Skeptical of my Skepticism
Offline Hey guys! So I'm new here, dig your site, interested in you message and stuff. I like to give you a bit of background on myself before I ask my question, seeing as this is my first post and all, but if you're not interested, please feel free to skip this next paragraph. Here goes:
Don't want to lead you on, I am a Christian, but I find myself more connected sometimes with atheists that I do my Christian friends because my atheist friends are always more concerned with WHY I believe something. "Is there evidence?" "What's the rationality behind that?" etc. I was never really an atheist myself, I was more like an "apathetic". I guess I believed in God in some abstract, white-glowy way, but I didn't really care if He existed or not. Then about four years ago I moved to NYC for school and my friends took me to this church, its called Redeemer Presbyterian Church of New York City, and the senior pastor is this guy Tim Keller. Has anyone on here heard of him before? Man, this guy is completely unlike what I was lead to believe that Christians were like. All he does is talk about the rationality behind the Christian faith and the historical context in which the Christian church arose. I'd like to ask maybe some of my literature atheist friends on here this question that was posed by him (Dr. Keller) in one of the first sermons I heard, cause it really threw me for a loop and was one of many arguments he posed that really lead me to believe the Bible is telling the truth. I don't remember the exact wording, but here goes:
"Most people look at the accounts of Jesus in the gospels and think that they're just made up. That they're exaggerated (spelled right?). That they're myth or legend. This is because we're looking at the gospels through a 21st century lens. Look at the detail in the gospels. We see in one part that Jesus was on a boat, he was asleep, His head was resting on a pillow. Now if this is a legend written in first century Palestine, what on earth does the knowledge that Christ was asleep contribute to the narrative of the story? What does the account that there were 54 fish laying on the beach contribute to the narrative of the story? (If you're Christopher Hitchens or like him and you're reading this, you've probably begun to see my point, haven't you? For the rest of us less literate folk, we have to wait a few lines...) The answer is, nothing. Neither one of these pieces of information contributes anything to the "legend" or "myth". Now why is this important to point out? You're probably saying, 'I read books all the time with bits of information such as, '...and then he turned the knob slowly,' or, '...and the door creeked open,' and those are fiction, too!' This is true, they are fiction, but they are also a form of writing known as 'narrative-pros', a form of writing that was not around until 1,800 years after the Gospels were written. Go read Homer's 'The Iliad' and look for small details. Go read anything up until the Gospels appear and for 1,800 years after and you won't find narrative-pros or small details in fictional stories that do not contribute directly to the plot of the narrative anywhere.
"You will find plenty of writings, however, that contain a large number of small details - history books. So, we are left with two choices. 1) We were wrong in our assertion that the Gospels were fictional, myth or legend. They clearly contain the details of historical documentation. or 2) The worlds biggest miracle took place in 1st century palestine when 4 different authors created a form of writing that was unheard-of at the time and not copied again until almost 2,000 years in later."
So anyway, I'd be real interested in hearing what you guys have to say about this, cause I agree with most atheists when they tell me to believe something until the evidence leads in a different direction. So far I haven't been offered any evidence that has lead me to believe that the question posed by Dr. Keller up there is a misrepresentation of history. Thanks a lot! Can't wait to hear from you guys!
Sincerely,
-Skeptnick
- Login to post comments
haha, mailum, chill out dude. the evidence is overwhelming for christianity, and no, claiming that I believe those who believe Christianity to be false are wrong does not contradict anything I've said, my answer was dynamic on purpose.
I believe evolution/natural selection to be an accurate account of natural history, but I cannot prove it 100%. My believe in evolution comes from an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests, beyond a reasonable doubt, what is probably the truth, that things evolve. But I cannot PROVE evolution in a lab, the same way I can PROVE the law of gravitation.
I've adopted Christianity because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggest that it is credible, the only problem was, I had to ditch my predisposition to believing that the supernatural did not exist.
more on this later, i gotta get to church
Your evidence so far has depended on an anonymous, unconfirmed source.
Dynamic? Is that a euphemism for hypocritical, dependent on double standards and special pleading?
I didn't realize you were in the field, let alone a pivotal part of it.
Alternatives theories that explain things even better could potentially appear. That's the difference between the scientific method and saying nothing that contradicts your view could possibly be correct.
Actually, you can take something with a short life span, like fruit flies, and observe mutations and inherited traits. You can do what environmental factors do naturally, and artificially select for certain traits, causing them to be more pronounced. This process, over a long enough period of time, especially with geographical separation, will lead to speciation. The continuing development of antibiotics is dependent on the principles of evolutionary theory being accurate. Your statement suggests you're still relying on the colloquial use of the term, as though this were some hypothetical academic question.
Since you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "theory," much less the specific claims of evolutionary theory, I don't advise you to believe in it. You have no basis for an opinion on it at all.
I don't for a moment believe you were ever skeptical of anything. Apathetic, maybe, but not informed and not skeptical.
Say hi to Jesus for me.
Are you familiar with the term "meme"? If not you should study them a bit. Some memes by their nature are virulent. They play off of our natural proclivity to fear of the unknown/death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon
This man has done exactly what you say is impossible. In about 50 years he has gone from 0 followers to 1million +. I would bet that you don't believe what he says is true, yet he fits your criteria for belief in him and has more evidence to prove it than christianity does (i.e. his obvious existence, which cannot be claimed for jesus).
That whole example was mere speculation. Not to mention a biased analogy designed by you to fit the conclusion.
Confirmation bias. You pulled alot more from that verse than was truly there to find. You aren't reading the bible to learn something new, you're reading it to justify your pre-conceived conclusion.
I think I answered this above. If not maybe I can find another one.
Thats cute.
Because reality doesnt work that way, realities more...
A +,-,x,/ B (infinity)= C
and yes, that was probably over most peoples heads ^_^
If their conclusion is backed by evidence, i may be inclined to believe that gravity doesnt exist ^_^
Grr.... bad theist! making up garbage. that whole speel can be destroyed with 2 words, NORTH KOREA
What Would Kharn Do?
It's not a good point, it's a bad point and stupid. Take the Cargo Cults. Feel free to look them up yourself. These are legends that had grown into sometimes majority beliefs in a very short time. It means nothing to conjecture that the biblical stories 'grew' quickly. What bearing does that have on their reality? How can you prove at what pace they grew in the formative years of Christianity? It's just silly.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Really? Care to produce the evidence? The world's been waiting for 2000 years to finally have evidence that Christianity really is the path to god. If you've got the evidence please divulge. I think, rather, that this is pure bullshit though, because you don't seem to understand what evidence is or what credibility is.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
"I've adopted Christianity because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggest that it is credible, the only problem was, I had to ditch my predisposition to believing that the supernatural did not exist"
Fascinating. So you do NOT have 'overwhelming evidence' that Christianity is true, only that this evidence 'suggests', not that it is TRUE, but merely 'credible'. In other words, massive evidence that Christianity is not completely impossible.
Not exactly a strong position, i would have thought.... Heck even I can almost accept that position, that there is a small chance that there may be some truth in Christianity.
The supernatural is just a set of speculations about what might lay beyond phenomena we can't currently fit into a more naturalistic framework, so is defined purely negatively. The realm of the 'supernatural' has continued to shrink as we find actual evidence linking things like lightning and the weather to other measurable natural phenomena. If we have
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology