How good is science as a religion?

[joelr]

What you say is hardly news to me.
Yes, there are some writers who are saying what secular society wants to hear and they made good money from it. We have seen people like that come and go throughout history. They offer very little that is lasting.

How long something lasts doesn't demonstrate the truth of that thing. As far as scholarship historians have been demonstrating the Bible is religious fiction and their work is growing. In the past it was too heretical but now that the church has no hold on free speech it's going nowhere. Thomas Thompson was one of the first archaeologists in the 70's to demonstrate that Moses and the Patriarchs were literary creations. He had to go to Canada to get a job using his PhD. Now his work is considered standard in the field. The vast majority of biblical historians believe the Bible is the same as all other holy books, mythology. That field is growing as is the popularity of the authors like Carrier, Ehrman, Pagels, and so on.
And yes atheist authors like Sam Harris and Hitchens are growing more and more popular.
What they offer is truth. As usual, myself and most non-theists are still waiting for good evidence that shows they are wrong.

But this is a typical religions response, to not deal with actual issues, facts or make a rational argument. Just call them "useless" and wave them away. This also does not make your position true.

Aquinas was a Catholic philosopher. I once read some of his work and found it hard to understand.
I think you do not fully understand academic scholarship.
What you fail to mention are the many thousands of Christian scholars. That indicates tunnel vision.

The only tunnel vision here is yours in making these weird assumptions. Of course there are Christian theologians? Theologians start out with the ASSUMPTION that the scripture they are studying is actually true. They do not look at comparative religion, religious syncretism, they NEVER admit all of the theology was found in earlier religions, they do not study literary analysis to see if the author uses mythical literary devices, improbabilities and other markers of myth, they never notice the NT is simply re-writing OT stories and many other aspects that historians DO bother to study.

The easiest comparison is to simply point out there are also hundreds of Islamic PhD theologians who will all confirm that the Quran is the true word of Allah and the only true word of God available to mankind. Hindu theologians will also tell you Vishnu is the supreme creator of the universe or other sects will tell you Brahman is the ultimate reality and source of all.
None of those scholars statements mean Islam or Hinduism is actually true. It's no different for Christian theologians. Historical scholars and archaeologists will present a much more realistic picture of what is happening because they do not assume something is true. They just look at what evidence is available and work from that.
And there is no good evidence that any of those religions are true.

As for me, I am orthodox Reformed in the tradition of Zwingli, Knox, Calvin, and Luther. I still believe it is the purest theology. Christian scholarship is as vibrant as ever.

That doesn't make sense because Calvin expands themes that Agustine developed? He's also just a theologian. One of his main beliefs is you learn God by studying scripture. The most bias thing a person could ever say? HE doesn't demonstrate scripture is true? He doesn't explain why they used Greek/Persian theology and savior demigod myths and why it would be true this time around? He doesn't look at evidence? Just like the Islamic theologians they simply assert their religion is true and actual words from a deity. Yet the stories are re-worked from older religions and the way people speak about God and the way God is portrayed is exactly how it's been done since the very first words written by Edheuanna on her God Inana in Sumeria.

There is nothing "pure" about taking a mythology and asserting it's from a deity. I'm sure when Islamic theologians do it with the Quran you have zero interest in just believing a story, just because one needs to believe in something. Yet billions of Muslims do just that and they find your theology absurd. You cannot both be correct but you can both be wrong.

Christian scholarship may be vibrant but they cannot demonstrate the truth in any of it.

 

[Five Solas]

But this is a typical religions response, to not deal with actual issues, facts or make a rational argument. Just call them "useless" and wave them away. This also does not make your position true.

Maybe, but I am not phased by skepticism - also in scholarship. It is really not a new phenomenon. In fact, it could well have positive consequences for Christian scholarship.

Since the times of the early church fathers, the church faced opposition of various kinds. You get used to it.

I agree with Nicholas Wolterstorff, Professor of Philosophical Theology Emeritus, Yale University, who has been one of the leading voices in Christian philosophy for decades.

"Second, some of those who believe that what goes on in the contemporary university is pretty much OK as it is reject the additive approach because they find tension between Christianity as they understand it, and what goes on in the university; so they propose revising Christianity until the tension disappears. Often this takes the form of what I call a “band wagon approach.” Some development takes place in one or another of the disciplines, and shortly articles appear arguing that one can be a Christian and accept this new development. Post-modernism appeared, and soon a spate of articles turned up arguing in favor of the compatibility of Christianity and post-modernism. In my own field, John Rawls became popular in political philosophy, and shortly a spate of articles appeared arguing in favor of the compatibility of Christianity and Rawlsianism. Evolutionary psychology turns up, and shortly a spate of articles appears arguing for the compatibility of Christianity and evolutionary psychology. Of course, developments come and go in the disciplines; so the person who adopts a bandwagon approach must be ready to leap off his currently favored bandwagon and onto some new one that comes along. You may assume that it is especially liberal Christians who are ever willing to revise their understanding of Christianity in order to make it compatible with the latest fad in academia; but I find evangelicals often doing the same thing. Let me not conceal the fact that I find this approach disgusting and demeaning; I want to say: Think for yourself!"

 

[Five Solas]

The only tunnel vision here is yours in making these weird assumptions. Of course there are Christian theologians? Theologians start out with the ASSUMPTION that the scripture they are studying is actually true. They do not look at comparative religion, religious syncretism, they NEVER admit all of the theology was found in earlier religions, they do not study literary analysis to see if the author uses mythical literary devices, improbabilities and other markers of myth, they never notice the NT is simply re-writing OT stories and many other aspects that historians DO bother to study.

You have no clue what the scope of Christian scholarship is - no idea.
Do you honestly want them to agree with your ideas? It doesn't work like that.
I think do some homework first.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... I want to say: Think for yourself!"

Yeah, I still do that different than you. Yet I get the idea, that I really shouldn't do that, because you decide what I should do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have no clue what the scope of Christian scholarship is - no idea.
Do you honestly want them to agree with your ideas? It doesn't work like that.
I think do some homework first.

And I don't agree with your version of Christian scholarship, because I do it differently, as I think for myself.

 

[Five Solas]

That doesn't make sense because Calvin expands themes that Agustine developed? He's also just a theologian. One of his main beliefs is you learn God by studying scripture. The most bias thing a person could ever say? HE doesn't demonstrate scripture is true? He doesn't explain why they used Greek/Persian theology and savior demigod myths and why it would be true this time around? He doesn't look at evidence? Just like the Islamic theologians they simply assert their religion is true and actual words from a deity. Yet the stories are re-worked from older religions and the way people speak about God and the way God is portrayed is exactly how it's been done since the very first words written by Edheuanna on her God Inana in Sumeria.

There is nothing "pure" about taking a mythology and asserting it's from a deity.

My presupposition is also that God exists and that Scripture is reliable. Theology is the study of God and the Scriptures which is a given. The aim is not to prove it is true. That is part of the presupposition. Whether you like it or not, that is the way it is.

You say many things that are plainly false.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My presupposition is also that God exists and that Scripture is reliable. Theology is the study of God and the Scriptures which is a given. The aim is not to prove it is true. That is part of the presupposition. Whether you like it or not, that is the way it is.

You say many things that are plainly false.

My prepuppostions are different including if we can with evidence say that another human is wrong as wrong.
So I think for myself and do wrong/false differently that you.

 

[joelr]

Maybe, but I am not phased by skepticism - also in scholarship. It is really not a new phenomenon. In fact, it could well have positive consequences for Christian scholarship.

It's not about being "phased". Do you hear me saying I'm not "phased" by evidence of deities? It's about finding out what is actually true and looking at evidence without bias. I am always looking for evidence of what is true. All I get here is that you don't care about truth but simple continuing to affirm what you want to be true is true. It's your right to be intellectually lazy and avoid truth at all costs if that is your agenda.

Before the 19th century it was believed the Bible was the oldest literature in the world. Since then far older religious books have been found and many pre-biblical theologies have also been found. This has had a large impact as the majority of biblical historians are non-theist and far less scholars are religious. People are learning that religions are myths and not supported by evidence. While you may continue to avoid looking at evidence in a non-bias way it doesn't matter. Younger people will come into the world with easy access to rational and empirical evidence to demonstrate to them what is most likely true.
Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text

"The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.

Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.
Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created."

Since the times of the early church fathers, the church faced opposition of various kinds. You get used to it.

I agree with Nicholas Wolterstorff, Professor of Philosophical Theology Emeritus, Yale University, who has been one of the leading voices in Christian philosophy for decades.

"Second, some of those who believe that what goes on in the contemporary university is pretty much OK as it is reject the additive approach because they find tension between Christianity as they understand it, and what goes on in the university; so they propose revising Christianity until the tension disappears. Often this takes the form of what I call a “band wagon approach.” Some development takes place in one or another of the disciplines, and shortly articles appear arguing that one can be a Christian and accept this new development. Post-modernism appeared, and soon a spate of articles turned up arguing in favor of the compatibility of Christianity and post-modernism. In my own field, John Rawls became popular in political philosophy, and shortly a spate of articles appeared arguing in favor of the compatibility of Christianity and Rawlsianism. Evolutionary psychology turns up, and shortly a spate of articles appears arguing for the compatibility of Christianity and evolutionary psychology. Of course, developments come and go in the disciplines; so the person who adopts a bandwagon approach must be ready to leap off his currently favored bandwagon and onto some new one that comes along. You may assume that it is especially liberal Christians who are ever willing to revise their understanding of Christianity in order to make it compatible with the latest fad in academia; but I find evangelicals often doing the same thing. Let me not conceal the fact that I find this approach disgusting and demeaning; I want to say: Think for yourself!"

Not at all related. Evolutionary psychology? Post-modernism??? I'm talking about direct knowledge that provides evidence that all religions are syncretic myths and clear debunking of ridiculous apologetics.


Dr Carrier, Jesus historian
Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus • Richard Carrier
"When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves.

Here I will summarize the best arguments for historicity and the logic behind the best case for it. And this only means mundane historicity; not the Gospel Jesus, but the Jesus of honest mainstream scholarship. I am most interested in finding out if I have left any good arguments out. So please add more in comments, if any you think remain that aren’t ridiculous and can be taken seriously by mainstream experts. Likewise if you think the logic of any argument I do present can be better formulated."

 

[joelr]

You have no clue what the scope of Christian scholarship is - no idea.

I am familiar with Christian theology from Martyr and Tertullian blaming the reason Jesus looks so much like a Greek demigod on Satan to standards like Aquinas and Agustine who re-work Platonic philosophy and make it about Yahweh to modern apologists from the banal Ray Comfort, WLC who abuses cosmological arguments and guys like Licona who are reasonable and full of fallacies in reasoning and many in between. Or Lewis with his "either madman or messiah" logic. Sorry C.S., Jesus is a myth, you forgot that option.

It isn't going to become more true by reading more theology. I got the basics. Do you think if you read every Islamic theologian with a PhD you would find the Quran the true word of God?
The answer is no.

I'm pretty sure you are completely unfamiliar with historical Biblical scholarship. Thompson, Carrier, Ehrman, Lataster, Goodacre, Purvoe, Pagels, Crossan, Price, Fransesca Stavrakopoulou....

Do you honestly want them to agree with your ideas? It doesn't work like that.
I think do some homework first.

I have no idea what you are talking about? If they come to the forum I'll present whatever evidence I have. I don't care about any one person. If someone wants to believe Lord of the Rings is historical I'll tell them it's written as fiction. If they don't buy it then fine? The information is out there. I'm interested in demonstrating critical thinking over magical thinking.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... I'm interested in demonstrating critical thinking over magical thinking.

Me too, but I also do the limits of critical thinking in regards to the world as such.

 

[joelr]

My presupposition is also that God exists and that Scripture is reliable. Theology is the study of God and the Scriptures which is a given. The aim is not to prove it is true. That is part of the presupposition. Whether you like it or not, that is the way it is.

Perfect. You just proved what I said to be completely true! I couldn't have said it better. And that is the exact reason why it isn't reliable. Guess what, there are also hundreds of PhD theologians in ISLAM who also take the presupposition that Allah exists and that the Quran is reliable and the word of Allah!

There are also hundreds of Hindu theologians with PhDs who find their scripture to be the word of Krishna (B. Gita is Krishna) and 100% reliable.

Except there is NO GOOD EVIDENCE of the angel Gabrielle dictating to Muhammad the words of the Quran. Same with Krishna and the gospels are exactly as unreliable. Anonymous, names added in 2nd century, all sourced from Mark (this is from Christian scholarship not historians) - The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org
Written using OT narratives re-worked as well as Paul's letters and other fiction, using all fictive literary devices (ring structure, chiasmus, cyclic inversions, and much more on that) and no evidence that a deity ever spoke to a person. Not any more than the same claims in Islam, Mormonism, Cargo Cults and the guy in Austrialia claiming to be Jesus right now.
And the theology is Hellenism and Persian mixed with Jewish original sin.

So the presupposition that Yahweh, Allah, Jesus, or Krishna exists is not warranted and extremely unlikely.

Oh and Justin Martyr already admitted Jesus is just like all the Greek demigods in dialogue 69.

You say many things that are plainly false.

Well my rant on theologians turned out to be pretty exact.

Now please, demonstrate where I am wrong so I can stand corrected and learn something.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Now please, demonstrate where I am wrong so I can stand corrected and learn something.

Well, I don't believe that I can demonstrate with evidence that you are either right or wrong as you apparently use it. But that is not really about you, I and everybody else and what is going on in the thread in regards to what evidence is and is not.

 

[Valjean]

My presupposition is also that God exists and that Scripture is reliable. Theology is the study of God and the Scriptures which is a given. The aim is not to prove it is true. That is part of the presupposition. Whether you like it or not, that is the way it is.

So you're drawing conclusions from unfounded premises?

 

[metis]

Aquinas was a Catholic philosopher. I once read some of his work and found it hard to understand.

He was a Catholic theologian.

 

[gnostic]

My presupposition is also that God exists and that Scripture is reliable. Theology is the study of God and the Scriptures which is a given. The aim is not to prove it is true. That is part of the presupposition. Whether you like it or not, that is the way it is.

You say many things that are plainly false.

How do you define what is “reliable”?

 

[joelr]

Well, I don't believe that I can demonstrate with evidence that you are either right or wrong as you apparently use it. But that is not really about you, I and everybody else and what is going on in the thread in regards to what evidence is and is not.

Cool but that wasn't directed to you. It was in regards to a specific statement that much of what I said was wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Cool but that wasn't directed to you. It was in regards to a specific statement that much of what I said was wrong.

Yes, you said it was wrong. But that is not the same as it is a fact, that it is wrong.

 

[Five Solas]

Thomas Thompson was one of the first archaeologists in the 70's to demonstrate that Moses and the Patriarchs were literary creations. He had to go to Canada to get a job using his PhD. Now his work is considered standard in the field. The vast majority of biblical historians believe the Bible is the same as all other holy books, mythology. That field is growing as is the popularity of the authors like Carrier, Ehrman, Pagels, and so on.

I find it amusing that so many critics of Christianity think that Christians are dimwits.

The fact is, nothing had been falsified. That implies your whole tirade falls flat.


“You say: As far as scholarship historians have been demonstrating the Bible is religious fiction and their work is growing.”


You do not understand the nature of academic scholarship. It would have been honest to say something like, “Some scholars regard Bible is religious fiction.”

It is simply wrong to say they ‘demonstrated’ something as if they have conclusively proven something. They argued, they proved nothing.


You claim, “Thomas Thompson was one of the first archaeologists in the 70's to demonstrate that Moses and the Patriarchs were literary creations.”

Check your facts. What you say is factually wrong.

Thomas Thompson is a professor of theology, not an archaeologist. To claim that he demonstrated that Moses and the Patriarchs were literary creations is a lie.

Yes, he was critical of the historicity of the Bible as were all the others that belonged to the Copenhagen School. They were all minimalists who thought they had the right to rewrite or reinterpret Scripture.

You conveniently failed to mention that Thompson's arguments were criticized by many scholars.

If you did your homework, you would have noticed that he described King David and Jesus of Nazareth as mythical figures based on Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, and Roman literature. He did that whilst part of the so-called ‘Jesus Project’ which consisted of highly critical scholars but that fizzled away very quickly. Even Bart Ehrman criticized him on that one.

After that fiasco, the British New Testament scholar Maurice Casey dismissed Thompson as "an incompetent scholar". (P.R.F. Moorey, "A Century of Biblical Archaeology", p.114.)

William Dever (University of Arizona) expressed harsh criticism of Thompson's views describing Thompson's theorems as dangerous because it tends to eliminate altogether any study of ancient Israel prior to the Persian period.

Profs. Kenneth Kitchen (Liverpool), Iain Provan, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman III (Regent College), argued that the distrust set by the minimalists was unreasonable and that the Scriptures should be regarded as reliable unless directly falsified. Nothing had been falsified. That is also my position.

Avi Hurvitz (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) compared biblical Hebrew with the Hebrew from ancient inscriptions and found it consistent with the period before the Persian period, thus questioning the key minimalist contention.

Mario Liverani (Sapienza University of Rome) has also been critical of Thompson's views. He believes that the minimalists have not truly understood that context nor recognized the importance of the ancient sources used by the authors.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I find it amusing that so many critics of Christianity think that Christians are dimwits.

...

They are not and so are nobody else. But not all people get that and that can include some Christians about other people. So it is never just about you. Nor me.

 

[Five Solas]

He was a Catholic theologian.

Whatever....

Thomas Aquinas was a Scholastic philosopher. He produced a synthesis of Christian theology and Aristotelian philosophy that influenced Roman Catholic doctrine for centuries. It was adopted as the official philosophy of the church in 1917.