant differences between the two.
Looking through Christian lenses you see Christianity as default starting point and view everything else as different. Step back and compare two religions from a neutral point of view. Have these religion God(s) with gender (males?), heaven for good guys who follow the commandments. Their important God came to earth, had violent death, central sacrifice, offered salvation, resurrection by another God and becoming Judge. They are from the same geo area, serve similar purpose and philosophy and same kind of evidence. Compere these to other religions like Taoism and Buddhist and you might see the difference. It is the same product in a different package.
My point was not the integrity of the sources but instead the integrity of your assertion that “there is no doubt…” The Egyptian sources are far more diverse than sources about Jesus!
You might want to read all 20+ Gospels early Christians wrote and re-assess you view. And talking about the integrity; what were Jesus’ last words in the Gospels anyway?
It may also explain the lack of clarity in texts focusing on Osiris’ role in the underworld which is largely distinct from this.
Reading different funeral papyri might clarify this a bit.
The question then is whether educated Romans and Greeks were aware of Second Temple Judaism, particularly since resurrection occupied a place therein.
Why is this relevant? Osiris worship was older than Second Temple Judaism or early Christianity. Dying and rising God stories were well know during Roman times
I already outline why I see Mark as circular; Yearly calendar matches with the events. That’s why it does not have resurrection and infant birth events. It would take a lot space to outline the detail argument. Of course you have not seen significant discussion of this idea in Christian scholarship. So many scholar have signed a document to follow the their faith not the evidence. Scholars would lose their friends, job and status if they would suggest Marks links to astrotheology. See my Licona comments above.
One significant problem with any such interpretation of Mark is that it fails to note the close proximity of the text with the events it relates.
1. Not true. Mark was written around 120CE
2. Even if Mark was written 33CE this is a bad argument. We know supernatural claims can appear close to the events – Miracle claims of Saint, Golden plates of Mormon, Stories about Avatars in india, Supernatural claims scientologist make etc. and people still believe there things. Ignorance rules: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”
If I were to publish a book on WWII claiming it lasted only 18 months, would it be believed?
You are trying to use a fallacy of false analogy to make your point. Please compare your supernatural claim with non-Christian supernatural claim.
Yet Mark’s gospel — on all scholarly estimates — was composed considerably closer to the events it relates than we today are to WWII.
Not true. Some scholar date Mark to early second century. You offer only an argument of authority when you could have stated the best argument(s) for early dating. I don’t see internal or external evidence to support your assertion.
the parallels you claim are exaggerated… Consequently it is not “a wrong question to ask” since the parallels to concepts of resurrection already present within Second Temple Judaism are closer than those of Egyptian or Canaanite mythology.
It is a wrong question to ask because it is a straw man created by you. Your opponents don’t hold that position so it not “the real question” as you claimed.
Martin, there has never been blood drinking in the Temple or Synagogues where early Christians hung out. Why would a pre-Pauline law following Jewish sect become a religion which has a central ritual to drink God’s blood and eat God’s body?
the question you pose presupposes an awful lot of unsubstantiated information and seems to be a red herring in the current discussion unless you can demonstrate its relevance.
This is how I often feel talking to Christians. So many fallacies and no evidence, yet they call on a red herring. I don’t see you providing any links/reference/evidence to your assertions, but try to call my writings “unsubstantiated information”.
I’ll take that easy lob.
Jon, can you point us to those 20+ Gospels early Christians wrote? For bonus points, you might want to explain why we should prize 3rd century gnostic texts over and above 1st century documents. In your own time, of course.
David,
can you point us to those 20+ Gospels early Christians wrote?
Google “Early Christian Writings” and the front page of the first result has links to text of 20+ Gospels early Christians wrote. Google “list of gospels” and the first result lists links to even more. BTW where can I see which HTML tags are allowed here and the usage examples? I would also get rid of nested comments. Comments get narrow and hard to track.
For bonus points, you might want to explain why we should prize 3rd century gnostic texts over and above 1st century documents
You seem to go automatically to standard apologist script without noticing the context of the discussion. If you re-read it you can see that discussion was about if “the Egyptian sources are far more diverse than sources about Jesus” not about reliability of some Christian writings. So your “bonus point” is irrelevant, but you can try to answer the question in hand about the diversity of texts in both religions.
Additionally not all 3rd century gospels were gnostic, unless you classify Gospel of John as gnostic then you might have an weak argument. And I always wonder why Christians think 2nd and 3rd century gospel don’t have the truth, but 2nd and 3rd century creeds and doctrines like trinity are true. Must be selective objective truths.
I’ll take that easy lob
I think you mishit this easy one.
You’re straw-manning here, for this is not a position I’ve espoused. For one thing, Christianity arises from Second Temple Judaism. For another, its founding texts are written within a linguistic and cultural milieu from which they adopt various conventions and notions in order to convey their meaning. Consequently I have no difficulty with the NT reflecting ideas from its culture, just as I have no problem with the OT reflecting ideas from the ancient Near East. What I do recognise is that these texts do not simply affirm all the ideas present within their historical contexts.
Hence language employed in the NT which reflects common ideas is unsurprising, and what is notable is where differences are present.
You don’t really mean “neutral,” do you? What I think you really mean is “from the point of view of Jon Sorenson.” If we’ve learnt anything from post-modernism it is that there is no truly objective observer.
Consequently, perhaps you too ought to step back and look at the differences and their significance rather than glossing over them! We could begin with the remainder of your paragraph:
(1) You’re hiding a very big difference with your “(s)” — monotheism in the ancient world is a significant difference.
(2) While it is true that the God of the NT is described in male terms, this needs to be understood within the linguistic and cultural context of the day. If I want to establish that God relates in a manner more alike a father than a mother in a culture where these roles are significantly differentiated, then I’m going to use gendered language to describe God.
Except that the biblical cosmology doesn’t establish heaven as the destination for the “good guy,” nor does Egyptian thought establish the heavens as the location of the afterlife. The NT anticipates life on a new Earth where the distinction between heaven and earth has been abolished at a point of eschatalogical fulfilment. The Egyptian texts do not, to the best of my knowledge, anticipate a historical terminus to this world.
Furthermore, the NT does not identify the “good guys” with those who “follow the commandments.”
And here is the only actual parallel in your entire paragraph: “had a violent death.” How did Osiris offer salvation? Once you move from the polytheistic frame of the Egyptian pantheon to first-century Jewish monotheism these supposed parallels become nonsensical.
So what if Osiris worship was older? So was worship of Ninhursag. Of course no-one in NT times knew who Ninhursag was, did they. Antiquity is not an arbiter of anything. The question is relevant because the NT is composed in a context in which Jewish Scriptures, beliefs, and ideals were far more influential than Egyptian or other thought. Why resort to Egypt when a substantial basis for understanding the NT resurrection ideas is to be found closer at hand and is a far better fit for the NT material than Osiris and the gang?
I don’t believe that you have, you’ve merely asserted it to be true. At least you could provide a list of what you think is parallel.
You’ll note I originally said “Christian or non-Christian scholarship.” Surely you can cite a few scholarly works which endorse this reading? And not just one (or else you’ll next be telling us about Secret Mark or that Jesus was the Teacher of Righteousness from the DSS).
I feel you’re somewhat fixated on the idea that Christians only read Christian scholarship, but really, that isn’t true of most of the people I know who are academically inclined. I’m quite happy to read both Christian and non-Christian scholarship.
In adopting this position you’re relying on the extremes of scholarship. As I said before, the vast majority of scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) date the gospel much, much earlier — no later than 65–75. It may well be the earliest of Christian texts we have, see James Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity who dates it to late 30s – early 40s (and, just to anticipate your a-priori dismissal of his work as Christian propaganda, he is not a Christian).
Since you’re asking for references, Crossley offers a vast bibliography. He states:
You’ve missed the significance of my point. If the author of Mark sought to reinterpret events in order to promote some particular agenda, then offering information contrary to that which was widely and commonly known would undermine the effort.
Let me illustrate this more clearly. I recently watched an episode of Sanctuary where the main characters were participating in WWII. To create the impression of plausibility, however, the shows storyline was integrated within the generally accepted historical narrative associated with WWII. Had it not done so, we would be left feeling that, even with the normal suspension of belief associated with viewing sci-fi, it was implausible.
The point, then, is that if Mark is writing close to the events but offering a significant variation to historical chronology (leaving aside the question of the supernatural), his account would not have been widely accepted. In other words, if he made claims which were demonstrably untrue, any other claims which could not be tested would readily be dismissed.
As I assume that, in the context of this discussion, you are my opponent, then are you saying that you don’t hold the position that Osiris’ resurrection is a closer parallel to Jesus’ resurrection than the Jewish expectations of the time? In that case I apologise, it seems I’ve misread this entire discussion because that’s what I thought you were claiming. But since you are happy to accept that the NT expressions of resurrection are rooted in Jewish expectations and do not closely align with Egyptian ideas I’m happy to see we have reached a point of concord!
Your assuming that the early Christians didn’t celebrate the Lord’s Supper? Do you have any basis for this claim? Furthermore, as each account of the last supper makes plain, Jesus appropriates the Jewish Passover and identifies himself with the passover sacrifice. If you take a look at what went on in the Passover celebration you’ll see the rationale behind the language he uses.
And of course metaphor was never used in the first century ;-).
Martin, I haven’t read many Egyptian scholars either… my silly writings are silly.
So beyond some role in admission of the dead to the afterlife, there are many significant differences between the two.
Looking through Christian lenses you see Christianity as default starting point and view everything else as different. Step back and compare two religions from a neutral point of view. Have these religion God(s) with gender (males?), heaven for good guys who follow the commandments. Their important God came to earth, had violent death, central sacrifice, offered salvation, resurrection by another God and becoming Judge. They are from the same geo area, serve similar purpose and philosophy and same kind of evidence. Compere these to other religions like Taoism and Buddhist and you might see the difference. It is the same product in a different package.
My point was not the integrity of the sources but instead the integrity of your assertion that “there is no doubt…” The Egyptian sources are far more diverse than sources about Jesus!
You might want to read all 20+ Gospels early Christians wrote and re-assess you view. And talking about the integrity; what were Jesus’ last words in the Gospels anyway?
It may also explain the lack of clarity in texts focusing on Osiris’ role in the underworld which is largely distinct from this.
Reading different funeral papyri might clarify this a bit.
The question then is whether educated Romans and Greeks were aware of Second Temple Judaism, particularly since resurrection occupied a place therein.
Why is this relevant? Osiris worship was older than Second Temple Judaism or early Christianity. Dying and rising God stories were well know during Roman times
I already outline why I see Mark as circular; Yearly calendar matches with the events. That’s why it does not have resurrection and infant birth events. It would take a lot space to outline the detail argument. Of course you have not seen significant discussion of this idea in Christian scholarship. So many scholar have signed a document to follow their faith not the evidence. Scholars would lose their friends, job and status if they would suggest Marks links to astrotheology. See my Licona comments above.
One significant problem with any such interpretation of Mark is that it fails to note the close proximity of the text with the events it relates.
1. Not true. Mark was written around 120CE
2. Even if Mark was written 33CE this is a bad argument. We know supernatural claims can appear close to the events – Miracle claims of Saint, Golden plates of Mormon, Stories about Avatars in india, Supernatural claims scientologist make etc. and people still believe there things. Ignorance rules: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”
If I were to publish a book on WWII claiming it lasted only 18 months, would it be believed?
You are trying to use a fallacy of false analogy to make your point. Please compare your supernatural claim with non-Christian supernatural claim.
Yet Mark’s gospel — on all scholarly estimates — was composed considerably closer to the events it relates than we today are to WWII.
Not true. Some scholar date Mark to early second century. You offer only an argument of authority when you could have stated the best argument(s) for early dating. I don’t see internal or external evidence to support your assertion.
the parallels you claim are exaggerated… Consequently it is not “a wrong question to ask” since the parallels to concepts of resurrection already present within Second Temple Judaism are closer than those of Egyptian or Canaanite mythology.
It is a wrong question to ask because it is a straw man created by you. Your opponents don’t hold that position so it not “the real question” as you claimed.
Martin, there has never been blood drinking in the Temple or Synagogues where early Christians hung out. Why would a pre-Pauline law following Jewish sect become a religion which has a central ritual to drink God’s blood and eat God’s body?
the question you pose presupposes an awful lot of unsubstantiated information and seems to be a red herring in the current discussion unless you can demonstrate its relevance.
This is how I often feel talking to Christians. So many fallacies and no evidence, yet they call on a red herring. I don’t see you providing any links/reference/evidence to your assertions, but try to call my writings “unsubstantiated information”.
Déjà vu?
indeed
Déjà vu?
My dumb computer cache clearly outsmarted me.
Martin,
You’re straw-manning here, for [Looking through Christian lenses] is not a position I’ve espoused.
Sorry I thought you are a Christian, who actively defends Christianity. I thought you had a Christian world view ;-)
You don’t really mean “neutral,” do you?… If we’ve learnt anything from post-modernism it is that there is no truly objective observer.
I do mean it. I think you can neutrally assess the similarities and differences of Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism. Or if you don’t have emotional attachment to Korean cars, you could neutrally assess the similarities and differences between Daewoo, Kia and Hyundai. I didn’t realise you are a post-modernist ;-) but I do think you can be a neutral referee on many issues. I just don’t think you can be neutral when it comes to Christianity, because you affirm to your statement of faith, not being objective about Christianity.
perhaps you too ought to step back and look at the differences and their significance rather than glossing over them!
Please see the big picture, not the fine details. I have seen the fine details of Christianity, just like you. As I said before try to see the big picture.
You’re hiding a very big difference with your “(s)” — monotheism in the ancient world is a significant difference.
Do you mean like DSS Deuteronomy tells us God Yahweh is the son of God El Elyown or the Jews worshiping of many Gods in Elephantine Temple. Or are you talking about how Christian devil is defined not being God while some other religion define devil with same powers as God. Which monotheism are you talking about? What am I hiding?
While it is true that the God of the NT is described in male terms, this needs to be understood within the linguistic and cultural context of the day. If I want to establish that God relates in a manner more alike a father than a mother in a culture where these roles are significantly differentiated, then I’m going to use gendered language to describe God.
The good old “cultural card”. So God was not omnipotent enough and couldn’t communicate to us clearly so that all cultures and people could directly understand him. Come on now; you know that is a bad argument. So what is your position? Does God have a gender like all other evolved beings or not?
Except that the biblical cosmology doesn’t establish heaven as the destination for the “good guy,”
Really? Did Torah and Jesus asked to follow his the commandment or not? Or is it now that elected born-again faith-alone Calvinist Anglican crowd will jump the queue and “bad guys” will end up in heaven and “good guys” will roast in hell? what is the objective biblical view here?
the NT does not identify the “good guys” with those who “follow the commandments.”
Can you remind me who said “until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” and “If you love me, keep my commands”?
In adopting [Mark was written around 120CE] you’re relying on the extremes of scholarship.
No. I already said I rely on internal and external evidence. Like I said you offer only an argument of authority when you could have stated the best argument(s) for early dating. If Mark was written “30s – early 40s” or “65 and 75 CE” then why Clement of Rome does not know about it? Or what sense does Gerasene demoniac make in pre Jewish war context? You offer no evidence, just asserting truth by majority.
If the author of Mark sought to reinterpret events in order to promote some particular agenda, then offering information contrary to that which was widely and commonly known would undermine the effort.
What are you talking about? We just talked that early second century Christianity was small marginal sect nobody in Roman world knew. And of course Mark had the agenda, and Jews thought Christians made it up, so Christians gained converts in areas where it was more difficult to investigate the truth.
if Mark is writing close to the events but offering a significant variation to historical chronology (leaving aside the question of the supernatural), his account would not have been widely accepted.
Agreed. Mark does not have many touch points to real history and story of Jesus is plausible (leaving aside the question of the supernatural). But how could you check supernatural events? Who would you go and ask in Judea; Jews, Christians, Romans?
then are you saying that you don’t hold the position that Osiris’ resurrection is a closer parallel to Jesus’ resurrection than the Jewish expectations of the time?
I already said that NT is clearly based on Jewish writings, stories, ideas and prophecies. And that NT writers did not copy [or appeal to] Osiris’ story. But I see parallels with NT stories and non-Jewish saviour God stories.
But since you are happy to accept that the NT expressions of resurrection are rooted in Jewish expectations and do not closely align with Egyptian ideas I’m happy to see we have reached a point of concord!
Some Jews believed in resurrected hero, but I think most expected either son of David or son of Joseph Messiah “a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety.” Jews thought that the messiah will fear God, bring world peace and the whole world will know the God. Jesus just did not fit the bill, so expansion of ideas was needed.
Your assuming that the early Christians didn’t celebrate the Lord’s Supper?
No, I’m not. Didache describes the early Christian Lord’s Supper. Just look at Luke’s Supper, the text is a mess clearly modified over time and nothing like Jewish style Didache. You can see the evolution of meaning and ritual of the Lord’s Supper.
And of course metaphor was never used in the first century ;-).
What makes you think it is a metaphor? Catholics have believed forever that they drink the real blood of Jesus and eat pieces of real God man Jesus. A lot longer than Anglican denomination has been around.
Jon, the fact that you’ve come along and commented here, that you vigorously espouse your position, all point to the fact that you do have something invested in your position. The fact that you appeal to any atheistic claims, no matter how dubious, to support your position (what happened to Mark and the zodiac?), these all point to the fact that you do have some “emotional attachment” to your position. This all points to you not being able to “neutrally assess” theism or religion (or, for that matter, atheism).
This doesn’t a-priori mean there’s no merit to your arguments, but I think post modern philosophers have adequately demonstrated that claims to impartiality and objectivity such as yours are spurious (they’ve also made lots of other claims which I think are not valid, but I think their logic on impartiality is difficult to refute).
This is a fine piece of rhetoric, but it is ultimately meaningless. Your big pictures are made up of quite different components, so despite a superficial similarity when viewed from afar (although in the previous post I made it clear that even most of your superficial similarities were spurious)
Have you actually examined this claim? It seems unlikely since you don’t even get it right. The only significant variant between Deut 32:8–9 in the MT and 4Q37 is that the former, at the end of v. 8, reads בני ישראל “sons of Israel” while the latter reads בני האלהים “sons of God” (or “sons of the gods” — LXX reads ἀγγέλων θεοῦ, “angels of God” which is different again). It does not say Yhwh is the son of another god described here by the epithet ʿelyôn (עליון, note the there is no explicit reference to אל עליון in any version). Furthermore, elsewhere ʾel ʿelyôn is used as a reference to Yhwh (e.g. Gen 14:22).
So while the DSS reading is probably superior to the MT, the likely interpretation is that ʿelyôn is an epithet for Yhwh (as it is elsewhere and in accord with the context and as expected within poetry). The passage claims Yhwh retained Israel as his own special possession among all the nations. The point isn’t that Israel is just one of the nations, rather that it is special.
So what? The Bible attests to endemic syncretism throughout recorded history. If anything it attests to the uniqueness of biblical monotheism since it was so out of accord with the norm in the ancient world.
I’m sure God could do any number of things that he may not have chosen to do. The point is that God has chosen to operate in a particular manner. He has spoken into human history using human language. If that is accurate, then your expectation here is misguided. The text of Scripture was written using a human language which needs to be translated into other languages to effectively communicate to people of those languages. Culture and language are inextricably tied together and so translation (at least good translation) needs to accommodate this. Furthermore, the Christian Bible affirms the possibility of translation of God’s communication into different human languages (unlike, for example, the Koran).
The biblical view is that no-one is good, all fall short of God’s standards. Doing what is right is the expected standard, and the Bible’s view is that we just can’t maintain this standard, so we end up falling short. Obedience is expected, but perfect obedience is never attained. Hence the need for God to act to save anyone. So obedience is not the cause but the appropriate response to God’s love for us.
I actually offered a reference to a detailed examination of many arguments related to the date of Mark’s gospel. Apparently it is OK for you to defend your position by saying “go and google for such and such” but it isn’t OK for me to point to a detailed academic treatment of the question. When I don’t provide a reference you then complain “I don’t see you providing any links/reference/evidence to your assertions.” Seems there’s no pleasing you.
Furthermore, your reasons for rejecting an early date are insubstantial. How do you know Clement of Rome didn’t know of Mark’s gospel? I have no problem with understanding the account of the Gerasene demoniac in the early 30s.
Finally, I am not asserting the truth by majority as if it is simply an uninformed vote on the matter. I point rather to a significant, recent, detailed study of the question which evaluates earlier positions in some detail.
That’s not quite accurate, is it? To understand the Roman Catholic position you need to have some understanding of Plato and Greek philosophy which is used to explain why the bread retains the appearance of bread and so forth. Nonetheless, I think the language used is metaphor and I’ve discussed that at length elsewhere, but to do so here would only lead us further from the topic at hand.
Since, however, you’ve conceded that you only recognise vague parallels between Jesus and Osiris, and since most of the parallels you’ve asserted have proven to be spurious, I think we can probably let that matter rest.
Have a nice Christmas!
what he said.
Martin,
Sure I have my biases. That’s why I ask reader to go check the fact for themself. Go study Mark and the Zodiac… I already explained why I can’t do it here. You and David seem to have problem with that for some reason.
DSS 4Q37 has: “When the Most High (El Elyown) gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the people according to the number of the sons of God. For the Lord’s (Yahweh) portion is his people.”
So the highest God had 70 sons. Yahweh was one of them and got the nation of Jacob. Other sons got other nations. Funny how scholars agree that this is the oldest and best reading of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, but none of the modern Bibles have it. Writer of Deuteronomy did not believe in only one God, but also a boatload of sons of God
Note that Gen 14:22 uses El Elyown as an add-on title for Yahweh (in a place where he has not introduced himself yet as Yahweh) and the text flows nicely without it unlike in Deut 32:8. So not apples to apples comparison. BTW who do you think all these sons of God are the monotheists people have erased from the Bible?
So what [that Jews worshiping of many Gods in Elephantine Temple]? The Bible attests to endemic syncretism throughout recorded history.
So we agreed Jews believed in many Gods. And now it is mostly written out of the Bible like Deuteronomy 32:8-9.
The point is that God has chosen to operate in a particular manner.
How did you come to this conclusion? How can I verify you assertion?
The biblical view is that no-one is good, all fall short of God’s standards. Doing what is right is the expected standard, and the Bible’s view is that we just can’t maintain this standard, so we end up falling short. Obedience is expected, but perfect obedience is never attained. Hence the need for God to act to save anyone. So obedience is not the cause but the appropriate response to God’s love for us.
I know. God set us up to fail, so most of us who never had a chance need to be tortured forever. I just don’t get why “God needs to act”. He could have set the system up so that people are not failures.
I actually offered a reference to a detailed examination of many arguments related to the date of Mark’s gospel. Apparently it is OK for you to defend your position by saying “go and google for such and such” but it isn’t OK for me to point to a detailed academic treatment of the question.
The difference is that I explain the argument/evidence and provide links to references. You don’t provide the argument or evidence regarding the early dating of Mark. I asked you “then why Clement of Rome does not know about it? Or what sense does Gerasene demoniac make in pre Jewish war context?” but you resorted to rhetoric. Clement of Rome never quotes or alludes to Mark in his major work.
And I did not say “go and google for such and such”. I said go to google: “Early Christian Writings” and go to the front page of the first result. Following instructions you get to the page I meant. BTW I also asked how to create links here…
Jon,
You haven’t even pointed to a single article or book — let alone one in a peer reviewed journal or by a reputable scholar rather than by some dilettante along the lines of the Bible Code. Sounds like you’re sending us on a wild goose chase. At least I’ve pointed you to actual references, but you claim that is just an appeal to authority. You avoid this by appealing to nothing. Perhaps I could throw out random ideas and back them up by saying “go research it yourself.”
You ought to stop insisting upon this if you cannot get the facts right. 4Q37 simply does not say what you’re claiming! For one, like many manuscripts from among the DSS — particularly those from cave 4 — it is fragmentary. Most of what you’ve quoted is based on a reconstruction of the text. The actual manuscript has the following words preserved:
In other words, the first part of “when giving the inheritance” then a gap and “sons of god.” Portions of the verse appear in other DSS manuscripts, and the LXX reflects the reading in the DSS. No extant manuscript has the reading “El Elyown” — the expression “Most High” is simply ʿelyôn (your “Elyown”). There is no mention of 70 sons. Your explanation fails to address the issues I mentioned which undermine your reading (you simply cannot ignore the context in which the words appear if you have any hope of actually understanding what the text means, nor can you import a meaning for ʿelyôn when the term is used within the same text with a meaning that doesn’t suit you).
Furthermore, your claim that “non of the modern Bibles have it” is also incorrect. The NET Bible’s reading follows the DSS at this point. As do the NLT, the CEB, the CEV, and the ESV. Many other versions include a footnote with the DSS reading. So here’s another assertion you’ve made which is entirely false.
True, it isn’t “apples to apples” because Gen 14:22 actually uses the words “ʾel ʿelyôn.” Of course “the text flows nicely without it” is no argument — you could cut out half of every book ever written with that sort of approach! What is more, who made you an expert on how nicely things flow in a Hebrew narrative?
What about the “sons of God”? Scholars understand the expression in a number of ways. For one, the “son of God” is widely recognised as a designation for the king. The “sons of God” are usually members of the divine royal court — probably angelic beings. There is certainly no necessity for them to be divine themselves.
No. That would be like saying “atheists believe in string theory.” I made no such blanket statement. It is true to say that many Israelites in the OT are depicted as being involved in syncretistic religion, but clearly not all since they were condemned by other Jews!
It is certainly not consistent with the Bible to say this, you’ve read in an awful lot and drawn a lot of illegitimate conclusions. If anything, the aetiological account in the opening chapters of the Bible has God setting human beings up to succeed.
Your explanations seem to be MIA. There’s no explanation of the zodiac connection to Mark. There’s not even a link. You don’t explain why the Gerasene Demoniac causes you such a problem in a pre 70AD context — it certainly doesn’t bother most scholars. And then:
This is why I said your arguments are inconsequential. If I do not quote someone I’m not aware of their existence? That’s an argument from silence which assumes a lot. What if Clement didn’t like Mark’s gospel, or felt Matthew was superior, or didn’t have access to a copy? What if others of hsi writings have been lost?
If you want to refer to a web page, copy the URL into your answer as plain text, I’m happy to cut and paste it to find the information. I really would appreciate some actual references to substantiate the claims you’ve been making.
Martin,
I realize this is now gone a bit stale.
I don’t get your questioning 4Q37 integrity. It has what I claim it has, I don’t “import” meanings. 70 nation is of course Jewish midrash as you know. Readers can check that from the Christian classic “The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls” edited By James H. Charlesworth. This seem to be a popular reference book, but I don’t think it is the best. For 4Q37 (there called 4qDeutj) reconstruction also from LXX (“rpsml” missing) Volume 1 pp. 155-156 and textual integrity volume 2 p. 122.
“Scholars understand the expression in a number of ways. For one, the “son of God” is widely recognized as a designation for the king. The “sons of God” are usually members of the divine royal court — probably angelic beings”
Yahweh, who received his portion of the main God’s division, is never called a messenger of God ~ angelic beings. Text clearly tells that Yahweh was originally one of the sons of God.
Hi Jon,
I’m not questioning the integrity of 4Q37 (4QDeutj). I’m only questioning your assertions about it.
Let me re-examine your claims once more in brief format. Contrary to your assertion, 4Q37 does not have the “ʾel” of “ʾel ʿelyôn” as you have repeatedly claimed — no extant manuscript does have it. They all have only “ʿelyôn”. So you’re importing the whole “El” component.
It does not have any reference to 70 sons, although you now admit that this comes from Jewish midrash while somewhat paradoxically claiming you’re not importing meanings!
Contrary to your conspiratorial claims, the reading is used in numerous modern English translations (as listed above).
And 4Q37 is fragmentary as I said. You can see a photo of the relevant part of it in Barrera and Vegas, The Madrid Qumran Congress on page 361. As you will see there, only a very few words are preserved — as I pointed out previously.
Finally, you do ignore the context within Deuteronomy as I pointed out above. Yet you seem to insist that:
As I’ve pointed out in my previous post, it most certainly does not “clearly” tell this unless you make the a-priori assumption that ʿelyôn is not used as an epithet for Yhwh, ignoring the fact that elsewhere it clearly is! In fact, this reading can only be arrived at by ignoring the context of these verses within the literary context within which it finds itself and assuming that the author or final editor was haphazard and careless.
It is somewhat bewildering that you continue to appeal to this given that very little of what you claim is substantiated by the facts. It really is time to drop this line of argument because, as with most of your earlier claims, this is looking more and more tenuous.
David, I have made no claims of “exact nature of Osiris resurrection”, or argued that “Christian “myth” draws upon this Osiris resurrection”, or “claimed that there are the themes that are clearly “taken” in the Christian myth”. My Osiris comment was in a context of how to investigate different resurrection claims.
Then I have misunderstood you. I do apologise. You’ve taken a different tack to the usual skeptic approach.
1) An actual quotation from pre-Christian text in an archeological artifact (Ikhernofret Stela)
I’m sorry, I must have missed the quotation. I see you pointing us to a number of sources but no specific actual citation. Again, it might be just me but what I was looking for was
an actual primary source quotation that describes the “resurrection” of Osiris
a source for that quote.
It could just be me but I still don’t see it.
As for the “closed universe” issue. In this comment I wrote,
At that point it’s hard to go further. You have entered a thread complaining about a review of a book that you’ve not actually read yourself. It seems to me that if you’re going to now challenge that review and, in reality, the book itself that the next step would be to get hold of a copy. Would you like me to send you one?
I have clearly laid out the evidence
For clarification, what you’ve actually done is point us to a number of places where you assert the evidence is contained. That’s not the same as actually laying out the evidence.
By comparison, if you were to ask me for evidence of the resurrection of Jesus what I would do is quote for you the 4 separate gospel accounts and give you references for those quotations. It would not be enough to say, “well, they’re in Matthew, Mark Luke and John. There, I’ve shown you the evidence” as though that settled the matter. You would rightly challenge me to demonstrate exactly what those 4 sources had to say about the Resurrection of Jesus.
David, no worries about misunderstanding of my claim.
Sorry I don’t play your game that “you must have missed the quotation” any more. I provided quotes from independent sources as everyone else can see. So move on, other people already have.
So your evidence of the “closed Universe quote” is a fictional discussion which happen inside Lennox’s head. Obviously it’s hard to go further whey you build your own straw man on based on Lennox’s straw man. I’ll let the readers decided if Lennox’s imagination is evidence for your claim that New Atheists think “that we live in “a closed universe” and therefore resurrection claim cannot be treated by historical investigation because it is just not possible.” And this is supposed to be top Christians apologetics book?
You are obviously mischaracterizing me that I complain about a book I have not read. I criticized the fallacies in the quoted text you provided. And thanks for the offer to send the book to me. I have to decline. Somehow I think that it would never arrive and this would be another game for you where you would keep on repeating an excuse or taunting me to provide you more and more evidence where/when/how to send it.
Jon:
I’ll go for that. Given that at the time of her reign Britain was a constitutional monarchy (as it is today), I’d say something close to zero. The monarch in the UK has no actual power at all. It’s a purely ceremonial and constitutional role.
On the other hand, men like Hitler (who vehemently opposed Biblical Christianity) and Stalin (much the same) – well, they had a lot more direct power themselves – almost total power.
I think a quote from Lennox is appropriately repeated here:
Well, could you at least give a basic outline of the argument? Or will this be another thing you repeatedly assert and then back up with “google it”?
Well, I submit that the offer still stands. All you would have to do is let everyone here on this thread know whether you received it or not. No excuses.
This thread of posts demonstrates the difficulty of persuading someone particularly someone you have no personal relationship with, that their own world view is not ‘correct’.
Can someone point me to the ‘evidence’ that it has ever happened? Then I won’t hold the opinion that this is all just a waste of time. People do not easily throw over their inherited views. Maybe everyone could disclose at the outset of their discourse, their personal history as it relates to their world view. For example “I’m the son of a preacher man”, or “I was abused by a preacher man”. That would make it easier to consider their personal agenda and thus to weigh their views and maybe even them.
Having come into this at the end, there is a bit of a strident tone in the air. A bit too defensive from the side of the angels (only my opinion, so I won’t bother quoting evidence). Wouldn’t it be reasonable to concede that Christianity along with other religious belief systems does suffer from the lack of empirical evidence as Jon seems to propose?
Not so much to bigger questions like, how probable is it that an external first cause exists. But to the myriad of little inner dogmas that seem to spring up around religious belief systems as part of their ‘marking out’ of a patch of authority. Check out the many different types of ‘Christianity’, are all those inconsistent dogmas correct?
You could readily link many such dogmas with a desire of the established authority to control the masses. For example, the medieval Roman Catholic Church. Surely some of that dogma (and the conduct that flowed from it) was primarily motivated by a desire to have control, covered in a thin coating of theological spin.
And isn’t it correct that much religious dogma is based upon different interpretations (ie opinions) of words written by other people. Like this debate about the opinion of an author. Turned into a debate about myths. Then a debate about who’s read the most books. Who can quote the best. Who has more ‘evidence’. Who made a grammatical mistake in their last post. It is really more of an intellectual exercise in one-upmanship.
I think it would be easier to argue a religious or theological view point if it were possible to concede the limits on theological propositions. It is hard to be absolute about such things. Why not just acknowledge that, and redefine the key requirements in a more limited ie less absolutist way?
Of course that might entail contemplating that maybe the external first cause revealed themselves to people through things other than just the God of the Israelites, or other than just through Jesus of the New Testament. And perhaps that may reduce (further) the relevance of the established structures of the Christian Church. And perhaps that may reduce the control and authority of those on the bridge.
You’re all right, no, let’s keep splitting hairs. I’ve read a bigger book. No mines bigger. No, mine is! No my ‘evidence’ is better than yours. Yes, that is much more fun.
Tom,
Your points might be valid if the aim of the discussion was “persuading someone particularly someone you have no personal relationship with, that their own world view is not ‘correct’.” But this is not private correspondence, it is a public forum. I cannot speak for Jon or anyone else, but my aim is to demonstrate that there are both problems with Jon’s interpretation and cogent arguments in support of the view that the NT is not dependant upon Egyptian mythology so that other readers at least have access to some balanced discussion. I have no real expectation that he will change his mind.
Aside from this the implication of your assertions are that all debate about philosophical, religion, historical, metaphysical, or political matters is ultimately futile. Furthermore, you suggest our cases would be better made if we shared our own personal history as it relates to our worldview. Yet you’re guilty of this same sin, are you not? What has made you assess this discussion in the terms you have?
Finally, Jon is not asserting a lack of empirical evidence but rather that the evidence points in a different direction to the traditional understanding of Christians. Furthermore, Jon claims certainty (e.g. “Mark was written around 120CE”). If he were really proposing a lack of empirical evidence he couldn’t be making such claims. I have sought to avoid absolute claims throughout and presented information in a more circumspect manner, but strangely you’ve garnered the inverse impression (perhaps something in your personal history has predisposed you to do this?).
Tom,
I think let the facts speak rather than Martin’s or my background. I wanted to give a non-Christian view to Lennox’s book and show the numerous fallacies and problems with provided samples.
I don’t think Martin changes his view today, but I hope some of the readers consider which side makes the logical fallacies and have the evidence. I hope Christians study non-Christian arguments with open minded, rather than believe train wreck type of Lennox’s book.
I hope Christian consider why some people think that “Mark was written around 120CE” or later, and start looking for evidence for early or late dating. I hope they start finding out why for example Christians date their earliest papyrus P52 to early second century and why non-Christian typically date it to late second century. I hope they will find the pattern of this kind apologists work and start really looking for Christian evidence and non-Christian evidence.
I don’t believe that the NT is depends upon Egyptian mythology, but I encourage people to see the similarities in the big picture. And seriously consider why they drink God-man’s blood and eat God-man’s body parts. Perhaps they then stumble upon pre-Christian religions who also drank God’s blood and ate God’s body parts, and realize the meaning of it.
Hi Martin,
I prefer to step back and characterise a discussion without going down the rabbit hole and getting into the numerous points of issue. That seems a more likely way to get to the nub of the discussion than to embark on large scale point by point analysis.
I am interested in the point of the exercise, and my characterisation of its ‘aim’ can only be my opinion. Your expressed aims seem fair enough, but isn’t it then an exercise for your benefit?
If you demonstrate the problems with Jon’s interpretation, I think it would be optimistic to think anyone other than you, Jon and maybe a couple of diehards might receive the benefit of it. Jon mostly definitely not. So it is still drum beating isn’t it? Put the flags up, shoot words at each other, no one changes their views one way or the other.
I prefer my aim to yours.
My point about personal backgrounds relates to the overall benefit of indulging in discourse via internet blogging with strangers, whose credit cannot be assessed with ease. I wouldn’t characterise is as a personal ‘sin’ because the operators of the blog set the rules. In my opinion it would make it easier to assess views.
I would base this opinion in part on my twenty years practice as a solicitor in NSW, where I have accrued some experience in assessing the personal testimony of lay people, and the opinion evidence of experts. I would never bother attempting to understand another’s point of view via internet blog alone without knowing anything of the background of the other. If you are trying to make the demonstrations of the kind you suggest, surely knowing your enemy is a pretty basic kind of concept. Or if you were trying to help them, to persuade them to your view point, knowing their back ground would be of use?
The concept that cultural background sets world views is hardly new. If I can quote Arthur Schopenhauer on the point, in a dialogue mind you:
“If only it were a conviction, and one founded on reason! Then it could be combated with reasons, and we should be fighting on equal terms. But it is common knowledge that religions don’t want conviction, on the basis of reasons, but faith, on the basis of revelation. And the capacity for faith is at its strongest in childhood: which is why religions apply themselves before all else to getting these tender years into their possession. It is in this way, even more than by threats and stories of miracles, that the doctrines of faith strike roots: for if, in earliest childhood, a man has certain principles and doctrines repeatedly recited to him with abnormal solemnity and with an air of supreme earnestness such as he has never before beheld, and at the same time the possibility of doubt is never so much as touched on, or if it is only in order to describe it as the first step towards eternal perdition, then the impression produced will be so profound that in almost every case the man will be almost as incapable of doubting this doctrine as of doubting his own existence, so that hardly one in a thousand will then possess the firmness of mind seriously and honestly to ask himself: is this true?”
I don’t think all debate is futile, but with strangers via a blog I think the benefit of it is definitely limited. So off point. I will be in trouble.
I don’t want to be drawn into a detailed debate about Jon’s assertions. I don’t see much difference between how I cast it and how you did. I mean what is the difference between a ‘lack of empirical evidence’ and ‘the evidence points in a different direction’?
My views about absolutism are general, not directed personally at you. It seems to me a common problem with theological types. They get lost in all those piles of ‘facts’ based on all that compelling ‘evidence’ and come up with fairly definite concrete claims that can be hard to sell to someone who was brought up in a different culture, say a Muslim. Or someone like Jon.
Jon, I have enjoyed reading your points. You have some fascinating interests, and I hope to read some of the material you have mentioned.
I think that the points you raise are not new issues and Christian theology has well and truly gobbled them up long ago. I can’t agree similarities in religious practices proves the later one completely false if that is what you suggest. But equally I can’t agree that all of Christian dogma should be swallowed hook line and sinker. It is all well worth considering though.
Tom,
This thread of posts demonstrates the difficulty of persuading someone particularly someone you have no personal relationship with, that their own world view is not ‘correct’. Can someone point me to the ‘evidence’ that it has ever happened?
I live in Sydney, as does David. If you ever wanted to meet up with me for a coffee to discuss evidence etc, I’d love to, and I’m sure David would be open to that as well. (Email the Briefing: they can pass on my email address.)
I’ll give you an insight into my personal background which may help you understand how I respond to your Schopenhauer quote. While I had a church upbringing, I renounced Christianity as a teenager. I then became a Christian at university. I can assure you an adult faith is very different to a child’s faith. Schopenhauer’s insight might be true of a nominal Christian who refuses to listen to dissenting voices, but for the adult Christians I know, those dissenting voices are not only persistent, but they are both internal as well as external. I’m not talking about a state of siege or disquiet, but I am talking about convictions that have been tested and reviewed from many angles.
Once again the magic “google it” argument. Jon, as has been pointed out before, just pointing to a pile of google results does not constitute an argument. Your challenging claim is that there is no sensible distinction to be made between the canonical gospels and the various pseudepigraphal accounts that appeared later.
Not at all. The apparent proliferation of alternative “gospels” of Jesus is useful canard lobbed into the air by sceptics. The most recent example being the “Gospel of Judas”. It’s a good example because it demonstrates the paucity of the claim – a document clearly written many centuries after the fact, of which we don’t even have a copy in the original language.
Well no, but all were pseudepigraphal and thus rejected by the church. Their recognition of canonicity hinged on a number of factors – primarily that the authors had to be apostolic or from the apostolic circle and that the writing had to be consistent with that already received. Thus even theologically correct documents were rejected (If memory serves me correctly one such example would The Testament of Levi). Good places to see this argumentation are the Muratonian Canon and, even earlier, Irenaeus’ demolishment of Valentinus.
A more general analysis of which texts were accepted and which were not can be found here. It’s fascinating for the clarity it provides.
I see that you place John as a 3rd century document. That seems particularly bizarre given that we have copious manuscript evidence prior to that, not to mention consistent quoting of it. And do note, they actually cite it – but then there was no google in those days to point people to.
Wonder no more. The 4th century creeds (unless you’re thinking of some obscure 2/3C creeds that the rest of us aren’t aware of) were derived from the 1st Century scriptures. That much is abundantly clear when one reads the argumentation of the Church Fathers of the time. Those famous phrases that found their way into the Nicene-Constantinople Creed were mostly lifted straight out of those debates which, in turn, were founded upon what the 1st C New Testament actually said. So, as one striking example, consider the additional clause added at Constantinople in response to the Macedonian denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, with the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorified, He has spoken through the prophets”.
Each of those little phrases is drawn directly from the 4th century arguments defending the divinity of the Spirit by Athanasius and others and each of them finds its origin in the 1st Century New Testament documents and even the Old Testament. It was an unashamedly Biblical argument that was being made.
Thus the 4th Century creeds are not a novelty but rather a restatement of those same 1st Century revealed truths. Which is why we receive them as true. As the Anglican Articles put it,
David,
Once again the magic “google it” argument.
No David, I did not make an argument. You asked me “can you point us to those 20+ Gospels early Christians wrote” and I told you how to find it.
Your challenging claim is that there is no sensible distinction to be made between the canonical gospels and the various pseudepigraphal accounts that appeared later
No David, I agreed with you that there is distinction between the canonical gospels and the various pseudepigraphal accounts that appeared later. Read my actual argument.
but all were pseudepigraphal and thus rejected by the church
No David, the Catholic Church selected 4 Gospels by the 7th century perhaps. Other earlier Christian Churches were persecuted out of existence and their Gospels did not survive. We only know their existence from the quotes of the winners.
A more general analysis of which texts were accepted and which were not can be found here.
No David. Your liked information is false. The oldest Latin Vulgate does not have the books your site lists. So you have problems when I send you to other sites, but you seem to use other web sites too. Is using the first result Google gives you too difficult?
I see that you place John as a 3rd century document.
No David. I placed it around mid to late second century in its current form. My argument was about the type of Gospel John would be.
not to mention consistent [Church fathers] quoting of it
Do you have any evidence that Justin Martyr quotes John, and not the other way around, or is this just an assertion of yours? This website seems to have misinformation and relies on fallacies. Is that run by your buddy Lennox? ;-)
That much is abundantly clear when one reads the argumentation of the Church Fathers of the time. Those famous phrases that found their way into the Nicene-Constantinople Creed were mostly lifted straight out of those debates which, in turn, were founded upon what the 1st C New Testament actually said.
No David. You are making this up. Who in the 1st C claimed that “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son”. Where do you “find its origin in the 1st Century New Testament document”? Who call Holy Spirit as “God”??
I comment but post don’t appear here and no “success” message. I re-post and get “Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!”
I don’t seem to be able to post here….
My comments have been deleted? Why is that?
The Briefing front page shows:
“Gunning for God Review David Ould | 6 December, 2011 | 72 comments”
Clicking the link to the article (fixed line ISP) shows “67 thoughts on “Gunning for God” ”
Clicking the link to the article (another ISP&Wifi) shows “70 thoughts on “Gunning for God” ”
Clicking the link to the article (mobile device) shows “70 thoughts on “Gunning for God” ”
If you post something you seem to be able to see all the comments in the front page count (all 72)
weird…
The problem with the counts, I believe, is in the page headers. For example, the home page for the briefing has an expiry of one year in the future, meaning a web browser will continue to use its cached copy until one year after you’ve originally viewed that page!
I’ve mentioned this to the webmaster but (as yet) the headers of the pages remain unchanged and so you will frequently see cached versions of the page rather than the latest versions.
Your only option is to force the page to reload or to clear your browser cache before viewing the site.
Hi Ken,
I am just having a general moan about ‘gunning’ for God by publishing a piece on a blog site and then jumping all over the heretic, that is all.
Thank you very much for your kind offer. I think I will decline, merely on the basis of time and the hope that my problems with the evidence are not as great as others.
But thank you again for the offer.
Merry Christmas.
Tom
Jon,
I’m not playing down the Spanish Inquisition death toll. My limited research suggests the lower estimates are better.
I heard of Peters’ estimates through a historian I trust. You point to the Amazon reviews of Peters’ book, but the reviewers don’t question Peters’ numbers: they critique his offering of excuses for the Catholic Church’s behaviour. When I turn to Wikipedia (admittedly a weak source) I find it offers a detailed breakdown of the death toll that suggests their numbers (which are the same order of magnitude as Peters’) have some substance. The Wikipedia discussion on that article seems robust with diverse opinions (though one high-estimate protagonist writes under 3 identities in an attempt to give the impression his/her view has wider support).
I’m not finding your rhetoric compelling.
The references that Rummel offers for his statistics are not written by Inquisition scholars. Dedijer and Paris are writing about WWII atrocities in the Balkans. Davies’ book concerns human sacrifice! Lecky and Durant are writing broad-brush histories from a clearly progressivist point of view. Wertham’s book is also a broad-brush study on violence. None of this means what they’re writing is false, but it doesn’t encourage confidence in them as useful sources.
You explain that the European death tolls are lower than those in the New World since “the Church needed the people as workforce”. I have two comments on that. Firstly, the Old World numbers appear to be lower than Rummel’s estimates, so that could be true. But secondly, Rummel’s estimation process for New World casualties is questionable: he takes the numbers for a single year and multiplies them by 300 years (in the case of the high range estimates). That’s a simple way to fill a cell in a spreadsheet, but it’s a dubious historical approach.
The Inquisition is a horror, and can’t be justified. But let’s base our condemnation of it on good research.
I notice a pattern is developing: every time I scratch one of your arguments it starts to unravel. You say John Lennox is a poor apologist who asserts but doesn’t argue, but then you refuse to read him. You say Stephen Hawking is incorrect to assert that gravity has a crucial role in explaining why the universe has come into being: and I assume you haven’t read him either. You introduced the Inquisition into this thread, yet when I question your Enlightenment rhetoric you end up sidestepping the fact that (according to your data) the leading Democracy (the US) is more deadly (in terms of deaths/year) than the Inquisition (one order of magnitude by Rummel’s measure, and three orders more deadly when better Inquisition scholarship is used).
You want to distance contemporary atheists from historical crimes by atheists, and yet incriminate Christianity for the Inquisition etc. You seem to be taking a biased approach here.
It’s a little difficult for me to dodge your “pick-and-choose Christian” barb as I did select only two quotations from Jesus. However, if you want to build a case that Jesus advocates violence you would do better than to quote Luke 22. Yes, Jesus tells the disciples to buy swords in verse 36, but then when they use one in verse 51, Jesus rebukes them and heals the victim! (Why is that? Doesn’t it suggest something deeper than “violence is OK” is happening here? Why is it that two swords are “enough”? It seems to me that the disciples are at risk of being caught up in Jesus’ arrest and the swords are for self-protection: but perhaps I’m just revealing my own bias.)
Ken,
“Dedijer and Paris are writing about WWII atrocities in the Balkans. Davies’ book concerns human sacrifice”
Why the Red Herring smear campaign? Davies and Dedijer were historians specializing in mass killings. Paris was also a historian who wrote about inquisition.
“None of this means what they’re writing is false, but it doesn’t encourage confidence in them as useful sources”
But you think a Catholic person is the most reliable source for Catholic mass killing. Right. :-)
“I heard of Peters’ estimates through a historian I trust”
And a personal testimony from another Christian triumphs the facts. If Rummel knows personally his sources would that make his numbers more reliable? Because you trust someone, then his assessment of another person’s work is correct. Would you buy a bridge in Brooklyn from him too?
“Rummel’s estimation process for New World casualties is questionable: he takes the numbers for a single year and multiplies them by 300 years (in the case of the high range estimates). That’s a simple way to fill a cell in a spreadsheet, but it’s a dubious historical approach.”
No. Rummel just follows what his source has; “Annual deaths”. It would dubious not to follow his source.
“I notice a pattern is developing: every time I scratch one of your arguments it starts to unravel. You say John Lennox is a poor apologist who asserts but doesn’t argue, but then you refuse to read him.”
Your logic does not make any sense. I pointed out the fallacies on every quoted text, which does not encourage me to red it. I read his God’s Undertaker, listened to his lectures and went to see one of his debates. Sorry, but he is just not good.
“You say Stephen Hawking is incorrect to assert that gravity has a crucial role in explaining why the universe has come into being: and I assume you haven’t read him either.”
I did not say Hawkins is incorrect. Read what I said (Hint: he does not need to explain where gravity came from as per WL Craig argument). And I have also read Hawking, so your assumption is wrong again. BTW your pattern recognition is broken :-)
“I question your Enlightenment rhetoric you end up sidestepping the fact that (according to your data) the leading Democracy (the US) is more deadly (in terms of deaths/year) than the Inquisition (one order of magnitude by Rummel’s measure, and three orders more deadly when better Inquisition scholarship is used).”
It is naive to use deaths/year when comparing modern and ancient deaths. As I said read Pinkers’ book about this. BTW all US leaders have been and are Christians.
“when better Inquisition scholarship is used”
You mean the one you like the most? The Catholic historian’s stats about Catholic historic killings. Totally unbiased :-)
“You want to distance contemporary atheists from historical crimes by atheists, and yet incriminate Christianity for the Inquisition etc. You seem to be taking a biased approach here.”
Not believing in something does not motivate you to kill. Inquisition did not kill people because they did not believe in pink unicorns. Stalin did not kill people because he did not believe in God. You need to understand what motivates people before you call my approach biased.
“It’s a little difficult for me to dodge your “pick-and-choose Christian” barb as I did select only two quotations from Jesus.”
I only needed one. People have used Bible to kill people. Once you accept that perhaps you can see the problems with the Bible and the Christian subjective morality.
Jon,
I drew the conclusion you hadn’t read Hawking’s book when you wrote …
But now that you claim to have read Hawking, it appears your question was just a rhetorical device. A clumsy attempt to discredit Lennox which, now it has been uncovered, only serves to undermine your own credibility.
So why should I trust your rhetoric about the Inquisition? A professional historian tells me Peters is a reputable source on the Inquisition, and popular sources such as Wikipedia offer estimates that are consistent with Peters’ estimates. You counter this with ad hominem claims about Peters’ bias! All historians are biased: one simply takes that into account when reading them. Henry Kamen is a Jew, I believe: is he biased when he estimates a death toll in the thousands? (I’m sure you’ll recognise that the Jews suffered horribly under the Inquisition.)
Clearing the browser cache does not help if to see the latest posts. It looks like Briefing blog uses WP-Super-Cache plugins in legacy caching mode. Visitors get served with couple day old pages to save server load, which makes commenting nearly impossible here. Admins should take a look at the setting to disable super-cache for maybe 30 days…
Today I got this webpage with this comment and three day old time stamp:
“Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2011-12-29 09:12:14”
“Compression = gzip”
Posting this will regenerate the page for caching and I’ll see the latest post, but if I reload I get served a three day old page again…
Ken,
“it appears your question was just a rhetorical device. A clumsy attempt to discredit Lennox which, now it has been uncovered, only serves to undermine your own credibility.”
I’m sorry but you just don’t get it. I challenged David to comment about the Hawking’s book. The book’s aim was not ponder why there is something rather than nothing, and Hawking did not need to that to make his point about the gravity. Lennox obviously knows this, so his observation is dishonest. And my clumsiness…
And don’t worry about my credibility. I got none here. Anyone who challenges things here has no credibility. You and most people here would not trust anything I write, so my credibility is already zero.
I also notice when I make a point people here claim that I use “rhetorical device” rather than address my point.
I call out your smear campaign against Davies, Dedijer and Paris, but you move on.
I call out your claim that Rummel’s method is a dubious historical approach, but you move on.
I call you out to admit that people have used Bible to kill people, but you move on.
I call you out to read Steven Pinker’s book to understand the severity of medieval killings, but you move on.
I wonder who really uses rhetorical devices.
And I never said you should trust my rhetoric about the Inquisition. I asked you to go study it. You seem to constantly claim about rhetoric so here is one for you:
Sure, you can find a non-main-stream historian like Kamen who thinks that “Inquisition gaols were better run and more humane than ordinary Spanish prisons” (from Wikipedia). Hey, you can even find creationist scientists believe it or not.
And all those torture devices developed by Catholics must have been just fakes, but the real ones were in ordinary Spanish prisons. And you would never get any infections from those nicely cleaned piercing devices if they had used them on bodies of people just accused of thought crimes. Ken, Spanish Inquisition was just a holiday at the local country club… People seem to like their own facts.
It’s hard to read new posts here because of the cache issue. So you can have a last word on this thread.