. - Understanding religious delusion

[redhen]

The Milgram experiment demonstrated nothing of the sort - it demonstrated that people will follow authority regardless of the consequences. If the men in white coats were replaced with men in Cassocks or military uniforms - the outcome would have been the same. It was a psychological experiment into the power of authority.

Br Cornelius

Not true, the testers ideology has to match the authority figure, it has to be a live option for them. If the psychologists were dressed in cassocks, and the tester was an atheist, he would probably refuse, after he finished laughing. If the psychologist was in a military uniform, the tester would continue the experiment only if he believed that it was for a good cause, one that that fit his ideology, i.e. patriotism.

In this case, the psychologist, dressed in his lab costume fit with the subjects ideology, namely that such unethical experiments are necessary for the advancement of science. This is the same mentality of the followers of Descartes (the founder of modern science), the Port Royalists, who ‘kicked about their dogs and dissected their cats without mercy, laughing at any compassion for them, and calling their screams the noise of breaking machinery’ http://sorrel.humboldt.edu/~essays/linzey.html

[Power Lust]

I agree with your secondary argument entirely, it is the whole basis of my belief system. The only measure we have for science is its utility and it serves that function very well indeed. Without it you wouldn't be able to have this argument on the internet, so despite the fact that maths cannot be proved - it produces results which are physical and tangible.

I hold all scientific ideas as working hypothesis which will be refined as more data accumulates. If evidence were to show that evolution was not supported - great, lets move onto a better explanation.

I require no faith in anything - because quite frankly I believe in almost nothing in a firm and steadfast way.

Br Cornelius

For me science has got to produce 100% facts.

Its not enough to say this theory is true because it fits the results or observations the best. Its got to be 100% correct otherwise its clearly wrong and if it doesnt fit 100% people shouldnt be educated to think its a fact either.

Maths can't achieve 100% in lots of cases. This means we have to go beyond maths if we are ever to understand the universe. Maths includes other problems too such as minimum quantities. For example whats the smallest length of time? Its like scientists like to believe the universe is made out of indivisable building blocks whether it be with time, distance, matter etc. However with many things this just isnt the case.

What scientists have essentially done is take a language system that can only work with indivisable building blocks (things that can be defined) and applied that language system to trying to figure out how the universe works when the language system itself is flawed. Another example is to ask someone what space is? Most will say its nothingness however if its nothingness how can you point to it at night or measure how much of it exists between our sun and the nearest star. The reason people have this view of space is because it is something that isnt made out of indivisable building blocks and therefore our maths language system cant define it.

In philosophy a good debate which highlights what I'm saying from another angle is to ask someone what exactly is a chair? Then ask them if you cut a leg off is it still a chair? Then ask them at what point does it cease to be a chair if you keep removing parts. The answer is you cant define that point. It cant be pinned down by thinking about it or applying mathmatical rules and laws.

Man has essentially used his floored language system not only to try and fit the universe into a mould but to fit his mind into one mould too. Its because of this reason he likes to believe the mind can be quantified, defined, measured and that his mathmatics language system can be used to figure out how it all works.

It cant but unfortunately most people arent aware of why it cant so they allow it to take spirituality away from them.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Power Lust

[Guest]

You do not understand the philosophy or methods of science at all. Nothing in science can ever be 100%.

You are attempting to define science within the terms by which you expect your own belief system to operate, ie absolute faith in immutable revelation. Try that in any college and they will laugh you out of the room.

Science is an iterative descriptive process, and has no dealing with absolute positions.

If you do not understand the scientific method you are hardly in a position to argue against it.

The argument is not about science - which forfills its function admirably well within its own limits, the argument is about the belief in absurd supernatural events which are attributed to Jesus.

Your position is absurd.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 26, 2010 by Guest

[Llucid]

That's easy to do. No problem. Tell me the percentage of accuracy to the original manuscripts and then we'll talk. The fact that copies agree with one another is not astounding. They are, after all, copies and any alteration, insertion, editing, would follow from one to the other until it appeared that there was a consistency when there really was not. For that reason it is impossible to adhere to the original manuscripts because none exist.

It is possible, as you say, that all the copies we have reflect the same changes and deviations from the source, however it is just as logical to propose that they are reflections of the actual original text. Take the fragment of John (p52) for example. While I can't use just this fragment to argue for the validity of the whole New Testament, its content is consistent with the other manuscript evidence that we have. This fragment dates within 30 years of when the majority of modern Biblical scholarship believes the Gospel of John to be written, and that is an extremely short time for a text to deviate substantially and for that corrupted text to replace the original text.

To further substantiate my claim, we have literally piles of early church documents, included lectionaries, catechisms and correspondence between early church members that quote extensively from the New Testament. The early church members include contemporaries with the Apostles, such as Polycarp of whom it is generally believed that he was a disciple of John the Apostle. The quotes from the New Testament were so thorough and concise that we could, literally, reconstruct the entire New Testament (except for a handful of verses) from their writings alone*. All this evidence is consistent. Many people do not believe what the New Testament says, which is fine as we all can believe what we want to, but it is an entirely different matter to make the claim that we don't know what the New Testament said. Manuscript evidence and textual criticism says otherwise.

*[source: Metzger, Bruce M., The Text of the New Testament (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 34. This number consists of 457 papyri, 2 uncials and 188 minuscule manuscripts.]

[Jor-el]

That would still require me to believe in the virgin birth, resurrection (both Jesus and Lazarus), walking on water, that Jesus magically took away my sins (sins been a Christian concept to which I do not subscribe) and that the personality called Jesus will return at some undisclosed future date.

Thats enough of a package of fantastical bull to put me right off. You maybe able to brainwash small children into this rubbish, but I stopped believing in mythical creatures and fairy tales a very long time ago.

Focusing on semi-credable historical debate is a mere diversion from the unsupportable supernatural.

Br Cornelius

Why would it require you to do any of the above? I'm not preaching here... I don't require anything from you, the least of all, your forced belief. What I am saying is that if you put aside those things inwhich you cannot believe (the supernatural stuff) You are still left with a convincing historical portrait of Jesus.

When he was born, the historical figures and contexts of the time, the political struggles, all of which are essential to understand the historical figure of Jesus Christ.

If by providing evidence of the sloppy work done by many of the historians you quote makes you feel that you are being forced into something, that is not my fault, but it does reveal a tendency I knew already existed in many on this forum and which is shared by the very professores they quote... "It doesn't actually matter if it's true, just as long as we can dicredit the bible..."

That is why many of you are still quoting the BS they promote.

[redhen]

The argument is not about science - which forfills its function admirably well within its own limits, the argument is about the belief in absurd supernatural events which are attributed to Jesus.

Your position is absurd.

Br Cornelius

The OP's topic was "Understanding religious delusions", but yet again a thread has evolved into New Testament textual criticism. Funny that. Anyways, yes science is a valuable tool (a neutral one at that), within its limits. But it has its own ideology and fanatics, and yes, science does involve Faith.

*[source: Metzger, Bruce M., The Text of the New Testament (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 34. This number consists of 457 papyri, 2 uncials and 188 minuscule manuscripts.]

Funny how an orthodox Christian like Metzger can disagree with his most famous pupil, Bart Ehrman. Just goes to show, once again, that people believe what they want to believe.

[Guest]

Why would it require you to do any of the above? I'm not preaching here... I don't require anything from you, the least of all, your forced belief. What I am saying is that if you put aside those things inwhich you cannot believe (the supernatural stuff) You are still left with a convincing historical portrait of Jesus.

When he was born, the historical figures and contexts of the time, the political struggles, all of which are essential to understand the historical figure of Jesus Christ.

If by providing evidence of the sloppy work done by many of the historians you quote makes you feel that you are being forced into something, that is not my fault, but it does reveal a tendency I knew already existed in many on this forum and which is shared by the very professores they quote... "It doesn't actually matter if it's true, just as long as we can dicredit the bible..."

That is why many of you are still quoting the BS they promote.

As I said I am willing to accept a historical figure called Jesus. I am not willing to accept he was anything but human, if he was the son of God then we all are. As such none of the supernatural stuff matters and if we are willing to accept that then i can accept that Jesus was a religious teacher with an important message of peace and love.

Br Cornelius

[MARAB0D]

Then I shall take your use of rubbish as the compliment I am sure it was intended. Yes, the Bible does describe a series of supernatural events. And yes, there is no empirical evidence to support said events took place. But I still believe these supernatural events happened. I can't prove that these happened in any significant way, but I don't mind accepting some things on faith from time to time, provided the rest that accompanies it makes sense, which Christian beliefs do (to me).

OH, and the Spaghetti Monster is different. Unlike Christianity, the Spaghetti Monster (FSM) was created as a satire and parody against a particular set of beliefs. This puts the FSM in a completely different category to Christianity or Islam or Mormonism. Christianity, Islam and Mormonism are all declared as being true accounts of God and though they may be wrong, they must be analysed within that framework of ideas. The Spaghetti Monster is an admitted parody/satire, and therefore must be analysed in its own framework as a satire/parody, quite separate from religions that portray themselves as "the true path".

I am surprised that you cannot see the difference necessary here.

~ Regards, PA

If you look at the core of evangelical events, then you would see that Jesus was also created as a parody on the Jewish Messiah. Even his execution as described was a form of vaudeville - crown, made of the branches like a crow's nest, announcement on his cross that he was a king etc. I mean, such beliefs are surely safe to hold, but hardly it appears very smart to try spreading them as "facts".

[Jor-el]

The Islam story and the Mormon story describe supernatural events but as you said " there is no empirical evidence to support said events took place",. just as the Christian story has no evidence to support it .

Yet you choose to believe the Christian story and reject the other two ,therebye proving the point of the OP,you can see how absurd the others are but are blind to the absurdities of your own

fullywired

Joseph Smiths life is well known and his stories do take in alot of people no daoubt about that but there is actual empirical evidence to suggest that he wasn't speaking the truth... His example is one, the fact that the 10 lost tribes of Israel emmigrated to the Americas is another...

Mohammuds life is quirte well known, and I'm not talking of the official version put forth by muslims.

[Guest]

The OP's topic was "Understanding religious delusions", but yet again a thread has evolved into New Testament textual criticism. Funny that. Anyways, yes science is a valuable tool (a neutral one at that), within its limits. But it has its own ideology and fanatics, and yes, science does involve Faith.

I would not argue with that. However the scientific method is intrinsically self correcting on a relatively short time scale and so I have confidence that all these follies will pass.

Br Cornelius

[+Paranoid Android]

i don't know what your reasons are for believing the bible are but you can't get awa y from the fact that you are believing a story which is just as absurd as the others

fullywired

It is absurd in your opinion, perhaps. But if it didn't make sense to me, I would never have converted. There are many reasons I converted, and the supernatural elements of the Bible play only a tiny part in that.

[Llucid]

The OP's topic was "Understanding religious delusions", but yet again a thread has evolved into New Testament textual criticism. Funny that. Anyways, yes science is a valuable tool (a neutral one at that), within its limits. But it has its own ideology and fanatics, and yes, science does involve Faith.

That's because when Christians are confronted with the claim "delusional", we fall back on the historical evidence for why we believe the way we believe. No other historical document even comes close to having the historical backing that the Bible has.

Funny how an orthodox Christian like Metzger can disagree with his most famous pupil, Bart Ehrman. Just goes to show, once again, that people believe what they want to believe.

Ehrman is only famous because he writes sensationalist books geared at a popular audience. His approach is not scholarly and he has too shallow a background in NT studies to be considered any kind of serious authority in the field. Ehrman is learned in textual criticism but often wanders well outside his field to make his sensational claims. His work has been heavily critiqued by many in the related fields of study. Let me offer a quote by Ben Witherington III, a widely read NT scholar who is also, like Ehrman, a UNC graduate that spent time under Metzger:

It is not sufficient to reply that Bart is writing for a popular audience and thus we would not expect much scholarly discussion even in the footnotes. Even in a work of this sort, we would expect some good up to date bibliography for those disposed to do further study, not merely copious cross-references to one’s other popular level books. Contrast for example, my last Harper book What Have They Done with Jesus? The impression is left, even if untrue, that Ehrman’s actual knowledge of and interaction with NT historians, exegetes, and theologians has been and is superficial and this has led to overly tendentious and superficial analysis. Again, I would be glad to be proved wrong about this, but it would certainly appear I am not. [Jesus, Interrupted] could have been written by an intelligent skeptical person who had no more than a seminary level acquaintance and expertise in the field of NT studies itself. And I do not say this lightly, for this book manifests problems in all areas, if one critiques it on the basis of NT scholarship of the last thirty or so years. There are methodological problems, historical problems, exegetical problems, theological problems, and epistemological problems with this book, to mention but a few areas.

(source)

[Jor-el]

That's because when Christians are confronted with the claim "delusional", we fall back on the historical evidence for why we believe the way we believe. No other historical document even comes close to having the historical backing that the Bible has.

Historical backing is not what they are interested in... in fact it what they try to avoid at all costs...

Hence the very imaginative theories they come up with to discredit that very foundation. If they make the claim stick they don't have to worry about other "ramifications"... like it might actually be true after all.....

[Llucid]

Historical backing is not what they are interested in... in fact it what they try to avoid at all costs...

Hence the very imaginative theories they come up with to discredit that very foundation. If they make the claim stick they don't have to worry about other "ramifications"... like it might actually be true after all.....

Amen. I think we need an "Amen Smiley"

I can't believe some of the things people come up with to try and explain away the historical accuracy of the Bible. I wish people would simply have the courage to admit that they don't believe in the Bible, but it is a well-preserved set of documents. They always seem to shift the "blame" for their unbelief on unsupported theories and fanciful ideas that are just not true.

[MARAB0D]

It is absurd in your opinion, perhaps. But if it didn't make sense to me, I would never have converted. There are many reasons I converted, and the supernatural elements of the Bible play only a tiny part in that.

The Bible is not absurd! It is in fact the oldest printed collection of the prehistoric writings the Mankind has! It talks about people who were living BEFORE Great Deluge, and the Great Deluge (as we know now) was happening two times, 12,000 and 14,000 years ago. In fact the Bible is the only collection of Stone Age literature and folklore we have available.

Plus, it is the only existing chronicle of a single tribe for a period of 1500 years before Christ, even the Greeks and Romans cannot produce anything like that. It tells about a small nomadic tribe, slowly growing into a Civilisation, and it tells so much that we still can imagine how this was happening. So, the Bible is in fact invaluable historical source, which is nothing less than a treasure of our civilisation. We would be gone, but the Bible would survive.

Absurd is to take the Stone Age myths and superstitions for a fact of Reality. A modern person, believing in what our 10,000 year ago ancestors were believing, presents a mental artefact, which possesses no social value except the one of a museum display piece.

Edited August 27, 2010 by MARAB0D

[Guest]

The Bible is not absurd! It is in fact the oldest printed collection of the prehistoric writings the Mankind has! It talks about people who were living BEFORE Great Deluge, and the Great Deluge (as we know now) was happening two times, 12,000 and 14,000 years ago. In fact the Bible is the only collection of Stone Age literature and folklore we have available.

Plus, it is the only existing chronicle of a single tribe for a period of 1500 years before Christ, even the Greeks and Romans cannot produce anything like that. It tells about a small nomadic tribe, slowly growing into a Civilisation, and it tells so much that we still can imagine how this was happening. So, the Bible is in fact invaluable historical source, which is nothing less than a treasure of our civilisation. We would be gone, but the Bible would survive.

Absurd is to take the Stone Age myths and superstitions for a fact of Reality. A modern person, believing in what our 10,000 year ago ancestors were believing, presents a mental artefact, which possesses no social value except the one of a museum display piece.

Exactly

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

No one willing to take my proposal on a human Jesus, or are we been selective in which supernatural superstitions you are expecting us to accept.

Br Cornelius

[fullywired]

It is absurd in your opinion, perhaps. But if it didn't make sense to me, I would never have converted. There are many reasons I converted, and the supernatural elements of the Bible play only a tiny part in that.

Your just trying to rationalize your belief .The believers in the other stories say the same thing

fullywired

[Power Lust]

You do not understand the philosophy or methods of science at all. Nothing in science can ever be 100%.

You are attempting to define science within the terms by which you expect your own belief system to operate, ie absolute faith in immutable revelation. Try that in any college and they will laugh you out of the room.

Science is an iterative descriptive process, and has no dealing with absolute positions.

If you do not understand the scientific method you are hardly in a position to argue against it.

The argument is not about science - which forfills its function admirably well within its own limits, the argument is about the belief in absurd supernatural events which are attributed to Jesus.

Your position is absurd.

Br Cornelius

What I am saying is I have people telling me science explains the world around them but religion cant however when we investigate a little deeper we discover that science cant either.

Therefore I think its absurd that people from the science camp should be influencing people away from religion by feeding them the lie that science has the answers.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Power Lust

[Power Lust]

Exactly

Br Cornelius

Explain to me how the Bible is incompatable with scientific reality?

Prove the Noahs Ark story is wrong for example. You cant.

I could sit here and invent 101 million theories which allow science and the Bible to both be correct. We dont understand the nature of reality therefore for someone to claim religion is wrong is being very narrow minded. They dont have the right to make such a claim.

[fullywired]

That's because when Christians are confronted with the claim "delusional", we fall back on the historical evidence for why we believe the way we believe. No other historical document even comes close to having the historical backing that the Bible has.

(

Could you please post a link to this "historical backing "

fullywired

[Llucid]

Could you please post a link to this "historical backing "

fullywired

Besides the manuscript evidence for the text? What kind of evidence are you asking for? Perhaps you would like some examples of when the Biblical understanding of history has been at odds with the secular understanding and the Bible has won out? Or maybe you want examples of modern day discoveries that reinforce the Bible?

[fullywired]

Besides the manuscript evidence for the text? What kind of evidence are you asking for? Perhaps you would like some examples of when the Biblical understanding of history has been at odds with the secular understanding and the Bible has won out? Or maybe you want examples of modern day discoveries that reinforce the Bible?

You can't back the bible with the bible.I would like some unbiased historical examples

fullywired

[Jor-el]

Could you please post a link to this "historical backing "

fullywired

I believe this site isn't bad.... it has articles on almost every period of history the bible touches.

http://www.biblehistory.net/

Since I haven't read it, just glanced at one or two sections, I won't put my hand in the fire for it, but it seems interesting and correct in the parts I read.

[Leonardo]

What I am saying is I have people telling me science explains the world around them but religion cant however when we investigate a little deeper we discover that science cant either.

Therefore I think its absurd that people from the science camp should be influencing people away from religion by feeding them the lie that science has the answers.

Why can't science explain the world around us, PL?

If you are referring to this little issue you brought up earlier...

This means regardless of how much scientists want you to believe that they can calcualte the orbit of the earth (for example) because it is based on pi which has infinite decimal places no answer they give you is ever 100% accurate.

...then I would bring to your attention the fact that pi may be ultimately undefined is irrelevant to the "100% accuracy" of the orbit of the Earth, which is dependent on whether distance is quantised. Let us say, for example, the shortest distance that something could physically travel was one Planck length (1.616252(81)×10^-35m). There can exist no distance shorter than this and is the smallest possible size something can exist as. The 'distance' of one Planck length is indivisible, therefore the orbit of the Earth can only be a discrete number of Planck length's in distance. This distance would be "100% accurate".

Edited August 27, 2010 by Leonardo