Subject: Re: Evidence or not ?
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:45:58 +0800
From: "Nigel Mitchell" <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,nz.soc.religion

G'day Sean.


I wrote:

>>>> ...There are probably three options in this kind of study/
>>>> discussion:
>
>>>> 1. My opinion is right, so anything that seems to contradict my
>>>> opinion is, by definition, wrong, and my task is to show how wrong
>>>> it is. People who believe different things to me are almost always
>>>> wrong in whatever they say, and they are usually bad people as
>>>> well.
>
>>>> 2. My opinion is open to alternative possibilities at any time, so
>>>> I will hold to whatever opinions are fashionable at the time, until
>>>> something more convincing comes along. People who believe different
>>>> things to me might know more about it than me.
>
>>>> 3. I know what I believe, and I will continue to hold my beliefs
>>>> until something much more convincing comes along (if it ever does).
>>>> In the meantime I will continue to study and investigate my own and
>>>> other points of view. It is OK for other people to believe
>>>> different things to me.


Sean replied:
> I missed something before. I have a problem with the expression, "I
> know what I believe." Believing something already entails awareness, so
> saying, "I know what I believe", is rather tautological and seemingly
> unnecessary. Semantically, it appears to only partially define "belief"
> and do little else. That however, does not exclude
>
> it from popularity or from conventional use. My interpretation of it
> is, "I have my own beliefs". Is that what it means to you?

I used the phrase more in the sense of "I can articulate my beliefs, and
differentiate them from the beliefs of others".

<snip>

> If you are referring to strong atheism, I would agree entirely. With
> weak atheism, there is not necessarily a belief to be proved wrong.

The same could be said of weak Christianity. Every day I meet people who 'kinda
believe in God - you know... the ten commandments and all that".

I think such people, atheist or Christian, fit most closely into type 2 above. I
think that an intellectually honest position is the third type - one in which a
person can articulate their beliefs, and differentiate those beliefs from the
beliefs of others, _without_ considering anyone with different beliefs to be
wrong/bad/diseased etc. Christians, atheists, Buddhists, communists and Essendon
supporters can all operate in this manner.

<snip>

> Though I don't disagree, I will mention that there is no onus on
> atheism to examine these issues and provide an explanation. Atheism is
> the default condition. I would say, however, that most atheists are so,
> precisely because of the issue of plausibility. I would put myself in
> that category.

To use a classic example, when you look at a painting, is the default
condition to believe that there is no artist?
Apply your answer to the universe.

<snip>

> I would suggest that a neglected area, is James and the Jerusalem
> church. I think it was Eisenman that said if you can discover James,
> you will discover Jesus. James has all but been written out of the New
> Testament but there are internal clues and a surprising number of
> external clues.

I agree. James is fundamental to the rediscovery of the Jewishness of Jesus, and
the recognition that Christianity is a part of Judaism. We are brothers, not
enemies.

James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. It is always pointless to
speculate what might have happened in history, but certainly the Christianity
which was most strongly in continuity with second- temple Judaism was
exterminated in the Jewish wars.

>> There are people on these newsgroups (this thread is running in a.r.c
>> and n.s.r) who do adopt both of these positions, and they do so often
>> (but not always) operating in the first mode of discussion mentioned
>> at the beginning of this post.
>
> I agree with you up to a point. However, I can't think of any atheists
> that would submit that everything is an error. I can however, think of
> some that would maintain that there are no errors in the Bible. I
> believe it is they that are more likely to maintain the "I am always
> right" mode, for to do otherwise, could threaten their entire fragile
> belief system. From my own observations, this certainly seems to be the
> case. Some examples of this have been extremely entertaining, when one
> is not actually involved.

I can think of at least three atheists who make it their task on these newsgroups
to find fault with _everything_ that a Christian may say, and for whom the most
positive thing they can say about Christianity is that it is a disease and/or
delusion. That is an example of type-1 thinking. It recognises neither integrity
nor intelligence in the holder of an alternate view.

>> But there is a middle road, and it is the sometimes uncomfortable
>
>> place that I inhabit. There are many Christians, Jews and atheists in
>> this positionwith me as well. I regard the Bible as an useful, but
>> not infallible, source of information. I am prepared to say "the
>> Bible is wrong" on a particular matter - but I need a convincing
>> reason to do so. I am also aware that the Bible is often right. I do
>> not consider it my religious duty to defend the Bible, and atheists
>> who think like me do not consider it their rationalistic duty to
>> attack the Bible. We can read it together, and often reach agreement
>> about likely causes, outcomes and events.
>
> Your middle of the road appears to be _often_ uncomfortable :-)

Yes it is.

True religion is a Cross, not a walk in the sunshine.


<snip>

> Rather than "lack of imagination" and "limitation", I would prefer to
> think that, as an atheist, I have restraint and some consistency in the
> proportioning of beliefs. I would consider that your criticism of the
> atheist's limited world view, could equally be said of Christians who
> don't believe in astrology, in Buddhism or in the rainbow serpent.

By the time you read this you might have responded to my comment above about
creation/ the universe. Do you attribute it all to chance?

<snip>

>> The distinctive thing about my third mode of discusion above is that
>> the object is always a search for truth. Knowint the truth is more
>> important and more desirable than being right. If the "something" was
>> a conspiracy amongst the Apostles to start the biggest fraud in
>> history, or the story of the Crucifixion was a story told to Mary
>> Magdalene on her wedding day by Peter as a practical joke, or the
>> apostles wrote the Gospels in a drug-crazed haze, and then found
>> themselves having to defend it when people suddenly, and
>> surprisingly, took it all seriously, ....... I would want to know.
>
> We are doing our best :-)
>
>> Doesn't that work the other way around? If there is a God, wouldn't
>> you want to know?
>
> Yes, but I would add to that, that if there is a such a personal God, I
> think I should already know.

You do. His name is Jesus.


<snip>


> I don't know that Paul's involvement offers any added profundity unless
> you would submit that the success of Christianity would be less
> remarkable without Paul. Of course, none of what I presented, is to say
> that Paul wasn't extremely important to today's Christianity. After
> all, we are talking about Pauline Christianity.

We are talking about Christianity. Paul is one of the figures who contributed to
its early formation, but we cannot place the whole credit (or blame) at his feet.
James and Constantine played their part, and Christianity would not be what it is
today without the contribution of Augustine, Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther,
Henry VIII, John Calvin, Ignatius of Loyola, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, ...

Christianity is a living, growing and changing entity - like everything else that
is alive. The question is, whence does this life originate and how/why is it
sustained?


<snip>

>> I would contend that the success of Christianity, under exactly the
>> terms you have described above, was not a coincidence. I believe it
>> was meant to happen that way. But that is a faith statement, based on
>> my contemporary experience of God in my own life today. I do not
>> expect you to agree with my explanation of the cause, but is it all
>> just coincidence that the conditions were just right for this type of
>> religion at that particular time. Would Paul have had to invent Jesus
>> if he did not exist?

> I think you ask, was "it all just coincidence"? One could use the
> Beatles as an analogy ...

I agree that it _could_ be mere coincidence, just like the Beatles. Once again we
come back to a question of plausibility. Can you come up with a scenario that
explains the rise of Christianity which is _more_ plausible than the scenario
that Jesus' disciples experienced his presence amongst them after the
resurrection? I think this is where we began. If you allow for that possibility,
then it becomes the most likely. If you disqualify that possibility, then you are
unlikely to come up with a scenario which is at all convincing to anyone who does
admit it.

<snip>

>> Yes, and I have alluded to this above. Our task is to reach an
>> understanding of the religions that survived (Judaism and
>> Christianity), and to ask Why?

> Do you mean that it is the task of our society, or are you saying that
> it is the task of biblical scholars and the like? At this stage, I
> personally don't think there is any onus on the populace to examine the
> circumstances or arrive at a conclusion. I didn't add that just to be
> pedantic. I am proposing that until that investigation produces
> something much more acceptable and/or concrete, there is no onus on
> anyone, except those that make the claim for Christianity.

The onus is on two groups of people - those who promote the claims of
Christianity, and those who say they are false. This investigation is also a part
of the self- reflection and understanding of society. It is a tragedy, IMHO, that
modern school curricula often pretend that religion does not exist. A whole area
of human experience, including art, literature, music, politics, philosophy,
ethics, ... is excluded. But that is another story.

<snip>


>> I would not be unhappy with that statement. Hysteria has a place in
>> most religious and political movements. It is sometimes dangerous,
>> and sometimes very creative. The challenge for leadership is to
>> channel it towards the latter, and minimise the former. I think Peter
>> and Paul were very good at that, as are some (but not enough)
>> pentecostal pastors today.

> But is creativity a suitable means for uncovering the truth?

What is truth?

<snip>

>>> I'll resist the temptation to question God's selection - a murder
>>> who never even met Jesus - for the alleged revelation and divine
>>> commission. I'm sure given such circumstances conversion would be
>>> the result for any of us. That strange preferential system aside, we
>>> really only have Paul's word for what transpired, and frankly, he
>>> comes across as not entirely stable - to me anyway. I don't need to
>>> explain Paul's revelation/conversion. All I need to do is appeal to
>>> Occam's razor and offer a less exotic proposal than divine
>>> intervention. One such proposal would be the it was the stress of
>>> Paul's (Saul's) very distasteful activity that made him finally
>>> snap. I find that less amazing than a miracle and therefore I find
>>> it more plausible, though it need not be the reason.

>> Except that, with respect, you are falling into the unintentional
>> literalism that sometimes surprisingly pops up from atheists in these
>> discussions. You assume that what Acts records about Paul is true.

> Not guilty. There are mitigating circumstances. Generally speaking, the
> atheist needs to be able to discuss the Bible, as it written. For
> instance, if discussing God's character, the atheist needs to be able
> to discuss God, as if he/she/it exists. As for the reported actions of
> Paul, I certainly do have problems. I can't see what authority would he
> have had in Damascus, that would permit him to punish Christians.
> Despite that, I would still consider atrocities, followed by remorse
> and conversion to be more plausible than a different background and a
> visitation by the dead Jesus. Note that I am not proposing a dichotomy
> here.

Indeed. If Paul's remorse was articulated by him in terms of a vision or
other experience of the risen Jesus, does that make it any less powerful
or valid?


>> You may be right, but what does it do to your conclusions if I tell
>> you that there is _no_ evidence outside the Gospels for any
>> systematic prosecution or persecution of Christians by the Jewish
>> authorities until the 80's, at least, by which time Paul was long
>> dead (probably). There is also no time in the 1st century when the
>> Jewish authorities in Jerusalem would have had the authority to send
>> an investigative or punitive party to Damascus.

> I swear that where I wrote the same thing, it was independent. I have
> long been aware of that problem :-)

It seems clear, both from the Acts and from the Epistles, that Paul experienced
some sort of revelation. I do not call it a conversion, because I believe that he
saw Christianity as the fulfilment of his understanding of Judaism, and not an
entirely new and separate religion. The story of the road to Damascus, which is
so evocative that even our politicians use it as a metaphor, is the articulation
of that change of direction that Paul experienced. You attribute it to remorse,
and you may be right. But I believe that our super-ego is a part of our
experience of the Spirit of God, and so such a crisis of conscience is IMHO
indubitably a divine revelation.



cheers