Gadfly's Muse

The Objection to Theism: There is no evidence to support Christian Theism over and against any other brand

1. First - caveats - I hold atheists to the same standard that they seek to hold me - that they understand the implications of their position.
2. The De Jure objection - Evidence for existence... a belief in on “theistic presupposition” is no more or less warranted than belief in any other.
a. Evidence - It is agreed that the fact of a Supreme Being cannot be conclusive established, nor given such evidential support from the facts of nature, that the evidence cannot be interpreted according to an atheistic perspective.
b. The idea of warrant -
i. Warrant for believing in a paradigm is not necessarily identical with the concept of evidence
ii. Evidence can provide warrant for believing, but warrant goes beyond evidence
iii. If evidence is inconclusive, one way or the other, as is the case with the physical, empirical facts of this universe, then warrant for believing one set of interpretations over another may legitimately be established from the relative value of the end toward which those interpretations tend.

iv. In other words, if one paradigm produces a “better” goal or other such end and does not deal with the evidence in any less a fashion than its opposite, then there is “warrant” for choosing that one over the other.

c. Though I am a Christian Theist, the place to start this discussion is not with Christian Theism vs. Atheism, but Theism vs. Atheism.
i. Christian Theism is warranted from within the Theist paradigm

ii. It is arrived at a posteriori not a priori

d. Therefore - the statement about whether or not one theistic presupposition (FSM or the Christian God) has any more evidence to support it than the other falls short of the basic question.

e. The correct question is - does the theistic assumption have any more or any less evidence to support it than the atheistic assumption. The answer is “no.”
i. Whatever arguments state that any one Theistic assumption is epistemologically equivalent to another applies equally to the Atheistic assumption.

ii. Hence you would have to admit that your FSM construct is just as much an argument against your atheist presupposition as it is the Christian Theist one.

f. Therefore - de jure - according to strict principles of logic - the argument as phrased is not an argument against the Theist position at all because it applies equally to the Atheist position.

g. However... it might be rephrased in this way...
i. There is no justification, no net advantage to believing in theism...
ii. Now we are no longer speaking of evidence but warrant for belief based on the qualitative distinctions between the two.

iii. Thus - de jure - one might say that it is irrational to adopt Theism because Atheism is so inherently superior in the advantages that it has over the Theistic position.

3. Summary - What I have maintained is that this  is not a valid objection.
b. It may very well be true that there is no physical evidence which supports or denies the existence of any theistic presupposition over another - hence, any supernatural  construct on the grounds of pure logic alone, could be advanced...
c. However, warrant for belief (de jure) is not tied exclusively to the idea of physical evidence, but rather extends to the logical implications of such a belief
d. The logical implications of a proposed supernatural construct would certainly be open to discussion as opposed to other Theistic and Atheistic presuppositions.
e. Further, an objection that one supernatural construct not being any more or less valid than other Theistic positions applies equally to the Atheistic position. So, unless one wishes to argue that neither Theism nor Atheism is de jure valid, then entire argument fails in the manner proposed.

A True Scotsman: The Boundaries of Evangelicalism

(click on image for larger version)

It is interesting that in his 1927 lecture "Why I Am Not A Christian", Bertrand Russell felt that he must first define what he meant by the term "Christian" before he could proceed to argue the grounds for not being one. (Link Here)  Even in his day the onslaught of liberalism within the Christian camp had so dramatically obscured the term that common use failed to distinguish the sheep from the goats.

Russell did not do a very good job in his definition, in my opinion.  He opened the definition to include any who believed in God, immortality and that Jesus was, at least, the best and wisest of men.  This last is far removed from orthodoxy and thus Russell's definition is not nearly precise enough.  However, in his day, the definition and the exclusiveness which it had, weak though it was, seemed reasonable enough to his audience.  There was no particular resistance to the idea that one can deny the legitimacy of a label to a person or group who adopt it.  Russell was in effect holding forth that some who called themselves Christians, were, in fact, not.

Delight In The Labor Of Our Hands

Ecclesiastes 3:22   So I perceived that nothing is better than that a man should rejoice in his own works, for that is his heritage. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?

Follow the converging lines in Vermeer's  The Milkmaid ( use the link for an interactive presentation that is quite helpful).  Note the line from the wall through the basket and lamp down to the milk pouring from the pitcher.  Now start up from the pitcher and note the line that corresponds to the girls right arm and continues with her inclined head.  The two lines are a perfect "v".  Note how the converging lines of the table and the food sitting on it, the left side with the edge of the bread basket extending through the top of the jug converges at the same point and then completing a downward "v" on the right side there are the edges of the bread crusts and the side of the bowl into which the milk is being poured extended down through the exact line of the woman's blue apron.  Completing the task is a horizontal line through the woman's left arm to the elbow that extends through the pouring milk to the top of the jug.  What we see are two "v's" intersecting on a level plane. These  lines draw us into the action of the picture:  it is what the woman is doing rather than her person which is the artist's object.

Note the magnificent interplay of light and shadow, contrasting textures and delicate colors - of milk being poured!  The honor in the painting, as with the focal point, is not accorded to the milkmaid; her beauty is plain and her face is somewhat shadowed.  The honor in the painting is extended to the table set with food.  It  has the brightest lighting, it has the most lustrous detail, the bread and the milk are wondrously rendered.  The honor and the glory in this painting is on the table, it is the completed task, a table prepared and ready for the family or the guests, which communicates to us a certain sense of satisfaction and contentment.  Vermeer is showing us the nobility of honest labor and the joy and beauty which can accrue to even the simplest of tasks.
 

Truly Alone: Meditation In Preparation For Good Friday

(´Jesus on the Cross´ by Rembrandt. Canvas on panel, 1631. Le Mas d´Agenais, parish church,  BiblePictures.com)

Only one man in this world has ever been truly alone. 

When Jesus cried out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" it was not really a question.  Jesus knew why His Father had deserted Him.  They had agreed to this arrangement before the creation of the world.  Jesus' cry was a cry of true dereliction and it was intended to communicate such to those who heard Him.  The words quoted are the opening verses of Psalm 22 and Jesus was telling us that it is this Psalm which interprets and explains what is happening.  Psalm 22 is the cry of a man who is truly alone.

Toward A Distinct Christian Community

Gerhard von Rad would never qualify as one of my favorite theologians, but he has a very good appendix to the second volume of Old Testament Theology titled "The Law".  His essential argument is that what God was teaching ancient Israel in the OT, and that which they could not seem to grasp, was that "law keeping" was not to be understood as the basis of their salvation but was rather to be the product of it.  His arguments are very good, perhaps even persuasive, in this section and go a long way toward helping us modern Evangelicals keep from looking down our enlightened noses at our ancient brothers.

Von Rad makes one particular statement that moves me to this writing.  Speaking of the various "series" statements of the law in the OT he says

Moreover, these commandments do not outline anything like an ethos; rather, they only mention, in their negative formulation, possible courses of action which lie at the edges of the sphere of human life, namely practices absolutely displeasing to Jahweh -he who belongs to Jahweh does not commit adultery, remove boundary stones, and murder. Still, this is very important-the saving event whereby Israel became Jahweh's is indissolubly bound up with the obligation to obey certain norms which clearly mark out the chosen people's sphere, particularly at its circumference. The same thing, however, occurs in the early Christian community.

"Pious Fraud" & The Echo Chamber Effect

(click on the photo)

My son Bill alerted me to the term "echo chamber" which describes an interesting sociological phenomenon on the internet.  It refers to something I have noticed before but not been able to articulate. The "echo chamber" effect is present when, in an internet forum, the only voices that are treated with respect are those with whom the majority of the participants agree.  There is no real attempt at dialog.  Differing views are ridiculed and shouted down rather than argued against in a coherent terms.  Sooner or later the opposing voices simply disappear and all that remains in the forum is the "echo" of voices who say the same things to each other over and over again.

The problem with this is that it leads to a situation where people believe something to be true simply because "everyone else" is saying it.  The "everyone else" of course being the same folks who are inclined to believe in the same way. An interesting case in point is the prevalence of the charge of "pious fraud" advanced as an explanation for the origin and content of the Scriptures of the New Testament.

Challenge: "There is no evidence that Jesus lived....."

BeepBeepItsMe wrote: The reality is that there is no proof that jesus either existed as a man or as a god-man. And the supposed evidence for either, is shakey at best.

Dear Beep:

The reality is that you cannot account for the documentation of Jesus' life dating back to within 100 years of his death without resorting to the implausible notion of a massive conspiracy which fooled thousands of people who then perpetuated the lie.

To say that there is no "proof" is to argue that there is no evidence that makes it reasonable to believe that he did live and did do the things that are said of him.  To say that it is dishonest to believe the records we have of Jesus' life (as you have said), then you must prove why it is unreasonable for a person to believe that Jesus existed and after that prove why it is unreasonable to accept the documents we have as accurately reflecting his life.

The question is not whether we have incontrovertible "proof" but whether or not the evidence provides sufficient warrant such that a person may reasonably believe in his historical life and actions, whether they accept the faith claims required of his life and actions or not.

Regarding your heavy dependence upon a conspiracy theory, you have provided no proof or evidence that such a conspiracy existed other than to quote a statement about "pious fraud" which may or may not have any real deceitful actions associated with it.  Christians have never denied that in the history of Christianity that many egregious things have been done or said by Christians.  For one person to say that "pious frauds" were committed is not to say that those "pious frauds" were committed in the process of the NT scriptural tradition.  A quick survey of the phrase "pious frauds" used in ancient writings indicates that it was spoken of negatively, as being the domain of heretics, and the standard for gauging when such a "pious fraud" was present was by comparing it to the Scriptures. ( as for instance, one example, Vincent of Lerins, "Commontory").  To state that such "frauds" were prevalent  may be true only to the extent that it reflected a situation the church was trying to correct.

In Your Face: The Polemics of Gen. 1:1 - 2:4

Sistine Chapel Ceiling and Lunettes, 1508-12

For the Egyptians it was (among others) Osiris and Isis, whose origins were dimly understood to be from Geb, the god of the earth, and Nut, the goddess of the sky.  The drama of their story was the conspiracy against them led by Isis’ brother Set which resulted in Osiris’ death, ultimate dismemberment, and distribution of body parts throughout the land of Egypt.  Closely tied to the agricultural circumstances of the Nile ecosystem the resulting world and life view that accumulated over the centuries in Egypt saw life in this world as paralleling and ultimately participating in the story of the Gods.

For the ancient Sumerians and their Mesopotamian descendants it was the epic tales connected with their 4000 or so god beings of various strengths and locations.  Among these, the greatest that we know of, culminated in the ascendency of Ishtar (the goddess of fertility) in her time and Marduk of Babylonia in his.  There were stories told, some of which have Biblical counterparts, but consistent among these stories is the explanation of earthly origins as a by-product of some spiritual drama.  Ishtar gave children to women and life to vegetation through her attachment to Tammuz the god of the Spring sun and its awakenings.  Marduk , after his battles with Apsu and Tiamat (chaos) formed the heavens from half of Tiamat’s corpse and separated the waters above from the waters below.  Marduk created man as slaves to do the burdensome work of maintaining creation so that the various gods who the victorious Marduk delegated various responsibilities, would be free to carry on in their life of sensual pleasure.  History, and man within it, stood in relation to the gods as the absolute monarch reigning in Babylon stood in relation to the subjects who supported him.  Life in this world was a participation in the spiritual drama going on around them.

Grieving Death

Meditation:

I just returned from conducting a funeral.  These things are always solemn occasions and this one was no exception.  As always the emotional and spiritual character of those who assemble at such occasions determines the overall impact, but such is not to say that the experience is completely subjective to the specific group.  There is a constancy in grief.  Perhaps in grief, especially in the face of death, is the essential unity of man most clearly manifest.

Such is not the case with birth, interestingly enough.  The modern warm, emotional, "awwww" evoking sentimentality over infants has not always been the case.  There were long periods in human history when infants were often viewed with an almost clinical detachment in many cultures.  The whole idea of a "milk-nurse" was not just because the birth mother was unable to function in this regard, but because it was a job for a servant.  The death rate for infants was so high that quite often a culture would tend toward reserving affection for children to later in their childhood.  But the bewailing of death, primarily for adults or near adults, seems universal though not consistently as emotional in some cultures as others

Further Dialog With BeepBeepItsMe

Continued discussion.  Italics are from Beep, where she prefaces with a RE: she is quoting a previous comment of mine - standard face type is my reply

RE: "Response: As I said in my earlier comment, I do not hold that Christianity is the only world view that is internally logically consistent and therefore provides a framework for explaining the world as we see it. "

Demonstrate how christianity is internally logically consistent. I don't see anything logical about the assumption of supernatural entities. Especially when supernaturalists have no methodology to test the veracity of supernatural claims.