How does one define a miracle? Is it simply something extraordinary? Does it have to break the laws of nature? Someone once told me I had a problem in believing in miracless. Do you have a problem in believing in miracles? Have you ever witnessed an actual miracle?
“Hannibal ante portas!” When the Punic warlord Hannibal son of Hamilkar Barka had made his extraordinary march with elephants and all to Italy from Hispania across the Pyrenees and the Alps many miracles were witnessed in Rome and in Roman held cities of Italy. Clearly they were signs from gods for the Romans to be wary of this new adversary. Among these miracles were such things as a child of only six months of age shrieking: “Triumph!” Other miracles mentioned were an oxen climbing to a three storey high building just to jump from the roof to the ground, and a burning ship in the sky, a lightning strike on the temple of Hope. In the city of Lavunium the holy spear had moved by itself and a raven had flown into the temple of Juno to sit down on the bed of the goddes. Near Amiternum people reported to have seen ghosts in the human shape that wore white clothes. In Picenum a hail of stones had fallen and in Caere the staffs with oracle quotations inscribed into them had shrinked. In Gaul a wolf had taken a sword straight out of a scabbard of a soldier and ran away after that. Clearly all these are portents of a disaster. Are they not? They were passed by to us by Polybius, a historian whose accounts of the second Punic war (among other events of the time) is the major source on what happened, since he lived through it and was a close personal friend of Scipio Africanus who defeated Carthago.
Do you my reader have difficulties to believe, that all these things told to Polybius really happened? It is not know why any of the people who claimed to have witnessed had to gain from telling these stories and their faith in their own stories was never tested in any way we know of. Exept, that many of these could have been witnessed by other people who would have had the opportunity to deny having been there and not having witnessed anything of the sorts. Some of these miracless are of religious type, so it is quite possible that some people had invested their faith in them. Events that happened in temples were most propably witnessed by priests of some sort, and their word was of course undisputable. Others were events that happened in public places so the amount of witnesses and possible counter claims would have been great indeed. No counter claims however appear in the text by Polybius.
Let us take them one by one. The very young child sreaming a singular word that does not refer to anything, exept if one is very keen on finding a connection to the on going attack by Hannibals forces. It took for several years before any triuphs could be arranged in Rome, for Hannibal if anyone was a victorious general. It is an extraordinary event, but not an impossible one. Wether there is any divine guidance behind such an event is a matter of opinions and taste. And of course it depends on ones own faith on Juppiter and other Roman gods, how one is inclined to interprete the event.
Now, the oxen committing suicide alledgedly happened near the cattle market so it must have had a multitude of witnesses. It is a very unlikely event. We may assume that it is possible that an oxen got scared of something and escaped to the insula only to run of from its roof, but because the event is such a strange one, a person with deep faith in the gods could easily come to the conclusion, that it was a sign of something. And as we know something very special was going on in the world at the moment.
The burning ship in the sky is my personal favourite among these. Was it a UFO? Well, the burning object was identified as a ship. This gives it a tubular form as most ships of that era were such, but wether or not it had any rigging is not mentioned by Polybius. Something wisible in the sky certainly had to be witnessed by several people, was it their common opinion that the burning object resembled a ship, we do not know.
The lightning hitting the temple of Hope is a nasty portent of course, but as we today know lightning is an athmospheric phenomenon caused by electricity and does not require any gods or spirits to make it. This is actually a major point about miracless. There are a lot of natural phenomenons that could not be explained by any other reason, than as an act of gods by the ancient people, who had no way of knowing what were these terrible powers that presented themselves in the nature. It is quite natural that they were percieved from human perspective and given reason according to humane logic. To me all gods are simply humanizations of nature. It is humane not to percieve them as random, but as meaningfull by our own standards. Such random force is much more frightening, than to think it acts on behalf of some reasonable diety, that is willing to save me from it, if I pay homage to this entity. In that sence all gods are andropomorphic.
There could be several naturalistic explanations as to how the holy spear moved by itself and why did the raven fly into the temple of Juno, but for centuries and even in our own day there are many people to whom such things bear special meaning. Typical for such interpretations of random events is, that people are often ridiculously sure of their meaning, even though it is quite hard to find the connection between the raven, the bed of Juno and Hannibal. It is also typical that when such stories first appear they soon develope forms that make the connection more obvious. As rumours do. And as rumours allways have been, people who spread them assure their audience that they heard them from a very reliable source.
The human shaped ghosts in white clothes is a typical story that seems to repeat itself throughout history and it appears in many cultures. Does this reveal that there are in fact ectoplasmic manifestations of human spirits whose host bodies have perished? No, it tells us that people get easily frieghtened of other people, if they have cultural indoctrination to believe human spirits could walk without their bodies. That is all, but of course the person who told this story and who claimed to have witnessed to have seen these “ghosts” could well believe they were indeed ghosts. It is hard to imagine that such a claim would have brought any materialistic profit to the eyewitness. If this was a case of the faith, or identity of this person, it is even possible he/she could have propably even given his/her life for the matter, given that said person was fanatical enough. It is entirely dependant on the state of mind of the crowd that first learned this story wether the eyewitness was regarded as a bit bonkers, or as someone with special relationship to the supernatural.
The hail of stones is interresting in connection to the burning ship. Could it be that there was a meteor shower, that was seen as a burning ship in the sky in one place and felt as minor meteors in a nother? Is it likelier that neither of these were seen and it was the shock and exitement of the army of Hannibal suddenly appearing in Italy that caused a social stress wich in turn gave birth to these extraordinary rumours? Or was it actually the attempt of divine forces to warn Roman people of the perils of a coming war? As allways gods have great difficulties in keeping connection to mankind. Wether it is by miracles, or by oracles, or by ancient scriptures, gods regardless, if they are the misstresses of mustard, or even the creators of entire universe, allways fail to communicate with humans so that their meaning would be clear to most people. I wonder why? One would expect that creatures with divine powers could manage a little better.
What was the srinking of the holy staffs with oracle quotations supposed to mean? What was the message? How much did they loose from their original size? Who the hell measured them, before and after? No, matter how silly that srinking might sound like, Polybius who was a man of sound reasoning took this and other portents conveyed to him at their face value. He found no reason to doubt these stories. He put his personal dignity and authority to act for these fancifull stories by telling them as true. Imagine, what would have happened, if he was later in his life ridiculed by someone claiming all those stories to be simply rumours and even by proving them to be such. Would Polybius have lost face? Would he as good Roman have done suicide as a result of losing face? Would his death have proven these stories to be true?
Then there is the wolf running of with the sword. Once again the laws of nature have not been broken so the story is so much more plausible. The event itself is certainly extraordinary, even to the extent that though something such as described could have happened, it seem more likelier that the entire story was fabricated to explain a lost sword. However there are a lot of people in the world even today who would choose to believe in the version of ancient events that were far more fancifull than this. Why is it? Why would we find it more plausible that a man in the Roman province of Iudaea could turn water into wine or that he died and resurrected a crucifixion? Is there some significant testimony for these miraculous events that make them more believable in comparrison to say the wolf running of with a sword in Gaul?
Roman historian Tacitus mentions that “Christus” the originator of the christian cult religion was executed few decades before his time. Should we take this at the face value? He also mentions that christians were not persecuted in Rome only because emperor Nero blamed them for the burning of Rome, but because they were known to have all manner of hideous and shamefull rituals and habits. Should we take that as well on face value?
A nother historian who actually lived during the days of Jesus and in Jerusalem a jew called Josephus who was a friend of the local Roman dignitary also mentions Jesus, though much of the description of him has been argued having been added later by christian copyists. If we assume, that all Josephus tells us of Jesus is how he as a contemporary knew Jesus, we might come to the conclusion that here we have an outsider confirming the miracless alledgedly performed by Jesus and his death on the cross. (Bear in mind however, the source has been contested from as early as the 17th century.) Josephus also described how a man could survive the crucifixion. He tells of few men he recognized to have been crucified and asked for his influental Roman friend to give mercy on these men. They were taken down, but alas only one survived. We do not know how long these men had been up there, but long enough for a couple of them to die. On the cross death is actually caused by slow drowning, when one has hands in such an upright position, it may take days and days, but eventually the lungs of a crucified person fill in with fluids and cause death. Before that they are naked for all to see and soil themselves several times. We need to remember that the whole point of crucifixion is to make the death horryfying, undignified, extremely painfull and especially to last long.
The main source for the miracless performed by Jesus of Nasarea are the Gospels. There has been much debate as to when and by whom these were written and historians have not reached any consensus on this matter, but let us assume they were actually later written by those apostoles to whom they were attributed to. It is possible that these shepherds and fishermen learned how to write in their later days. The Gospels do not agree on everything, wich is quite strange, as they are supposed to be inspired by the creator of the universe. For example only one of them mentions that Jesus was not the only person ever to have resurrected. Matteus claims that when Jesus died on the cross, graves opened up in Jerusalem and the dead were raising. Since Josephus, our historian in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus does not mention in any of the version of his histories such an event, and since other Gospels remain omniously silent about such an event, we may assume that it was some feeble attempt by Matteus to emphasize the meaning of Jesus and had nothing to do with reality. Or could there be a nother explanation?
One thing that the Gospels do agree upon, is that Jesus was taken down during the same day as he was crucified. Also there is a note among the history by Josephus (though disputed, because his accounts have only survived through chritian copyists work), that such a man was crucified, and that his followers claimed him to have been alive only three days after the crucifixion. Now, if we assume Josephus is a valid source on this matter, we easily come to the conclusion, that Jesus did not necessarily die on the cross. The Gospels maintain that he did and that he resurrected afterwards. The Gospels are also the only source we have that claim Jesus lived after his execution, and that he was recognized by his followers, altough not without some trouble as with Thomas, who only believed it was actually Jesus after putting his finger to the wounds made by the crucifixion. It is easy to understand that the resurrection was the natural explanation to what had happened by the people of the antiquity. They had no knowledge of how much a coma patient might resemble a ”stiff”. It is just as understandable as the fact how the Romans less than hundred years before believed the lightning hitting the temple of Hope was a sign from god. However, as mentioned by Josephus a crucified person could survive, if he was taken down early enough and certainly Jesus was taken down early in comparrison to few weeks that was the standard for victims of crucifixion. He was stabbed to the side by a spear just prior taking down and he was still bleeding, but as we know today the dead do not bleed.
So, did Jesus die on the cross and resurrect, or did he simply faint? Was it actually Jesus that appeared as him after the execution? If it was, why did one of his followers who had known him for quite a while and was supposed to know his miraculous powers, not immediately recognize him? Even if we assume all these contested sources are actual accounts written during those days by the people who had their little parts in the story, the question remains, what is the most likeliest explanation to these events? Did the wolf run of with a sword, or was the story a fabrication? It is far more likelier that a wolf might come take the sword from a scabbard to run of with it, than that a particular man was the only son of the creator of the entire universe and resurrected after being executed, yet people choose to believe the one and not the other. And they have every right to do so, as they have every right to believe in prophesies by tarot cards, or coffee stains. There are still today also people who maintain faith in thunder gods, though science has explained the natural cause and random nature of lightning. There are also very many of those who maintain faith in the originator god of the universe, just because they think that from nothing comes nothing. How a perfect entity such as the alledged creator god came to be, if the random universe could not produce itself, is a question beyond me.
I suppose it really requires faith to believe in the most fancifull stories, even when quite natural explanations are available to the miraculous events that are the base of a religion.
January 21, 2012 at 1:58 pm
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/WhyNoMiracles.HTM
January 24, 2012 at 3:06 pm
So that was the required background reading when looking at the miracles. It tells us at least following:
1. Most claims of miracles are hoaxes
2. Writing off all claims of miracles because of above mentioned fact is intellectually lazy.
3. Even if we DID find a miracle it is impossible prove one beyond any doubt. No amount of testimony could suffice as a proof.
4. Both of us have no right to discuss miracles because we both have a bias.
And by the way. Is it not strange that everybody is yelling bloody murder when we discuss the possibility of resurrection of Jesus but nobody even raises an eyebrow when Dawkins says that the world could have ben created by an advanced alien civilization? Interesting I say.
BTW. I found an interesting article about irrationality and believers from american perspective. You can find it here.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html
And then there is a problem in your site. I can’t comment on your creationism post. How come?
January 25, 2012 at 8:58 am
a test
January 25, 2012 at 9:39 am
I am sorry you have had trouble answering my post about creationism. I assure you there are no special protocols about that posting and you should be able to do so. I have no idea what went wrong with your reply. I urge you to try again, for I am most interrested to hear what you have to say about it.
Anyway I read the link you provided and did enjoy reading it. It was well written article on the subject. I will reply to that text separately to the comment where you linked it.
1. I agree with you that most claims of miracles are propably hoaxes, but one has to remember that the claimants may still hold firm belief in their claims. Sometimes even so firm they are ready to fight, or even die for their ideals based on these hoaxes.
2. Writing of all miracles is not so much intellectually lazy, but more like a declaration of propabilities. During an election, let us say during precidential election, the votes are finally all counted for, but in most cases the winner can be declared long before all votes have been counted for. Regardless of the narrow possibility for some miracles to actually be true, the abundance in human behaviour to come up with this sort of fable tells us, that there is a very low propability that a miracle is actually true.
It may not be an intentional hoax, but a result of cultural heritage how a certain perfectly natural phenomenon is interpreted. Like in the case of how lightning, meteors, or an acclaimed resurrection is interpreted.
This is of course also a sematic question. For as I asked in the beginning of my post, what do we take as a miracle? We could also ask, how do we know the miracles we might bear witnes to (I have never witnessed any), are manifestations of the particular supernatural phenomenons our cultural heritage would choose to classify them as. The exactly same extraordinary event would be interpreted totally differently among animists, hindus, shintoans, catholics, or theosofists, not to mention atheists.
4. Of course we have the right to discus about anything, regardles of our bias. Everyone has bias. It is more about how we conduct our discussion, than what we talk about. Have you ever noticed that there are different levels of bias?
My bias is that it is possible there are supernatural events, but in the light of history and scientific research quite unlikely. What is yours?
I have never read any of Mr. Dawkins, but for that matter there is a greater possibility that an alien civilization could have created the Earth than that Jesus resurrected. This is because the suggestion by Mr. Dawkins, would not require any natural laws to be broken. Besides, the alien civilization theory is just as valid as the claim about a supreme creator entity, since neither can be proven to be true or false. So, anyone has the right to believe such a claim or disbelieve it. If they start to present claims that such a civilization still influences our lives, or that there is evidence to back up such a claim, then the responsibility of proving their faith lays on their heads. Not on those who are skeptic about it, to disprove it. However, I have read my Däniken books and view it to be one of the most remote possibilities ever imagined that an alien culture would have been responsible for our origins.
In the far far future it is quite possible there will be a religious sect that will do anything to prove an alien civilzation created the earth, and no matter how many people join it, how many miracles they claim to have witnessed to back up their faith, it is no more true than it ever was. There are people who believe in such even today, though I doubt Mr. Dawkins is among them.
I will read the link you provided about irrationalism later and comment that separately, when I have the time.
January 25, 2012 at 12:26 pm
My bias is not far from yours. However I do maintain that miracles do happen despite the evidence against it (and plentiful hoaxes). I don’t have any personal experience of miracles happening to me personally but many friends that do have had such experiences. Those people I can probably hook you up with if you are interested
So in the light of these I maintain my faith to be true. But like the article said. Proving miracles beyond any and all doubt is just impossible.
Now even if we did find natural explanations to these miracles (like we often do) I still rule them as miracles. For example. Somebody prays for healing of cancer and it is healed. Then we find out somehow the natural mechanism of how it was cured. Still a miracle due the fact that it happened on because of answer to that prayer? I’d say so. I see it as God using natural laws to do His will. Often miracles in the Bible can be explained in this fashion and true braking of natural laws is rare. To me it seems logical that God who created natural laws respects them.
About cultural interpretations of miracles. We do have many christian missionaries that have worked in most of the cultures in this planet. And they see “power encounters” frequently. In many cultures christians are known for their prayers working. Gospel works in many cultural settings (and nowadays hopefully not destroying any of them). The interpretation is pretty much uniform in all of the cultures. Miracle is a miracle.
Now of course healthy dose of skepticism helps a lot in this crazy world. There are many false prophets out there (and Jesus said there would be). So maintain that but don’t throw baby out with bath water. I just might be true.
January 25, 2012 at 1:13 pm
I leave it up to you, if you think hooking me up with your friends who claim to have experienced miracles, would be fruitfull in any way, then please do.
When defining what is a miracle, we come to the actual point of my post. So, would you say the lightning strike on the temple of Hope was a miracle? It was a natural phenomenon, but the pantheon of Roman gods could have used natural laws to their will, right?
What about all those people who prayed for a miracle, but were not delivered one? What about those “miraculous” events of healing, when nobody prayed for anything? Why would a benevolent god only answer in some prayers and why is it that such healing is random?
Well, all the missionaries running around the world and constant globalization, not to mention the alarming growth of populations, I guess all we can realistically hope for, is that an anthropologist gets there first, or at least before it is too late for the minor cultures and religions to be recorded. As was the case here in Finland when our national epic Kalevala was collected, just before all those poems were forgotten. The religion had died before that, but we have no way of knowing, or determining wether it was the actual truth about the world and the supernatural, if we assume supernatural explanations to valid anyway.
Well, baby Jesus was gone for me with the bath water even before I was born.
Anyway, we of course interprete what is the truth through our own perspective. I suppose the main difference between our perspectives -yours and mine – is that while yours allows some people to be saved and others to be sent to eternal punishment, mine does not allow any sort of salvage to anyone, but does not expect anyone to be punished for their temporal convictions, or actions for an eternity. Correct?
January 25, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Oh sorry. On number 3. Yes, we agree on that too. Though, one has to remember that also depends on what we define as a miracle. The most important part of this, is how we interprete an extraordinary event. Is it a miracle that supports a particular form of faith.
Even if we had indisputable evidence that Jesus did indeed resurrect (wich we do not), it still does not prove he was the son of a particular god. That is only his alledgedly self proclaimed title. We could assume that, if there was a one creator god that was indeed benevolent natured and interrested in humanity, that such a god would have interfered if an imposter claiming to be such a son had appeared, but that does require a lot of assumptions. Does it not? However, we may also remember here, that in the Bible this alledged creator god does not by far allways present a benevolent nature. That in turn makes all the motives of said god questionable. We need not go so far. We may simply ask, if the resurrection of Jesus is proof enough that all the other mythical and miraculous events described in the Bible are true. Does this miracle prove what Jesus alledgedly said to be true? The most important question is that in light of what we know about Jesus, is it likely that all the supernatural and miraculous stories and promises he made are true? After all, we do not know for sure what happened to Jesus, what he actually said, nor if there are any gods at all. To me it seems quite far fetched to assume on those lines.
What if Jesus was actually an alien disguised as a human being, or an android robot in human form run by aliens to lead people according to the unknown motives of the alien culture? This alien robot Jesus then closed down all the life symptoms on the cross and then later re-activated them to present what was surely a miracle to the people of antiquity. And all the “miracles” that are not hoaxes by humans are actually caused by UFOs to fullfill their unknown goals. I am sorry, but even this ridiculous scenario is more likelier to be true than, that Jesus was actually the only son of the creator of all the universe. Why? Because the imagined supreme alien culture has no need to brake the laws of nature to perform this scherade. Otherwise these two explanations stand on the same line in that we are unable to prove one, or another is either false or true. One scenario has much more adherents than the other, but truth is not measured by counting noses, is it? On the other hand, in one scenario we assume to understand much more about the motives of the alledged supreme creator of the entire universe, than in comparrison the other one we assume to understand the motives of a nother culture. If there was a creator of the universe who had a deep interrest in us as species and it was moral according to some of our interpretations on that subject joined with this creator, we would be entiteled to expect it manifest itself to all of us in a way that would save us all, or at very least most of us from the threatening eternal pain. In the other scenario, we have no preassumptions on the benevolence of the alien culture and the meaning of their interrest in us as species. Finally the alien scenario does not even rule out the supreme creator as the ultimate reason for the universe to exist, it just does not make any assumptions about it. This is a bit long, but do you follow?
Now, I read the article about the irrationalism. It was certainly an American perspective. I must confess, that of all the characters mentioned in the story I only know about Conan O’Brien who got some media attention here in Finland after it was discovered that Conan somehow resembled our president Tarja Halonen (well, they both have red hair at least).
If we assume the percentages for belief in paranormal in the article are true, then we have to separate paranormal from religious belief. However, the resurrection of Jesus is a “paranormal” phenomenon, so the evangelical religious people hold firm belief in the paranormal. From this we may conclude that people are not likely to completely abandon their paranormal beliefs, rather they are inclined to change what paranormal phenomenon they find more plausible than the other.
Those same numbers also suggest that an alarming amount of self proclaimed American atheists did not know the meaning of the word. However, I have suspected as much. From the number of religious Americans I have had the opportunity to run into in the internet, surpricingly many claim that before they were atheists, but later found god. Often a deeper inquiry reveals that they actually have never been atheists, but that before they found a god they had not given much thought about such things, and only interpreted themselves as atheists for the lack of conviction. Still, it seems to me, that these people are usually among the most ignorant sort of people anyway and only a very small minority among any people who would name themselves as atheists.
Any ideology can be used to lead people astray. Religions are historically among the most typical ones in this respect, because as ideologies they preceed most others. The other thing about religions is that they often distort the morals of their adherents. When morals is based on a supreme authority of a god, it seems any horrid things are liable to be accepted as moral. There are so many religions that basicly give good advice to people, but that have been and are used by demagogues to spread hate. One of the biggest problem of religions is that they often have trouble to stomach the other religions, or different versions of their own. However, there have been among most religions I know of, also people who have taught how to coexist with other people, regardless of their faith. I think that is what most people ultimately whish for.
Atheism is not an ideology or religion. It is just a statement of being outside the religious ideologies. There are no ethics included as an assumption to atheism. This does not lead to the assumption that atheists were people without ethics. On the contrary, we may hope that the search for thruth – what atheism actually is – is also the way to find out about better ethics. There is no benevolent super being out there to guide atheists on this path, so it has to be achieved by human effort and it is humane to make mistakes.
It is silly to claim that by abandoning one superstition we would become more supceptible to superstition. Yes, we may become more supceptible to other superstitions, but at the same time less and less supceptible to any at all.
January 25, 2012 at 12:30 pm
And of course that last sentence is “IT might be true”
January 25, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Claims of Jesus are backed up by claims of miracles. By these same miracles happening currently this religion must stand or fail. Bible is a book of lies if there are no miracles.
I see miracles happenig. Testing this scientifically is another issue entirely. But free testing is available. God. If you are there, answer my prayer (insert prayer) Don’t freak out if you get an answer
And remember we are not talking about santa here. Respect is the key.
N.T.Wright said that most of current (and past) christianity needs to study more of the sermon on the mount. If more did, less bad things would be done in His name. But by their fruit shall the tree be known. If one produces bad fruit.. Sorry no heaven for you dude.
I been thinking about old testament massacres a bit lately. Now what if God respects cultures more than we think. Cultures those days were, shall we say less refined than today. Value of human life was different than today. If somebody was killed as an offering to God that was not a murder but sacrifice. Many wives where not a big issue. But still God chose to use these cultures to reveal his eternal character and will. Old testament does not make moral judgements as much as new testament. It just flatly states that this person did so and so and evaluation is left to reader.
And a word to us western softies with our liberal values. We tend to think God in sundayschool terms. Nice bearded fella smiling on a cloud. Actually He is much more complicated and passes fierce judgement on nations. We are under wrath of God due our adamic nature. Only trough Jesus are we taken off that list. It is trough amazing mercy that we are saved. Narrow is the path to Heaven and only few take it.
January 25, 2012 at 1:35 pm
And yes I would say that how you choose will determine your eternal destiny.
January 25, 2012 at 1:43 pm
I would say that Bible is not all lies even without the miracles. You see, it is the history and myth of the Jewish people also and a mystery of an ancient anti-violence act against a conquering empire. It is very old and as such holds special value in the cultural history of the people of Levant. Further more as it has been a holy book of the western civilization for such a long time, it also has that special value. The Pantheon has a great value even if all the gods do not live in there.
Well, I have done that test you suggest, but the results were not much more than expected, while a bit disappointing in comparrison to what was hoped for. Respectfully, you see things you interprete as miracles happening about you. Why is it that you would choose to see those phenomenons as miracles and further more as miracles by the specific entity you worship is a question of cultural indoctrination, from my perspective.
Yes, the sermon on the mount is a good example. I also hope that religions would all do much more in the lines of what is good. That good I hope would not be determined by what gods in the scriptures or other means of communication by gods necessitate, but by choosing from those scriptures what is generally ethical. Compassion is a key too. Most religions have it and so do some other ideologies.
Are you refering to cultural relativism? That the morals god offers us as humans would have evolved similarly as cultural morals evolves?
We are in no way responsible for our “adamic nature”. Therefore to judge us by it is unethical. We are responsible for our actions and only by those can we be judged, but how we determine what is right or wrong should not be done following an example from a god that destroys entire nations to last man, woman and child. It should be determined by ethical process that is based on emphaty. Now, in that respect I am a big fan of Jesus, that to me it seems to have been his main point also. I just do not require of him to be the son of a god to accept the thought. In this respect I am a fan of Buddha, though i suspect what ever he reached was not nirvana as such. I also admire many men of later times who have found inspiration from religions to do the ethical choises, such as Martin Luther King, Ghamal Kaffar Khan and Mahatma Gandhi. That inspiration does by no means require me to choose to follow any of the religious sects these men represented, or to find theim even plausible. Only I can determine what is good ethics from my perspective.
January 25, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Bible is a great book on it self but answers from God determine wether christianity is valid as a religion. Sometimes God answers in unexpected ways. Don’t expect fire from the heaven.
Cultural relativism as in God respects cultures but determines ultimate morals. He is the ultimate judge. It is typical for a western educated to think that we are the center of the world. Who is God to judge us? That is not the message of the bible. He decides. We humans where born fallen and are in desperate need for a redeemer. One only needs to have a look around to notice that.
As what comes to those miracles that Polypius mentioned. God is and has been active in the human history. Why not a few miracles to guide the events? Or people saw visions. Same result. Romans where warned of war. Or he made them up. We just don’t have that data. In christianity this is nown as God’s general guidance. The whole nature speaks of His glory.
January 25, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Looked up if God answers prayers of nonbelievers. Theological answer: probably not.
http://www.gotquestions.org/unbeliever-prayer.html
I stand corrected
January 25, 2012 at 9:21 pm
So, the Bible has to be true even, if all evidence and propability would suggest otherwise? Just because christians have invested so much of their identity in their blind faith? I suppose, that is exactly where such winds as the creationism blow from. Do you see, that works almost exatly the same for all the religions in the world. The mythical sources differ, but the idea is repeated and is allmost allways contrary to all the other religions.
How can we know, if this alledged god is the source of ultimate morals? Why do you suppose god gave men reason, if reason is not to be used when evaluating which, if any god is in any way plausible, or has any level of ethics? Especially since they all remain hiding from the masses of humanity. Of course we have the right to evaluate gods by their alledged actions and inaction, as that is the only way we can appreciate them. Otherwise it is a game of choosing a random god and hoping for the best. Or is that how you chose your faith, if I dare to ask? If a god performs evil deeds by my standards I am likely to deem such a god evil by nature, since a god with divine powers, should have options to such terrible deeds. If your cultural heritage was Punic to worship Moloch Baal, would you defend it by saying that as morals derives from Moloch, we as humans have no right to judge the fact that Moloch demanded children as sacrifices, because Moloch is the ultimate judge? Actually as sentient beings it is our responsibility to call out gods for the horrid things alledgedly done by them, otherwise their adherents may use them as excuses for such deeds in the future. But gods do not answer. Why? Simply because they are not out there. Or is there a nother reason for their silence?
The nature is silent about gods. Humans (who obviously are a part of nature) make a lot of noise about gods. The fact how many humans claim to know how, or who these gods are and what they want from us, makes said gods quite unplausible to me. Especially, as the gods do not interfere in the conversation while such humans seem not to be able to agree on anything about their alledged gods.
Thanks again for the links. I will look them up when I have the time.
January 26, 2012 at 11:44 am
No worries. Questioning claims of any religion is a wise course of action to take. It is a bit of a bummer that you need to take a leap of faith to see christian God as a true being. There is enough evidence in my opinion even without miracles to make it pausible however.
For one. Nature is not silent about God. How did the evolution happen so quick? (I’m not saying evolution is untrue) How did the universe fine-tuning get so precise? Where did our morals come from? Why is altruism possible? and so on. Science so far has not answered any of these. There are suggestions like many multiverses. Now even if they did, that still does not rule out possibility of a creator.
Bible is one unique book in it’s portrayal of humans and our approach to God. It is only book where worshiping good does not require any tricks and so on. Also there is definite possibility of bible being archeologically viable. We will see in the future.
Most people are cool with this list and jump to faith. Now one can always abandon this faith (no problem) if it does not work. Prayers being answered keeps me in this faith.
So feel free to use your reason, but don’t be indoctrinated by your history, education or friends.
As for old testament massacres (most FAQ about the bible) In those days people understood individuals differently. Value of one person was nothing and everyone was part of their clan. By that you lived and died. Now God was working in that culture. For example testing whose God was the greatest was done by war. Individuals where not much of a concern. If your clan was corrupt then you where toast.
I think this works somewhat still today. We are part of our family, clan and nation. If that is corrupt we might fall with them even we where innocent of the crimes. It is just unfathomable to a educated westerner. Especially someone from the nordic countries.
And finally we have commands of Jesus. If someone does things old testament way will surely get their “reward” in the afterlife. To those that have been given much is required much. Especially from those that teach.
January 26, 2012 at 1:34 pm
A good answer. I was a bit worried, you might take this too personally.
Actually, the different sciences have given answers to your questions.
Evolution was not very quick at all. This is testified by both geology and biology. There have been slower periods and faster strides, like the so called cambrian explosion. It is explained quite sufficiently enough.
I have no idea what you are referring to universe fine tuning, but it is a great an quite random universe we have. There is plenty of evidence about the nature of the universe. We now know little bit about the physical form of the universe, but we have absolutely no knowledge of any metaphysical form of the nature, but plenty of such guesses (read religions) from ages before humanity even had the tools to evaluate the physical universe.
Morals is the result of our biological and cultural evolution. When you describe the different morals of the Biblical times, you are “de facto” describing cultural evolution. I am not saying that having slaves was right in the antiquity just because the societes of those days deemed it to be so, but it was “moral” in the actual sense and meaning of the word. It was wrong then even, if the Judean god gave rules of conduct how slaves should be treated. It was wrong in the ethical sense. All mammals have a basic sense of ethics, and it derives from the capability for emphaty. Emphaty has been a very strong survival mechanic in the course of evolution. Please tell me, you are not one of those christians who denounce the theory of evolution because they think the “survival of the fittest” is some sort of fascistic individualistic phenomenon? Survival of the fittest does not only incorporate the survival of the fittest individual, but also the “fittest” society. It is our strong sense of emphaty that makes us humans such a success among animal life in the world. Humans are weak animals in comparisson to size of other animals, but it is not just the ability to use tools that has made us the conquerors of this planet, but also our ability to form communities. Emphaty forms base for ethical thinking. The ability to set oneself in the place of a nother person. Just like Jesus and Buddha told people to do. As is compelled in the Taoism and so many other religions and philosophies. That is the way to understand why slavery is just plain wrong, no matter what the cultural morals, or laws by men or gods would deem about it. It is also the way to understand how genoside is simply wrong regardles, if it was sanctioned by a mad dictator, or some sort of deity. We do know where morals come from, but do not be deluded by ancient scripture offering you tribal moralism as any form of ethical justice.
Altruism is a natural result of emphaty and evolutionary survival model we humans and our ancestors and close relatives the apes have been employing for millions of years. That is pretty much how science defines it. It is basicly just one manifestation of what I said abowe about the origins of morals. A behaviour model passed down by generations of success.
No, as I have said before the ultimate creator or even several of them is not something we can rule out as a possibility. It is merely a question how plausible or propable we find such a suggestion and why. As I said we can not rule out the possibility of a technologically advanced alien spieces controlling the world, but how plausible or propable that is? It is a big and blind leap from something being possible for it to actually being true. A further jump would be guessing the nature of such a “demiurgi”, but today we do understand why ancient people came up with these stories to explain the universe around them and they did give them humane forms to feel safe about such forces. That is why there are so many gods in the world. Some are worshipped today, some have been forgotten and some have not been invented yet.
Of course I am indoctrinated by my backround, just like you are by yours. It is our reason that alone can set us on our own paths. Understanding science is a way to look for the truth. There are scientific methods to find truths from old books also, such as theology. But theology is different from all the other sciences in one particular way. When modern science is defined by the integrity of results, theology has a preset truth that it only seeks to confirm. In that sense it is no science at all, but a historical rudiment. A bit like alchemy, not producing actual results. Faith is blindly believing what someone has told you. Unless you have a direct link to god, but usually if people start to hear voices in their head, they are in need of treatment, not conversing with a god.
Now, maybe there is a god that actually answers your prayers, but why yours and not others and how can you be sure it is your god that answers those prayers? Are those answers truly too much of a possibility to be mere coincidences? It is a pleasant thought that there is a god protecting people, but why only some people, and why only some prayers are answered? Did you know that prayers of Buddhist monks keep being answered all the time? Is your god answering the prayers of buddhists and taoists, or is it Buddha answering your prayers, or is it the ancestors of the Chinese who are actually answering all these prayers? The Mayans and azteks got better and better harvest by sacrificing more and more people to their gods, or that is what they believed. Who was it that answered their prayers? Who answered the prayers of the Baltic crusaders, when they won their victories over the Baltic tribes and thought god gave them the property of those conquered and killed people? Who answered the prayers of the ancient Hebrews when they won the Amorites, executed genoside over them and shared the loot between themselves and your god afterwards?
So, Zeus was the greatest god in the western world when Alexander the great defeated the Persian empire? The Biblical god was nest to nothing when the Romans took Judea? Ethics are not defined by who is stronger in war. Jesus undestood this, but Moses obviously did not. Jesus was the representative of an occupied nation that had no chance of fighting a war against the Roman empire (as was later proven, again), but Moses represented desparate people who came from arid desert to conquer and rob the lands of other peoples who lived in the fertile strip between the Dead sea and the Mediterranean. For some reason conquerors allways have worse morals than the oppressed do, no matter what instructions either claim to have from gods. But the escape from Egypt is not the only example in history by far, how the oppressed ones can easily turn into the conquerors, and how fast they forget any ethics, when they in turn start to oppress their own victims. That unfortunately also seems to be a very succesfull survival mechanic in the course of evolution. It seems emphaty can allways be dissolved by such childish methods as some mythical commands by gods. For example by story of a “holy” or “promised” land. We can bear witnes to such even today. Do you think the Israelis are going to hell after they die, and if, is it the result of them not accepting Jesus as the Messiah and denouncing their own cultural heritage, or as a result of their fascistic regime over the Palestinians?
Yes, we here in the Nordic countries have a very strong individualistic cultural heritage. It is not like our ancestors did not hold slaves, but history has a way of amplifying our cultural traits. When the Western-Europeans still held slaves we had almost none. Of course that is a sematic question also. Is someone a slave when they are just held for rent or does a nother person actually have to own them? However, in some countries human rights have been taken further than in others. Would you not agree, that is so here in the Nordic countries? In my opinion it is a result of a very long historical process. Also we have a high understanding of the social justice and social need for equality and humane approach in that as a society we have an obligation to take care of all of our members, and not just leave them on the mercy of altruistic hobbies of some individuals. By no means are we talking of the best possible system, but it has been a success for so far. Would you not say?
I suppose it is the Nordic heritage that actually is the cause of the fact that despite the Nordic countries are christian in name they are pagan in practice. Of that much we can agree, at least, can we?
January 26, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Fine tuned universe:
http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning
Why christianity?
http://biologos.org/questions/biologos-and-christianity
Evolution bits so far unexplained:
http://biologos.org/questions/the-origin-of-life
But of course we must avoid God of the gaps. If explanation comes along then we will see. I have no problems God using natural means to accomplish His ends.
Why my God is right God. It is actually a bit like looking at the evidence for evolution. Bits and peaces come from here and there. From that I form a complete picture. So far it fits quite nicely.
I think you are trying to impose current ethics to places in history where there was very different code of conduct. They did not have our sense of worth for human life. So reading those stories now and judging is a bit of a moot point. Maybe people from the future will look at us and wonder how on earth did we use cars that destroyed our planet and judge us unethical barbarians.
Jesus gave us very high morals to abide by that where out of this planet in their time. A lot of progress in human history has been due these morals. Our northern freedom has been developed a lot by christian values. Too bad that we now abandon them and turn to paganism.
Now don’t get me wrong. I like living here and making my own decisions but I also think that we have taken this liberty too far. Societal brakedown is evident allover. Maybe we are living in the last days of this Rome? Certainly in the history when a culture gets decadent enough it is taken over by more hostile culture. Time will tell.
January 27, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Interresting, previously you have posted me creationist links, but now with this “fine tuning” you obviously go for the big bang theory. Which is it for you? I really hope, that these latter ones reflect your world view better than the creationist ones.
Anyway, the “fine tuning” is of course a fine propaganda kind of topic to fine tune our brains to expect someone to do the tuning, but there is nothing that says this tuning was not done by nature in a perfectly random manner. As the writer of the link you provided states there could have, and most propably was a series of different kinds of universes before ours took form. We do not know how many did it take, or even if we are the first one to have life emerging. But now that it is possible in this universe, it is more than likely that it does not only appear on our lonely rock.
To find “intelligent design” from the fact that this universe is pefect for such life that exists in it, is a bit like finding someone elses clothes yours just because they fit you. First of all, it requires a bit more evidence than that. Second, we have no way of determining what kind of life could have existed in an universe with different structure. All we can conclude is that it is obvious there is life that fits this kind of universe on at least on this one little planet among billions and billions of worlds. Logic dictates that there are yet billions of other worlds in the vast universe, with different forms of life on them. Has the ultimate creator send “his son” to all those other worlds also?
And after all, it is far more unlikely that there actually existed a perfect entity, that fine tuned the universe than that it happened by itself, because that leaves out the question of where and how that perfect entity appeared in the first place. Who fine tuned the demiurgi?
I am sorry, but the Bible does not give a very consistant view of the origins of the world and life in it in comparrison to what we know. Just for an example it says first god created the earth and then the sun and the moon, which in light of modern science, does not make any sense at all. In fact almost any creation myth could be argued for by the same loose standards given in the second link you provided. However, the link is consistent whith the previous one, in such extent it does not suppose the creatinism disinformation. the assumption it provides for, is a perfect example of circular thinking: God created the universe good for us = the universe is good for us = god created the universe good for us. That does not prove, or even work as minimal evidence for anything else exept the preassumptions of the writer.
What the Bible actually best represents is not some divine creator of the entire universe telling us how it was all achieved, but one very typical presentation of folklore on how the inexplainable natural phenomeons could be percieved by the ancient men in the particular culture that produced the Bible.
The third link you provided refers to the fact that no life has been created in laboratory conditions, and that it offers as a would be explanation that it could be achieved by divine intervention. But the origins of life took milions of years in particular conditions to happen so it is quite unlikely that just by forming cimilar conditions the result would be life within a short experiment. The fact that they could produce amino acids speaks loudly on behalf of organic life being possible to appear by coincidence. However, if scientists some day will find the exacly correct condtions and manage to produce life from nothing, how will that affect your faith?
I think what is important to understand here, is that in earlier days when there were very little of scientific explanations to anything, people actually felt they needed gods to explain all the wonders of the universe around them. That proved them there had to be gods. The creationists have gotten stuck with this logic and are threfore trying to distort, or even deny the results of scientific research like the theory of evolution. But if gods are not needed to explain the nature around us and if the acclaimed explanations to how the world works in ancient holy scriptures are found wanting, what then proves there are any gods at all? Absolutely nothing. That does not mean people may not have faith in the unplausible, or unlikely explanations. Just as I wrote in my blog, people have every right to believe in any fancy stories. Just as long as they are not giving way to violence on the groudns, that their faith says it is OK to do violence on some other people.
I do not know how the future people will judge us, but ethically it is wrong to have a car even today. The people in the fifties could not by any means know this, so we can hardly blame them for having one, but now that we know what we know, it has become unethical to have one, especially so, if you live in a city and do not necessarily need one.
People in Biblical times knew it was wrong to own slaves, so they made up rules supposedly accepted by the extreme authority of their gods how slaves should be held, to silence their conscious up. They were no more stupid than we are today, so they must have been perfectly aware of the fact that the slaves would rather be free than their slaves. That the slaves would be happier as free people. With minimal use of emphaty they could achieve this notion. The last slave owners in the US said their slaves are better of, as slaves than as free men, but it was still wrong. Was it not? they also used the Bible as an excuse for their property of other people.It was in their cultural concept of morals that ownning slaves was not wrong, but was it not wrong until someone came up with the idea it was wrong? Equally god demanding the ancient Hebrews to utterly destroy the Amorites every man, woman and child was as wrong as it would be today. Whatever the cultural concept of the ancient Hebrews as to the value of an individual, they still propably experienced severe post war trauma for killing the amorite civillians. If we accept that god had every right to call upon the ancient Hebrews to destroy the nation of Amorites, then we might just as well claim that it was right for the nazies to kill all those Jews because the nazies really did not even percieve the Jews as humans. Do you see my point?
The ethics Jesus presented were revolutionary in his cultural sphere, but by no means unpresidented. Many a Greek and Roman philosopher had demanded similar logics. The logic of Buddha lies on the same path, and even in ancient Egypt we have the cult of Aton Ra that declares general humanism. Ancient Persians such as the Zaraosterian religion and the philosophies of Zarathustra were aligned this way. Even as far as China we have Taoism as presented by Laozi to hold many of the same concepts based on emphaty. And many other cults, religions and philosophies in the ancient world. We have no way of knowing how much these earlier thoughts had influenced the thinking of Jesus, or did he come to those conclusions on his own. Certainly he was in the right place in the right time to have been influenced by any of them. And definately his followers made an effort to link all things connected to Jesus to resemble their own cultural backrounds. We must remember that christianity was only formed after Jesus, not by him.
Yes, christianity has been a great influence in the cultural evolution of the western civilization. However, since the age of enlightenment, we have had other major influences such as science and the secular state, that have evolved our cultural notion about human rights and even the universe around us greatly beyond the dogmatic rigours of faith.
Societal brakedown that destroyed the Roman empire was pretty much due to christianity, that had been adopted as main religion in the empire just prior to the fall. Wich societal brakedown you are referring to now? The industrialization? The globalization, or what? No gods have anyhing to do with these.
January 28, 2012 at 10:08 am
Now from time to time I make cheks of how science has evolved. Since our last discussion I found out that genetics have evolved so that we can look back in history trough them. That makes ultra creationist view highly unlikely. No big deal. Got 44 minutes?:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/6_adam/index.html
Less free time than that? go here:
http://honestsynopsis.blogspot.com/2008/02/genesis-literal-history-or-metaphor.html
Universe fine tuning is far from settled from scientific viewpoint. But that is it settled or not is not the point. We might just as well solve the way in wich life was concieved. That is God of the gaps thinking if anything. Point is that universe with such finely tuned laws is extremely unlikely occurrence. This leaves plenty of room for creator God.
Now most of the discussion is way beyond my pitiful mathematical skills, but what I understand is that life on earth is a very rare occurrence indeed. Significantly more complex than finding clothes that fit:
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=70180
And don’t try to speak like the matter is settled. Far from it. Get to know the discussion. Googling helps. Your own logic is just as questionable here.
And the the ages old question of who created God? Now that one is in my opinion in the category of severely unanswerables. Still that does not stop people from trying:
http://biologos.org/questions/what-created-god
Now you speak with a voice of authority here so I need to see some research papers to back up your points. What I’m especially interested is studies on ancient hebrew morals and especially post war trauma of the said cultures. Another interesting paper would be origin of life that proves that universe was born without God. Also interesting would be the influence of christianity to fall of rome and proof that Jesus was influenced by earlier religious leaders. Your word is not enough, no matter how sure you are in the rightness of your cause.
Now I saved the best for the last. A field experiment. There is old testament law eye for an eye (Ex. 21:23, 24). This is actually a very advanced concept. Harm should be limited to the amount of damage done. Now go to the nearest bar and look for a tough looking dude. Punch him one time on the mouth and see if he is content for hitting you back only once. This is how far we progressed in this beautiful age of enlightenment. Need more examples? Visit Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan. No death wish? Look at Bosnia. We are far, far from reaching the level of Jesus teachings.
Societal brakedown? Must be blind not to notice. One example:
http://www.yle.fi/alueet/kainuu/2012/01/sitoutumisvaikeudet_nakyvat_jo_vanhemmuudessa_ja_tyoelamassakin_3203419.html
A society that abandons it’s young for financial gain is not going to function very long. I could go on but I think you see my points.
Sorry for a lot of links but saying all those things would make this a very long post indeed. If you or someone else wishes to look at these issues more carefully then these provide a mere starting point. There is a lot of discussion around these issues.
Good googling.
January 28, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Have you tried a nother time to comment on the creationism post? I would very much appreciate it, if you did.
Now, this may sound like I am repeating myself, but I’ll go for it anyway, just to be sure. You have every right to believe in a god, no matter what I say, or how much it seems unlikely, or even unethical, to me.
As I also said before we can not disprove a god any more than such an entity can be proven, but we can make arguments of the likelyhood of such an entity. It is one thing to assume the possibility of a demiurgi, and a completely a nother, to jump to the conclusion that one particular form of religion has a special connection to that demiurgi. Learning from other cultures and about their beliefs leads to no particular religion to stand out from the many mythologies of humanity. Most gods, people worship fit in to the gaps of science.
All we as humans can do to evalueate such things as gods is to get to know the latest scientific research as you have done, and if I read you correctly it has changed your views dramatically. My sincere apologies, if I understood you somehow wrong. Science is not out there to disprove any gods. It is only there to find out about the facts, or at least to make the most educated guesses.
We humans have every right to question the morals of any particular religion, or philosophy, it is recommendable even. That is a way fo find a way to live so, that does not strain our conscious. Emphaty and compassion are things that Jesus among many other philosphers have taught us, and for that alone faith in the words of Jesus do bear a special meaning. But so does the faith in the words of Buddha, or Laozi just as examples. To me it seems for most people who percieve themselves as christians it is a matter of emphasis. As with so many other religions with the same message of compassion, it seems some people go for that particular lesson, but others find all the divine vengeance and wrath against the infidels and heretics far more important. I am a silly naive fool, who still has hope for humanity. Hence, I believe you are not one of those people who find it important to act against other people in the name of a god.
If that is as I would suspect, you are in a manner a bit like Saladin.
Yes, life as we know it, is very rare indeed, but just how rare? The universe we can see consists of thousands of galaxies that are observable from the earth at this moment in time, and propably a “legion” more of those that are not visible. Every one of those galaxies holds billions of stars. Even if we only count the stars that resemble our own sun, there are still billions of stars in just one galaxy. It has been observed what was counted as a mathematical propablity that there are planets even in the starsystems nearest to ours. And some of those actually differ very ittle from ours. From that information it is easy to draw the conclusion that there has to be life elswhere in the universe. Now, I am not saying that we can ever reach the other planets with life, who can tell the future, but neither can we disprove that the life on other planets has not allready reached us. We can only make that assumption from the knowledge we now posses to be most unlikely. The most sound argument against such a claim would be, that even though there are so many eyewitnes accounts from people who solenmly seem to believe they have either seen or even been abducted by aliens we have no scietific proof of such a coincidence and that the aliens have not come out the public, but instead remain in hiding. You see, exactly the same argument as what comes to the likelyhood of a god? Are these the aliens of “the gaps”?
The eye for an eye is well known judical ideal. As it is presented in the Bible also a founding set of cultural moralism for all the western nations. Yet, no western country today employs that logic in their legal system. Why do you suppose that is, if the system is advanced enough for a god to promote it in a holy scripture?
2000 years have passed and no society that claims to ever haveing followed Jesus as the avatar of a god, has advanced much above the lack of morals you describe in the conflict zones of this world. However, during the age of enlightenment we have adopted such values as democracy, freedom of religion, integrity of science from religious dogma and social security, at least in some countries. Do they not count?
Yes, I consider myself an authority in my own blog.
You have not posted me links to any reseach papers, but to individual contemplations, that refer to some researhes with more or less reliable authority. It is just my and your logic and knowledge having a discussion here. Or are you by any chance assuming I would claim as proven something I have simply made up? You would not suggest I am lying, would you?
There is a lot of research of the post war trauma. You propably know this, or if you doubt my word, you can look it up yourself. Even soldiers who have been engaged in a fight for “a good cause” only against enemy soldiers, are found to have these mental problems regardless of their cultural backround. Why would the ancient Hebrews who were ordered to kill unarmend civillians, women, little children and old people not have suffered from it? Only a complete sociopath could shrugg such horrid deeds from their shoulders never to look back at them with horror. That is, in my opinion, exactly why they would have come to plead that god told them to do it, to share the responsibility of the horror of genoside with an ultimate source for morals. Does this not sound reasonable to you?
I doubt if there are any “papers” that would “prove origin of life without god”, and if there were I would find such a paper suspicious. How could that be proven? We can easily conclude that the origin of life does not necessarily need a god, or gods, and that gods are a typical form of human fiction and myths. Correct, so far? That is all one really needs to come to the logical conclusion that most likely gods are all imagined, and that life most propably came to be all by itself. In addition we can mark that most things in this universe happen randomly, so if there actually is a designer, it is very random sort of designer indeed, from a human point of view and therefore the entire assumption is most unlikely. From that perspective the assumption it is a perfect entity is empty in it self. Hence, it is logical to assume random causality, rather than a particular design.
The fall of the Roman empire happened only some hundred years from the event when christianity was adopted as the sole religion of the entire empire. It was the single most dramatic change in the history of the Roman empire since the republic had been turned into a dictatorship of the emperors. Rome was a conquering military empire, with economical interrests to have both war and peace propmoted, but it had been a beacon of tolerance and science amidst the Barbarian nations all around it. One of the first things the christians took care of when they got power in Rome was to destroy allmost all the scientific work and philosophical research achieved at that time. Among other horrid deeds they burned down the great academy and museum of Alexandria, and killed the philosopher Hypatia. They considered it witheld pagan lore and that she had broken the Biblical commands about the place of a woman in a society. If that was not enough anarchy to bring down an empire, and cause a “societal brake down”, I do not know what would be.
I never said there is any proof of Jesus being influenced by other religions. There is simply no way we can know this. In my view it is likely that he and many other “rabbis” like John the Babtist, in the area where the caravan routes reached the Mediterranean could and most propably had heard of at least some of these. It was an era when religions were on the move. Many Roman historians mention the numerous eastern religions that were fashionable phenomenons even in the city of Rome itself. Many of these have obviously influenced christianity in essence like the Mithras cult and the Magna Mater faith. It is unlikely that the commoner preachers such as Jesus and John would have even been able to shut their ears from all the many cults and ideas that were rampant in the empire and travelling from one area to another by accumulated markets that were a direct result of “pax Romana”.
There had been generations of discussion in the Roman society of the position of an individual as a citizen, a free man and as a slave, and opinions had been thrown back and forth. Maybe these did not have any influence on Jesus or his followers who later wrote down what they thought they remembered he had said, each from their personal perspectives. But is it likely that all they wrote was just what he said and how they interpreted it through their own cultural heritage? If the Bible is a direct work of god through these men, then outside influence is excluded, but if we think it is a historical source, it should be under the same scrutany as any other such source.
Jesus has been claimed to having been in Egypt when he was a child. As I mentioned Egypt had its own religious tradition that had presented the ideal of a merciful god long before the time of Jesus. Egypt had also been one of the Hellenistic states for centuries and the Ptolemic rulers were particularly known for their support of the various sciences and philosophies. They even had the knowledge of the form of the Earth. It is a long way from the palaces of the mighty and museions of the learned to the streets and the ears of a small immigrant boy in exail, but not so long that it could be unheard of that he had a chance to learn about the new ideals that were the talk of the entire society. If we take the gospels as some form of historical record they tell us that Jesus astonished the Jewish clergy allready as a young boy. Is it more likelier to assume this was because he was the son of a particular god, or that he had allready learned something while travelling the world? The point is not that we could ever prove anything of a legendary character from so far away in history, but to ask ourselves what is more likely and in what light.
The example you gave for modern soceital brakedown is of course a serious matter, we as a society need to take action about. First we need to recognize the reasons and then formulate a plan to correct the harmfull effects. That is how a society functions. Now, what is causing such a phenomenon and what is the society, that is braking down in this way? When was the golden age when we did not have these, or other social problems? We have come a long way from the time when everyone in Finland, for example, was expected to be a Lutheran and orphans were sold in markets as a labour force for the land owners to buy them as periodical workers. Have we not?
My knowledge of the history and philosophy are not something I found out from google, but from actual books and I can only recommend such to you too. The wikipedia is of course a fine thing, in its own right, but books are often far more insightfull to their subjects than internet articles. I can recommend you a list of good reading, if you are interrested. Besides, I do not have a very good “googlefoo”.
January 29, 2012 at 9:16 am
Sorry if it came out a bit harsh. It aint easy to write in a kind manner when you don’t see face to face.
But christianity is not the reason rome fell. Propably one of the reasons but not certainly the only one. This is what I mean. Pleace don’t tell stuff like it’s certainly true when some matter is highly debatable.
January 28, 2012 at 4:28 pm
I’d say that the christianity of constantine and post that was questionable to say the least. As are those “christian” nations you mentioned. I don’t know if there is even supposed to be such thing as christian nation. Some may clim it but Jesus said that by the fruit shall the tree be known. So if someone claims to be christian does not make one christian. You will know genuine stuff by the fruit it produces. Road to heaven is narrow one indeed.
Now did you do the field experiment? How did it go? Now if our societies have this high standard of morals why was your ass kicked? You can have a high standard and still not follow it. Anything missing between the high standard and folks actually making moral decisions day by day? Why people still make bad decisions all the time?
There never was a perfect time in our history. We have our adamic nature. That in my opinion is just one pointer towards the truth of the Bible. Why else all these problems?
But I applaud anyone who tries to make this world a better place. So if you find that our society is still behind in some issues roll up your sleeves and get to work (if not already) Armchair philosophers need not apply.
If christianity seems like another religion among many to you we get back to original headline. Miracles is christianity’s only claim to fame. No miracles = no christian God. I see it, you don’t. So whose word shall we believe then?
I guess that leaves it unsettled. One thing is sure. Something happens when we die. Eater we cease to exist or we go to last judgement. Then this matter will be settled once and for all.
January 31, 2012 at 10:20 am
Sorry, I took a trip to Sweden and though they have internet there also, I had no time to answer, as I was otherwise engaged.
To me the existance of any gods is a highly debatable issue, but people tell me all the time it is most certainly true.
As to what part the rise of Christianity played in the fall of the western part of the Roman empire, of course it is debatable. Mostly not because we lack the evidence, but because to claim it had anything to do with it, would be in conflict with what so many people find sacred. Of course there must have been other reasons. The body of the Roman state was sick long before christianity took over. What else would explain the fact that it was possible for a monotheistic end-of-the-world-cult to take over an entire multicultural and traditionally pantheistic empire in just couple of generations, though the cult only consisted of less than ten percentages of the population? However, we do know the fact that the Roman state was built on high bureacracy, that was suddenly overruled and seriously damaged by favorism for the christian bishops and christian church. Christianity formed a state within a state that ate away the credibility and strength of the original body. Also, land owning conditions changed dramatically as a result for favourism of the church property, that did dramatically affect the efficiency of the empire. When christians had enough power to turn on the “pagans” and christians with “heretical” view of the religion the empire was effectively in a state of civil war. Of course that was nothing new as such, as contest for power had been an issue for generations in Rome and often solved by civil strife, but for some reason this time it was fatal to the empire. Yet, there was nothing new in the barbarian nations attacking the borders of the empire either. What was different, was that before christianity, the Barbarians had faced a strong government engine ready to dispatch troops where the danger was greatest, but as the result of the increasing power of the bishops, the state was actually very weak inside the empire, and the bishops who had all the exacutive power had no troops to send to the critical conflict zones. In the eastern part of the empire church had effectively replaced government and they were intermarried as one body, led by the emperor himself. The Byzantine empire outlived Rome for some thousand years or so, but inevitably the power of the western christian church was to destroy the eastern empire also when the crusaders took Constantinopolis in 1204. From that the eastern empire never recoverd.
Yes, I agree with Jesus, that “by its fruits a tree shall be known.” To me the fruits christianity has provided humanity are not so compelling. You say post Constantine christianity was corrupted, and I agree with that also. The moment when christianity grew from among minor cults in the empire of Rome, it also gained political power and became a polical factor, that was certainly abused for the advancement of politcal careers and to grow the property of greedy men.
It seems that these ideologies that expect people to turn the world into a better place allways fail to recognize the power of personal greed, be it greed for money, other property, or just for power. However, since christianity is not just an ideology, but claims to be the representative of a supreme all-creator being who is alledged to be “benevolent”, it seems to me, that during the last 2000 years, it has failed even more miserably than most ideologies, that expect the change to come from the human being.
We as individuals can not be responsible for our “adamic nature”. An entity with absolute power holds that responsibility, if it even exists. Nobody can be held responsible for what their ancestors did. There is no logic to claim that would ever be the case. Is there?
The world changes all the time. Morals change all the time, we can strive for it to change into a direction we think is better for ourselves, or for everyone. However, compassion is an ability people have allways had regardless what ideology or religion they represent. It is very natural that some people fail to use it, if not acceptable.
As to your field experiment. I honestly can not percieve what you are trying to prove by it. I hope you do not take me as a total idiot to actually go out to punch anyone, and I am a bit offended that you would see me as a person of so low morals that I would hit a perfectly innocent bystander.
It is a violent fantasy on your part, but I am not going to indulge you, by making it a field test. Now, as I do not take myself as a complete moron, I can pretty much guess how that test of yours would end in most cases. You should recognize that is also a test wich could be, if executed, be manipulated by the tester, just by choosing either a very big and tough looking fellow, or a small and timid looking guy. However, the fact how a person reacts to a sudden and imminent threat to their personal health is nowhere near to describe anything in the form of cultural developement of morality. Is it? There are allways means to draw out the primitive reacion from any man by proper amount of manipulation. Some men need more of it, than others, though. Is that not the result of cultural evolution, that some of us actually have social inhibitors not to strike back, or would you claim that the only reason for the non-violence of Gandhi was just because he was such a coward?
All that test of yours would provide evidence for, regarding our conversation, would be that we indeed share behaviour models with our close relatives the apes. That in turn raises a noter question, if we are the very images of a perfect god, are apes that share most of our genes with us, images of a god also?
The Hammurabi law, as also later presented in the Bible, but probably borrowed there from the actual authority in the Levant area, is a perfect example of moralism, that has nothing to do with any ethics. A god should be able to produce something more comvincing to any intelligent readers of holy scriptures. It is a law to rule over subjects not a set of moral values, that would provide any insight to justice.
One may have faith in miracles, or in gods. For most people that is a direct result of their origin in what gods they believe in, or what events seem as miracles to them. For some reason the christian god at least is claimed to send people into eternal pain because they were born into the wrong kind of culture and as a result did not find christian god plausible. It might be true, there is absolutely no way of knowing for sure, though as to how likely that is we can make our own guesses, but on any level it is not right. Is it?
January 31, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Remember the test was just a thinking game
That to me testifys splendidly how we are fallen as a race. Any culture upbringing is just surface that needs only little bit of scratching to see the monkey beneath. According to my faith we where not created that way and only trough God can you cultivate that rebellious spirit inside.
That also explains why we can’t seem to be able to get christianity right. However there has always been a remnant that has had Jesus figured out correctly. For example anabaptists. They where so faithful that rivers ran red with their blood. With their fellow christians as executioners. That is what I mean when I say by the fruit…
Every generation has their faithful that hold the torch in the middle of the darkness. For example:
http://frankviola.org/2012/01/31/evangelicalism4/
I’d like to think I belong to them. At least in spirit.
There is of course plenty of martyrs today as well:
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5af3e8a1-30ed-4726-9643-e04eec4e3879
May God grant them courage.
As for who gets saved and who not is up to the God. I believe that people might be judged by the law inside them. But there certainly is no guarantee for that because Bible does not tell. This is one of those issues that theologians have been pondering for ages. Let them. There will be no answers coming to that question until we depart from here.
February 1, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Oh, where I come from a “field test” does not refer to a thinking game. But I thought, it was too silly to be an actual field test.
Will any god do for the “cultivation”, or do you think Gandhi would have reacted violently, if he had been punched in the face by a random stranger?
I mean the same thing about the christians attacking other christians, when I refer to the “by the fruit…” analogy. Remember most of those christians who ever attacked people they thought were heretics and did violent things to them did so under the impression that is actually what god wants. “Deus vult!” Is it the fate of those christians acting in firm belief they are protecting the real faith from heretics to end up in Heaven or Hell?
Of course there is progress in human culture. As I listed before, the spread of democracy, public vote even for women, human rights, social security by state, public medical care, giving up on the capital punishment, abolishment of slave labour, freedom of speach, freedom of press, freedom of religion, integrity of science from religious dogma and so on. You can hardly say these are not signs of progress. All of them are the results of the idealism of the age of enlightenment and all this in just a couple of centuries. What has any religion given us in similar amount of time?
It is only the secular state that has offered immunity for minor religious groups from the violence of major religious groups. Right? I admit freely that has not allways been a succes story either, but it is very revealing, how when the nazies took over in Germany, and at the same time refuted all civic liberties, Hitler made a lot of noise about the fact how it was important that the liberties of the german churches remain unoffended and that all groups of people who are affiliated with atheistic groups are scourged from the society, so good old basic values of the society can be reinstated. He was also very conserned to root out any possible positive discrimination, but that is of course a bit beside the point.
But if one is to be saved from the eternal punishment and pain by choosing the right kind of group “holding the torch”, how does one know which is it? I mean most people end up in different religions because they are born in those communities. That same cultural heritage makes it unlikely for most people to find other religions, no matter how high they hold the torch, unplausible. Is the creator of the entire universe actually so unfair? Why? It simply does not make any sense. Exept, if that alledged creator is mad and evil (in the sense that it does not have compassion towards all those people), or it does not hold any specific interrest towards humans as individuals, or if it does not exist and all this is just man made fancy in order to get people to join and remain members of some cult, or the other. Certainly such fancy at least exists, because they can not all be true, as they contradict each other. One can hardly be a muslim and a christian at the same time.
On the other hand, if people are saved, as you say, by the law inside themselves, what is the point of evangelism?
We can not know the answer to the final question wether or not there is something beyond death, but we sure have made a lot of guesses about that. You have every right to believe in what you find plausible. I do not find it plausible, and therefore it might be, that I will suffer for an eternity, but I can hardly force myself to believe in something that I find completely silly. Do I? Can I be blamed for that, is a nother question?
Who knows, perhaps the fields of Elysium await all of us, as close to no-one anymore believes, or maybe we are born again as humans, or animals as so many people believe, and there is no knowledge that can ultimately refute that faith either. Though I find it just as unplausible as the talk about Heaven and Hell.
February 1, 2012 at 10:01 pm
I like how you addressed each miracle. Your post resonates with what I’m currently reading, “Why People Believe Weird Things”.
The author listed 25 fallacies in thinking and broke them into four categories. He addresses three problems with scientific thinking: Theory influences observations, the observer changes the observed, and equipment constructs results. Pseudoscience is the next category. It invalidates actual science for credulous people and perpetuates rumors. There were 11 fallacies listed for this one! I’ll just mention a few: Anecdotes don’t make science, bold statements do not make claims true, heresy does not equal correctness, rumors don’t equal reality, failures are rationalized (such as a psychic who cannot use their powers when they cannot use their own props and it is equated to ‘feeling weak’ etc.), after-the-fact reasoning (supersition, basically), and others. The big fallacies that seem to repeat in religion and faith in general are: overreliance on authorities, circular reasoning (How do you know God is real? The Bible says so. How do you know the Bible is correct? Because God inspired the Bible to be written.), and eithor-or (creationists like to try to disprove science so that creationism must be right).
Your post was very dead-on with the approach you took. Kudos!
February 2, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Hello Cyndi, and thanks for commenting.
Yes, well like miracless gods are something we can not verify. Often they are also so philosophical by nature we can not totally exclude the possibility they exist. That is actully the point. People seem to think the miracles prove a particular god exists. Yet, all gods produce miracles and all we have on those miracles are eyewitnes accounts. Now, if gods care about who believes in them, they produce very little evidence of themselves in the form of miracles.
Ancient people could not know that the lightning is a natural phenomenon. In fact most people in the world today are unable to recognize a miracle by such standards as breaking the laws of nature. Therefore that is a useles way of communication between humanity and gods. Any extraordinary event could be interpreted as a miracle, and the meaning of the miracle is totally dependant on the particular cultural backround of the person who bears witnes to it, or hears about it from “a reliable source”. When an atheist suddenly is cured of cancer, like my sister, she thinks it in terms of extraordinary event and the modern cures working, not the result of prayer, or some supernatural, magic cure. Maybe god did it, but no god surely reported having done it.
Of course deep faith may produce a strong placebo effect and we do know from psychology the forces of suggestion. What ever could be stronger suggestion than a culture adopted from childhood that involves a faith in a benevolent god, to help a person through a harship. And even if one is not cured, does it not make the death easier, to believe one is going into a paradise where there is no pain after death. But can not help it that these are stories invented only to make those realities of life easier, rather than metaphysical truths we even could know about. I have no objections to the benefits of religious thinking. Yet, there is also the darker side, wich is that the people are led by these religions to do the most horrid deeds, since demagogues are capable of using the supreme authority of gods to strip people from all of their compassion and turn morals into moralism. The Bible and how the ancient Hebrews are alledgedly commanded by a god to do genosides is a perfect example of this. A nother dark thing is the segragation between those who believe in a certain kind of fable about a certain kind of god, and those who can not help but finding that particular god/gods unplausible. That alone has led to such amounts of unnecessary suffering between humans that it almost surpasses any effects of comfort any religions have to offer.
There are so many gods humanity has invented during our history and judging from the archaeological remains even during the pre-history, that it is very hard to tell who might have the correct connection to gods. They all vigorously refute the others as sources of information about the real nature and state of gods, not to mention the salvation in the afterlife. Yet, most of these gods do have common nominators that seem very human to me. Almost so human, I find it hard not to think they are obvious products of human culture. All gods seem to be andropomorphic. They are very interrested in humanity, but yet their communication towards us humans is very restricted. They produce miracles and have some guys write these scriptures, but any particular interpretation of those miracles or scriptures is allways in the minority as most people get it their own way. Nothing is presented straight away and to all people. Most gods want your faith, you must surely not share your faith between different possible gods. You must have blind faith in this or that invisible god. Not by any means several of them even if they seemed just as plausible. And final unifying thing between these gods is that they want your money. I am not particularly jealous about the few pennies I have, I give willingly to charity, but not to have personal salvation from an eternal pain, but because it is right. The adult reason to act is not the fear of punishment, but to do the right thing. Throughout times allmost all gods have wanted people to pay (with money or with labour) for admission to the paradise or what ever good is alledgedly awaiting us in the afterlife, and though, it has produced the magnificent pyramids and cathedrals, I do find that very suspicious indeed.
Many gods are supposed to have enough power to change humans into such beings we could solve our own problems and find such unity we would take care of our own kind as species and the rest of the world, and they could have done it a long time ago, but I suppose that won’t do, because it would leave gods pretty much unemployed.
Have you read any of our conversation here in the comment section? It is getting long, as allways with me, but especially so, because when one answers comments that withold links to completely new ideas that may have meaning in regard to the original post. It does not matter, if you have no time to invest in reading these conversations, I am just a bit curious.
February 2, 2012 at 1:11 pm
I certainly have nothing against any civil liberties. And nor did all the christians that where there to drive for change to make them happen. Bibles position is in my opinion kind of neutral. Do good and be obedient pray for the rulers. No matter what is the system around you. Disobedience against authority is only called for when there is a clear violation of God’s law and good conscience.
My point in punching someone is that it causes fight or flight syndrome. Lord of Flies behavior is lurking just beneath this polished exterior of culture. scratch a little and out comes the ape. Was this caused by Adam’s fall? Well if it is a metaphor of human development then WE are adam. Humanity is a fallen race. Just look around. Did we eradicate hunger, injustice, oppression, greed etc by our modern knowledge? As long I still see them around I see room for word of Jesus. And big need to help the helpless.
Evangelism needs to go on as long as there is need. That is what Jesus told us to do. Who gets saved and who not is strongly on the God domain and not ours. Thus an unanswerable question.
Whose faith is it then? Whoever can provide miracles to prove it of course! How do we prove miracles exist? We can’t. Too many variables. Thus circular reasoning. So let’s keep it the way it should be. Science is science religion is religion. As they say here:
http://biologos.org/questions/science-and-religion
“God’s existence is not something that can be tested by the scientific method in the same way the existence of postulated new elementary particles are tested in supercolliders. Because science provides knowledge about the natural world, no amount of testing or theorizing could prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural creator. Rather than an empirical claim about nature or its laws, the claim that God exists is a metaphysical one, a statement about what there is, whether it be natural or supernatural.”
So I think this whole science vs. religion is just air. Both sides have nothing conclusive to say about others statements. Our faith will one day change in to seeing. Maybe we see nothing after death. I sure hope not.
February 2, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Yes, that is your interpretation of the Bible as a neutral force, and I salute you for it. But there have been and are a lot of people who see it as the highest authority even over democratic process, or ethical logic. There is a lot of evil done by those people in the world and no god has appeared to rectify them. Many of those people have and do firmly believe they have the right to act against other people (and their liberties) by the authority of the Bible. If their interpretation of the book is incorrect do they have the Devil to pay for it?
Yes, we bear many cimilarites to our cousins the apes. Most of wich are not so much the appearance as the survival mechanics provided by the evolution to both forms of life. But just from what have we fallen from? And how is that in any extent our own fault, so much so, that we should be punished by it?
In my view we have risen in comparrison to the apes in respect, that we are able to see the reprecussions of our actions and inaction much further than the apes. We are able to form such communities that regulate our ape-like behaviour. The fact that we are not perfect, or even ideal, rather points to our random origin as a result of the evolutionary process, than to a perfect supernatural entity molding us to the very images of such perfect form. If it has the power to take the ape away from our conduct, it also holds the responsibility to do so. All this suffering resulting from our ape-like behaviour is for nothing, if there is a supreme entity responsible for it. If there is none, it is our own responsibility to evolve from that sort of squallor to something better. As we culturally have done in so many ways.
What is the actual need for evangelism, if people are saved by their good will and conscience? Is evangelism actually not bringing people into danger of ending up into Hell, by giving the opportunity to choose no to believe? Most people do have their own cultural heritages, that they usually find more plausible than, that offered by an evangelist. It is hardly a logical conclusion that it is simply something that needs to be done because Jesus said so.
Previously, you said that miracles are the christianity’s only claim for fame, but did you not know that other religions claim miracles just as well?
I agree to some extent that science and religion do not mix. Religions are about mysticism and as such they are a nice flavour to human cultures. It seems to me that the good guys find good advice from their respective religions and bad guys find bad advice as with any ideologies.
However, the quote you refer to, recognizes as science only the natural sciences, but philosophy, cultural research and psychology are all sciences too. It is hard to conduct those fields by not evaluating religions also. As they leave open the gaps for any gods to hide in, they also make remarcks about how people percieve these gods, does not support the gods as highly likely entities anywhere else than in our minds. A fact is that these research fields tend to avoid as long as possible the question of which one of the contradicting religions, if any, is true. That is simply because we are talking of the values and taboos of most people, whom such scietific researchers may be adherents to themselves, or that they do not want to stirr because of public outrage such comments would arouse. Keeping it polite is of course important, but not the main purpose of research.
It is a comforting thought that there would be some better world after death, but so would many other magical and fairy tale like stories. I can not bear myself to believe in such fancy, but I can still hope for it, if not for myself, than at least for you.
February 2, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Gee thanks again. Hope God has something cool reserved for you too.
As you said I see bible as a neutral force. Or good rather. But as with any text one can twist it’s message to any evil purpose they see fit. But to those that have been given much shall be required much.
Our apish nature is our own fault. No point in blaming God for it. In every one of us lives sin and a possibility to reach peace of God. A state of shalom where we have our peace with fellow man, nature and above all God. This is the state God calls us to strive for. His kingdom is already here but not quite yet. This kingdom needs no gaps to hide in. It’s perfect peace.
I also think that battle between psychology and religion is a needles one. I’m currently reseaching this so let’s see.
Rom 2:14-16 tells us that pagans will be judged by the law inside them. That is not sure salvation (or probably even good theology) so we must continue to tell the good news.
Here is a cool movie about a man who met God in turkey. In dreams an visions. God is more than capable to let himself to be known to those that want to be saved. We will know the full extent of his mercy someday.
It’s in parts so just continue to part 2 and so on. Be sure to get popcorn.
Can I prove this to be true? No way. How do you study experience like that?
February 2, 2012 at 11:28 pm
I haven’t looked at the links within the comments, but I have read quite a few of the comments.
Like religion, science can be used for good or evil. Nuclear armaments is a good example of when science can be evil. Lapiroscopy is an example of how science can be good. Science and religion are both tools used by humans. Just as a hammer can be used to build a house, it can be used to destroy things. It depends on the person using the tools.
I don’t feel that any religion can prove their God(s) exists. However, science proves and disproves it’s own theories and methods all the time. Scientists admit to fallacies in their studies, while many religious followers would never admit to fallacies in their religion.
Science develops according to human developments and needs. Religion fulfills human needs as well. It’s even been proven that people who believe in a God / religion tend to have an eaier time getting through tough circumstances. It definately serves a purpose. However, it is still just a tool that humans can utilize.
As for compassion, there was a study published recently that showed even mice have compassion. It is not unique to humans. I doubt that mice have a savior or a God telling them to be compassionate. It is in their nature. Just as it is in human nature to be compassionate. It is in the best interest of the species if the species takes care of its’ own. Humans have needlessly complicated things and have developed insecurities and paranoia as we have developed through time.
I find that people who are more ape-like are the ones who depend on outside forces for their well-being and their choices. A person who relies solely on God, or the government, or some other authority figure to preserve their way of life is the same person who readily gives up their freedom because they want others to choose what is best for them. That kind of faith is the dangerous kind…people giving up freedom and responsibility so others can take care of their needs and preserve their way of life. This is what holds us back as a species.
Honestly, does it matter if God is real or not? No one will truly know until they are dead. We are the ones who choose how to live. We are the ones who ought to be responsible. As far as I’m concerned, heaven and hell are a state of being, and a choice for that matter–not some place our souls go when we die.
February 3, 2012 at 9:38 am
@ Old Friend, gradually you are starting to sound more and more like a buddhist, a sufi, or a taoist. Maybe that is because the good parts of any religion are the same. The search for good balanced existance in union with self, other humans and the surrounding nature. It even seems to me that when people speak of a god, they use different terms according to their cultural heritage. In many respects when the actually good parts of this entity are pronounced, what is actually described is the very nature around us.
Rituals vary from culture to culture, but the basic values are reminiscent of each other. Sometimes people get tangled in the form of things, rather than the essence of what is right. Our compassion is the best compas to tell us about that. Far better than any old books, for sure. In many cases there are greater differences between adherents of same religion of different ages than between adherents of different religions during any historical era.
I suppose you are one of the good guys by my earlier definition, since what you found from the Bible is how pagans could be “judged by the law inside them”. That is the compassionate way of thinking, and in essence what Jesus, Buddha, Laozi and so many others have taught us. A more malicious person would only find what is said in Mark 16:16 “He who believes shall be saved, but he who does not, shall be judged to eternal damnation.” I do not know, if either is very good theology, but the tone is different. According to this latter quote my whole family is destined for eternal damnation. Even if I suddenly could convince myself to believe, and was saved, how could I be happy in Heaven while I knew my entire family is suffering for an eternity?
Thank you for the film you posted. I really like to see films about different cultures. I really would like to visit Istambul, but I have not managed to do that yet. I wonder has anyone made similar films about all those young Finnish people who turn to buddhism, the Hare Krishna cult, or to Muslim. I find it most curious that the mostly young Finnish women, who form the major part of converts to islam in Finland, come from very religious and often authoritarian christian families. Do you suppose Allah speaks to them like Jesus spoke to the main character in your film in dreams? Or is it just that they sort of recognize their inner values from islam better than from the habitual christianity of most Finns?
Karl Marx who was a very clever man, said that religion is opium to the masses. In many of these conversion stories alcohol, or other substances that cause high addiction, play a major part. People find help from different religions to their addiction problems, but from an outsider view, it easily looks like one addiction to a substance has merely been changed to a nother in a form of a religion. Is it only because some people become addicted to stuff more easily than others?
Of course, Marx did not mean quite that. He meant that religious issues are used to blind people from political issues and that the promise of happy afterlife is used to subdue the efforts of common people from making this life better.
The religion studies (not theology, but the actual science made about this subject, the difference is pretty much like chemistry is real science, but alchemy is not) one of the common factor that has been recognized from conversion stories to any religion is, that people who convert from their own initiative are allmost allways in some form of personal crisis to wich the conversion gives solution or at least some form of help. Why would you suppost that is?
Once again back to my original subject. What do we call miracles? Are dreams miracles, even if they change your life? Psychology tells us that dreams are our subconscious talking to us. The Freudian paradigm explained it along the lines, that in dreams appear symbols (cultural symbols) that may be interpreted as how a person who has mental disorder would try to rectify that problem. As a science psychology has long gone past Freud, but the basic idea is there still. In the film you posted Jesus was clearly a symbol for something to this Turkish plasterer (by the way as I have worked in the constructions I have never in my life met a sober plasterer). He had a serious problem, and he had a dream about Jesus. Now if he was an average chinese plasterer he would not even have heard of Jesus so the dream would have been quite different. As a Turk he had of course heard of Jesus who is one of the most important prophets in islam. However, he himself verifies that he was not very knowledged about islam, and if he had been a devout muslim he would never even faced this problem of his. For some reason he found the Jesus of his dream to be the Jesus of christians. Alledgedly it worked for him, and he found cure from Jesus to his drinking.
It is good that Jesus appears in dreams helping addicted people. It seems though, he does not help even nearly most of the addicted people, who most often die miserable deaths. It seems to me quite unfair that those people are not helped simply because they do not understand to cry out for help from the right kind of entity, and I do believe many of them have cincerily asked help from Jesus. Yet, many people are saved by different religions and in that respect no particular religion appears to be special. The sort of “miracles” where a troubled person finds peace are performed in most religions. Though in the balance are all those people whose troubles are caused by all the different religions.
@ Cyndi, I agree with you about how both science and religion are mere tools used for both good and evil. Though in my opinion, if there are such entities as gods, they can be held responsible for not interfering when their adherents do evil things in their name. If they indeed have divinal powers they also hold responsiblity in accordance to those powers.
The fact that all mammals have the capacity to compassion tells us how it is a result of evolutionary process, now of course that could be just any god making all mammals including humans like that. I find it terribly frightening when religions are used to nullify our compassion, and almost all major religions have been used for that. On the other hand so have allmost all human ideologies. The difference lies exactly in that, if gods exist, they are responsible for what happens. If religions are just ideologies among others, the responsibility lies on human shoulders alone. Indeed humans can not be blamed for natural catastrophies, but most religions explain natural phenomenons as the work of some sort of gods, hence gods are responsible for all that misery caused by nature.
Nature is not self aware nor interrested in human individuals. So, it can not be held responsible, but if gods are as andropomorphic as they are described in every religion, they are also ethically accountable to their actions and inaction.
I also agree, that religions are used as conservative excuses not to better the world we live in. It is interresting how often religions are defended by those who claim them to have the higher morals from gods, but the morals they are ready to support is only tribal moralism where their own group of people and their personal interrests are supported by tribal moralism. It is a relief from time to time to notice there are also religious people, like my old friend here with whom I have had most of this conversation, who want to better the world for everyone in it.
If there actually are any gods I expect them to understand why I find them unplausible after this hide and seek game they have jointly orchestrated. If they do not, it only goes to prove their sinister nature, and then to Hell with them.
February 4, 2012 at 9:36 am
Well i’d call it a miracle that there are actually good christian movies around. More than dreams contains nice plot, characters, acting and script. I’d actually go out on my way to say that seeing a genuine miracle is much more common than seeing a good believer flick like this. Most of them have so goofy acting that it makes one cry (from pain)
I’m sitill a good o’l evangelical christian. (Tough I’m a bit of a rarity in my belief in science). That part in romans, if it is applicable that way, is for those that have not had a chance to hear. Those that had that chance have their responsibility.
There is also a possibility of creator of universe communicating us trough dreams and visions. God is using our natural brain and psyche to communicate his ways. That of course does not remove a fact of people in other faiths having dreams about their gods. But here are plenty of records about people converting to christianity because of dreams. So can I prove anything? Of course not. Take it in faith or don’t take it at all.
To a christian the fact that we humans and animals have ability to feel compassion tells about loving creator. He is the one that set the evolution in us to bring about love and compassion. Again a matter of faith.
February 13, 2012 at 11:00 am
Hey rautakyy,
What was to source of this blog — the stories of observed Roman miracles?
February 14, 2012 at 9:47 am
Polybius – A greek who turned into a Roman historian. Polybius held that historians should only chronicle events whose participants the historian was able to interview, and was among the first to champion the notion of having factual integrity in historical writing while avoiding bias.
I have read his works before, that is a long time ago, but now I quoted him from the Finnish version of Carl Grimbergs history book about the Romans. The name of the series in Finnish is “Kansojen historia”, wich translates roughly as History of the Nations. I do not know if that book is available in English, but I would guess it is. The printing year of my edition is 1957 so there is no ISBN code.
February 14, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Thanx, I never heard of him (uneducated, that I am). I will look more into him. Much thanx.