This morning, I was thinking that perhaps I should cut back on bashing people who are so obviously moronic that it's not sound sport to even bother with it. Then I came across the cretinous Joseph Grant Swank's latest bit of utter idiocy:
The APA has stated to media that homosexual lifestyle is normal. It used to be considered abnormal, in need of psychological assistance. Now all its in need of via the APA is protection from the heterosexuals who keep upping the anxiety quotients of those into sodomy.When the APA came out recently with practicing sodomy being okay, then that opened the door to the Roman Catholic Church to retrieve its money spent on molestation cases. They werent molestation cases after all. It was just a bunch of priests doing what comes naturally normally, that is.
With the Roman Catholic in dire financial circumstances in some locales due to lawsuits up the ying yang, the ecclesiastics can now rest back to take on the "victims." The Catholic Church can get its bank accounts back. Enough of this churchly bankruptcy. Get the funds needed to return those church properties and on with the religious progress.
The victims werent victims at all; they were merely personages brought into play with the normal sexual differences. That is, those who have chosen a sexual preference other than hetero were merely acting out their brain normal activities.
I know I say this a lot, but I'm just baffled by it. Can someone really be this fucking stupid? Can someone be so utterly incapable of utilizing the basic laws of logic that they can make an argument this obviously idiotic with a straight face? Are the people in Mr. Swank's congregation (he is the pastor of New Hope Church in Windham, Maine) even more addle-brained, so that they listen to him say things like that from the pulpit and don't call him on it? Jesus Christ, these people are allowed to vote in this country. Frightening.
- Log in to post comments
"Can someone be so utterly incapable of utilizing the basic laws of logic that they can make an argument this obviously idiotic with a straight face?"
It's the anger talking. Diatribes like these are rarely enhanced by logical connections. The rant recipe simply calls for several hot-button keywords of the moment to be marinated in invective and burnt to a crisp over high heat caution: this recipe often induces testosterone poisoning).
Jesus Christ, these people are allowed to vote in this country. Frightening.
Even more frightening is that these people are allowed to reproduce. Their children are destined to have the IQ of a typical houseplant. No offense intended to houseplants, of course.
This isn't stupidity. It's more than that. It's even more than ignorance. It is what happens when people's minds are blinded by prejudice and bigotry. Any logic that might otherwise be present is banished. It is why people whose skin happened to be a different colour had to fight like hell for generations just to be accepted as full members of society.
But as a Christian (Anglican), I have to say it is really beyond disgusting to hear this sort of mindless drivel from those who claim to be followers of Christ.
In answer to your questions, yes.
Do you ever take on things you find from people from the right who aren't stupid or poor debaters? I'm a little confused as to the point of this blog. One could just as easily take on a bunch of fringe lefty nutjobs or even well intentioned lefties who can't argue that well. You seem only to focus on the weak among those of the Christian faith and the socially conservative, and leave the weak secularists and bigoted leftists alone.
On the other hand, if you think that Christianity or socially conservative positions are inherently stupid and flawed, then why wouldn't you attack more well known Christian or conservative intellectuals and their positions and arguments instead of pathetic strawmen?
What is the reason for your fierce vitriol for the socially conservative?
Do you ever take on things you find from people from the right who aren't stupid or poor debaters?
Well, I've "taken on" Bill Dembski, Phil Johnson, Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, Bill Kristol and Joseph Farah at various times. I wouldn't consider any of them stupid, but perhaps your mileage may vary. It's certainly true that lately I have been focusing on some of the loonier religious right voices, but that's primarily because I just keep coming across things that blow me away and I feel compelled to share them. Just when I think I've hit bottom, along comes someone to see that stupidity and raise it exponentially. I certainly hope it doesn't continue to get worse because I'm endlessly fascinated by the whackos even while being appalled by them.
I'm a little confused as to the point of this blog.
I would suggest that your confusion begins with the mistaken notion that this blog has a "point" other than being a place where I put down my thoughts for otehrs to read. If you read the archives, you'll see that those thoughts cover an enormously wide range of subjects and "points".
One could just as easily take on a bunch of fringe lefty nutjobs or even well intentioned lefties who can't argue that well.
Of course one could, and many do, and sometimes the result is quite amusing. I've wandered into that territory myself from time to time, particularly regarding some of the sillier ideas among academic leftists like the pomos and deconstructionists.
You seem only to focus on the weak among those of the Christian faith and the socially conservative, and leave the weak secularists and bigoted leftists alone.
Well I'm sure that Rusty Lopez, Matt Powell and the other Christians I've engaged here will be glad to you know you consider them the "weak among those of the Christian faith". I've actually done my share of hammering bigoted leftists and secularists as well, particularly hammering France's ridiculous decision to outlaw the wearing of religious garb in schools.
On the other hand, if you think that Christianity or socially conservative positions are inherently stupid and flawed, then why wouldn't you attack more well known Christian or conservative intellectuals and their positions and arguments instead of pathetic strawmen?
First, I do not think that Christianity is inherently stupid, but I do think it is inherently flawed. If I didn't think it was flawed, I would obviously BE a Christian. But that is an entirely different question from whether it is inherently stupid, and I would argue vehemently that it is not. I do think that biblical literalism is, at its core, misological in nature, but that is not the same as saying that all biblical literalists are misologists.
I certainly recognize that there is a big difference between the seriousness with which one should deal with Jerry Falwell, for example, versus how one should deal with the likes of Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig or Luke Timothy Johnson, just as there is an enormous difference between Josh McDowell and Thomas Aquinas. But frankly, it is the likes of Falwell and McDowell who shape the opinions of most people, not the far more credible others that I mentioned. By the same token, there are conservative historians more credible than David Barton, but it is Barton who is on religious TV and radio constantly and who has influence over the Republican Party platform.
On other subjects, I don't think I've slummed quite as much. On legal subjects I have engaged the judicial philosophies of Bork and Scalia. Do you have conservative judicial theorists more prominent or well reasoned than those men?
On the subject of science and evolution, I have often engaged the ideas of William Dembski, Phil Johnson, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe, Hugh Ross and others. Am I missing out on the best and the brightest in that regard? I don't think so.
What is the reason for your fierce vitriol for the socially conservative?
At the core, my vitriol comes from the basic fact that social conservatism is little more than the desire to control others. My vitriol comes from the same place that Mencken's vitriol against social conservatism came from, and I will quote him because he said it so perfectly:
Mr. Brayton,
To read you is always a pleasure. Nevertheless, I have to disagree with your response here.
But first let me say that I am wholeheartedly with you disagreeing with Johnson, Dembski, and Behe. At the same time I don't see them being defended in the comment you are responding to, nor is the one commenting accusing you of not taking on the best proponents of ID doctrine. I for one disagree with everything in ID, and I agree with the comment posted entirely.
Reagarding your other points:
All right, so you admit to "slumming" when it comes to your selection of opponents who defend traditional Christian ideas,
and you have engaged the leftists in another country (France. Wow. There's a powerhouse of political thought. What a worthy adversary for one who claims to be an "intellectual" interested in "ideas"). Kodiak took you to task for your choosing of Christian and Conservative opponents. His opinion stands.
Now to a less important matter of the Mencken Quotation, about which I may need some clarification:
The Mencken quotation you cite speaks of a "burden of proof" placed on the "lawmaker, theologian and right thinker" First of all, I am baffeled as to how such persons can be characterized as being examples of the "conservatives that desire to control others". First, Mencken never uses the word "conservative" or "liberal" here, and even if he did, is it not reasonable to think that the political terms of Menken's times are not equivalent to ours? What did Mencken, dying in 1956, know of president LBJ? Or of Jimmy Carter and George Mc Govern? Or of Mario Cuomo and Bill Clinton? Is it not fair to say that these men have changed the idea of what it means to be a liberal or progressive? Even if they haven't, the words "liberal" and "conservative" do not mean the same things now. Going beyond that and getting back to Mencken's quotation, do you think there is not an overwhelming, powerful and well known group of "lawmakers, theologians, and right thinkers" on the political left in America? How often do you take them to task for not proving their opinions "doubly, triply, quadruply"? And as a matter of fact, who would expect to find a justification given "doubly, triply, and quadruply" so long as he "slums" among theologians and gives his most memorable critique of leftists when dealing with the leftists in france?
You admit that there is a "vast difference between Josh Mcdowell an Thomas Aquinas". A truer statement was never said. You take on the josh Mcdowels and Jerry falwells because they influence opinion. Fine. I can only assume that you look to their articulations of the christian faith, and your own opinions to discern that Christianity "is inherently flawed", because you show no understanding of the likes of those who could give you serious arguments and answers to your theological questions and assertions- Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, John Damascene, Jerome, Athanasius, Albert the Great, or a host of others. Is this any way for a man interested in great ideas, and who obviously has a great deal of writing talent and critical intelligence to form his opinions?
Regarding Bork and Scalia: They hold the same docrine, sc. legal positivism. To take them as the most "well reasoned" of "conservative Judicial theorists" is to ignore the vast body of conservative thinkers who, even if they are not judges, vigouously deny the basis of everything that Bork and Scalia say. Lincoln springs to mind, so does everyone arguing for a natural law. Apart from either of these, there is Alan Keyes, who admittedly contradicted his opinion on moving to another state to run, but when it comes to his political ideas, what is your refutation? "Like Swaggert, almost everything he says is nonsense". Perhaps this is true, but when can we expect the refutation? Shall we assume that you cannot give one? Shall we assume that your refutation is hanging out with your proof that "christianity is inherently flawed"? Or with your refutation of the great christian thologians' ideas of biblical innerancy? (hint, this does not include Matt Powell or Randy Lopez, as they certainly should admit) Or perhaps it's hanging out with your refutation of my post on Will Wilkenson, whose opinions on evolution and human nature you so highly praised. Either way, if you are interested in great ideas I suggest you role up your sleeves and dedicate your considerable talent toward debating them, as opposed to confidently refuting the fringes of the herd.
p.s. just a minor point. in this section:
"It's certainly true that lately I have been focusing on some of the loonier religious right voices, but that's primarily because I just keep coming across things that blow me away and I feel compelled to share them."
are you saying there is NOTHING among secularists, the religious left, and the new left that doesn't give you the same reaction? And unless you are saying this, you have not dealt with Kodiak's point, who observed
"One could just as easily take on a bunch of fringe lefty nutjobs or even well intentioned lefties who can't argue that well"
Isn't he right? Should any opinion be judged by its weaker exposition?
I have come to the conlusion that the human condition is defined by a continuum of sentience, begining with normal folk and splaying to either side of the bell curve. The fact that all of them are participants in the political decision making process poses the problem here. Unfortunately, the notion that we are created in the "image and likeness of God" skews or self ranking beyoind what the data would support; that is we as a herd have much more in common with cows than with a cohort of rocket scientists or a conclave of Mensa members.
One might better think of the process of governing this herd as the system which nurtures cattle toward their fate as food. It is not that stupidity is allowed to flourish in the discourse of human government, it is the case that the whole of the human dialogue goes unregistered in the collective mind, and it is the animal appetites which impell us onward heedless of the voices of enlightened thought.
shulamite wrote:
But first let me say that I am wholeheartedly with you disagreeing with Johnson, Dembski, and Behe. At the same time I don't see them being defended in the comment you are responding to, nor is the one commenting accusing you of not taking on the best proponents of ID doctrine. I for one disagree with everything in ID, and I agree with the comment posted entirely.
Of course ID wasn't being defended in the comment I was replying to, but that comment clearly implied that I only bother to "take on" the stupid and weak when I engage in an argument. My having "taken on" Dembski, Behe, et al, was merely a counterexample to show that this is not the case. If there are smarter and stronger voices in the anti-evolution camp, I'm not aware of who they might be.
All right, so you admit to "slumming" when it comes to your selection of opponents who defend traditional Christian ideas, and you have engaged the leftists in another country (France. Wow. There's a powerhouse of political thought. What a worthy adversary for one who claims to be an "intellectual" interested in "ideas"). Kodiak took you to task for your choosing of Christian and Conservative opponents. His opinion stands.
If all he was taking me to task for was choosing Christian and conservative opponents, his point would have been meaningless. Of course I frequently take on Christian conservative viewpoints; I am strongly opposed to those viewpoints. That should be obvious to pretty much anyone who can read. My point, however, was twofold. First, while in some cases I have clearly attacked the intellectually inferior, I have also often engaged the ideas of the best and the brightest among Christian conservatives in a range of areas. Second, many of the intellectually inferior folks whose arguments I have engaged - David Barton, Jerry Falwell, Craige McMillan, etc - are very influential and widely acclaimed. And yes, a few of them have been fringe figures whose arguments were just so astonishingly stupid that I felt compelled to reply to them with all due sarcasm and mockery.
The Mencken quotation you cite speaks of a "burden of proof" placed on the "lawmaker, theologian and right thinker" First of all, I am baffeled as to how such persons can be characterized as being examples of the "conservatives that desire to control others". First, Mencken never uses the word "conservative" or "liberal" here, and even if he did, is it not reasonable to think that the political terms of Menken's times are not equivalent to ours?
Oi vey. Read Mencken and you will find that this is the sort of brief list he often uses to characterize his opponents. At other times he would have referred to "presbyterians and lodge joiners" or to any number of other terms. His opponents were consistently those who sought to control others illegitimately, as by the forces of prohibition during his lifetime. You're putting far too much effort into picking apart the minutae of this quote, I merely offered it as an explanation for why I am so passionately opposed to most of what passes under the label of social conservatism - because I believe in liberty and they so often seek to violate liberty without justification. I could list a wide range of examples - laws against pornography, gambling, drug use (even when prescribed by a doctor), consensual sexual behavior between adults (sodomy laws and anti-prostitution laws), the federal marriage amendment, and many more.
I try to avoid labels, though they are not entirely avoidable. I often refer to the "religious right" because it's a generally accepted term that refers to a set of positions with which I strongly disagree, but I do so while recognizing that there are some who might go under that label who are more reasonable than others. I also tend not to think as much about right vs. left as most people do, but more in terms of libertarian and authoritarian. The left certainly has its authoritarians too, such as those who advocate "hate speech" codes on college campuses (something I am entirely opposed to). But we currently have in power an administration that is pushing most of the agenda of the religious right in one way or another, so it should hardly be a shock that those issues are discussed more often than some of the things I disagree with on the other side.
You admit that there is a "vast difference between Josh Mcdowell an Thomas Aquinas". A truer statement was never said. You take on the josh Mcdowels and Jerry falwells because they influence opinion. Fine. I can only assume that you look to their articulations of the christian faith, and your own opinions to discern that Christianity "is inherently flawed", because you show no understanding of the likes of those who could give you serious arguments and answers to your theological questions and assertions- Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, John Damascene, Jerome, Athanasius, Albert the Great, or a host of others. Is this any way for a man interested in great ideas, and who obviously has a great deal of writing talent and critical intelligence to form his opinions?
You assume incorrectly. I've done a good deal of study in the writings of the church fathers and the great theologians, mostly as a younger man while searching for something to support my waning faith. I've read Aquinas, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Van Til, Schaeffer and many others. In the 9 months that I've had this blog, I have not taken the time to offer lengthy critiques of their work, nor have I really bothered to get into the issue of the truth or falsity of Christianity often at all (you may notice that the few times I've discussed it, it was as a by product of another discussion with a specific person whose arguments I was engaging, not because I offered a dissertation to disprove Christianity).
Regarding Bork and Scalia: They hold the same docrine, sc. legal positivism. To take them as the most "well reasoned" of "conservative Judicial theorists" is to ignore the vast body of conservative thinkers who, even if they are not judges, vigouously deny the basis of everything that Bork and Scalia say. Lincoln springs to mind, so does everyone arguing for a natural law.
For crying out loud. Think about the argument you're making here - "In arguing against the ideas of Bork and Scalia, you haven't refuted the ideas of those who would agree with you that Bork and Scalia are wrong." No kidding, what a shock. Of what relevance is it? I engaged the positions of Bork and Scalia, not the positions of those who disagree with them. I engaged their ideas, not opposing ideas that might possibly be grouped under the same heading by someone.
There is of course a variety of legal conceptions among conservative judicial scholars and it is of course true that in the 9 months I've had this blog, I have not written a detailed critique of every one of the varieties. Am I required to do so? I've chosen to write about the things I've chosen to write about, the ideas that most offend me and the ideas that are most influential. The Bork/Scalia school of judicial thinking (and yes, I do understand that there are some differences between the two, so don't bother nitpicking that generalization as well) is currently ascendant among conservative judges on the bench, within the current administration (meaning most likely to influence future judicial appointments), and within the popular conservative media, so naturally it is those arguments and that position that I am most likely to take notice of and engage here. I can't for the life of me understand why this is a surprise to you, or why you think you are in a position to demand that I do otherwise.
Apart from either of these, there is Alan Keyes, who admittedly contradicted his opinion on moving to another state to run, but when it comes to his political ideas, what is your refutation? "Like Swaggert, almost everything he says is nonsense". Perhaps this is true, but when can we expect the refutation? Shall we assume that you cannot give one?
Quite frankly, I couldn't possibly care any less what you choose to assume. I've written two short articles about Keyes, both of them focusing on his decision to run for the senate in Illinois. Alan Keyes has been virtually non-existent for the last few years, his name has only surfaced in the last two weeks. And horror of horrors, in the last two weeks I haven't taken the time to write a dissertation disproving "his political ideas", while I have made a couple of basic comments on my reaction to his ideas. If you want to assume that therefore I am incapable of engaging Keyes' positions, by all means feel free to do so. Or feel free to ignore any and all statements that I make that are not backed up by a 50 page paper analyzing the issue in great detail.
Shall we assume that your refutation is hanging out with your proof that "christianity is inherently flawed"?
I didn't offer a proof that Christianity is inherently flawed. I merely made the obvious statement that if I didn't think Christianity was flawed, I would BE a Christian. I've offered bits and pieces here and there of the reasons why I decided to leave Christianity in my younger days, but I've never written a long and detailed exposition on the subject. Guess what? I may never do so. Guess what else? I'm not obligated to do so. It's my blog. I write about the things I want to write about at any given time. Sometimes those things are frivolous, sometimes they're amusing, sometimes they're more serious and scholarly. You don't think it's scholarly enough? Don't read it.
Or perhaps it's hanging out with your refutation of my post on Will Wilkenson, whose opinions on evolution and human nature you so highly praised.
I didn't realize I was obligated to refute your post in response to Will Wilkinson's post. Come to think of it, I'm pretty damn sure I'm not obligated to refute it. I saw your response to him, and it just didn't pique my interest much. I certainly didn't realize you were offering it as some sort of challenge that I should feel it necessary to refute, especially since the only mention of me in it was by way of introduction in noting that you saw his post because I linked to it. I did forward it on to Will in case he felt the need to respond, but whether he does so is up to him.
Either way, if you are interested in great ideas I suggest you role up your sleeves and dedicate your considerable talent toward debating them, as opposed to confidently refuting the fringes of the herd.
I have a suggestion for you as well. If there are some posts on this blog you don't think are scholarly enough, or don't think take on the targets you want me to take on, I strongly suggest that you don't read them. Likewise, if you aren't interested in the things I write about poker, or college basketball, or stand up comedy, by all means don't bother to read them.
You seem to be disappointed that in the 9 months I've been posting on this blog, I have not yet written a magnum opus that conclusively refutes all of the great theologians of history, something that could easily be the sum total of the life's work of several philosophers. Or that I have not yet written a dissertation refuting all of natural law theory or its related ideas, a project that could tie up a highly productive legal theorist for the bulk of his academic career. Well, sorry. Sometimes what I write is deep and serious, sometimes it is only for my own amusement (particularly when mocking someone who really has it coming), and sometimes it is entirely frivolous. But when you come along and suggest that I'm not justified in believing anything that I believe if I have not produced scholarly papers to defend even the most casual of statements and I have not written dissertations that refute the positions of everyone I might possibly disagree with, you're just frankly becoming an irritant. You don't like it, don't read it.
Ed Brayton wrote:
I have a suggestion for you as well. If there are some posts on this blog you don't think are scholarly enough, or don't think take on the targets you want me to take on, I strongly suggest that you don't read them. Likewise, if you aren't interested in the things I write about poker, or college basketball, or stand up comedy, by all means don't bother to read them.
But Ed, you have a moral obligation to discuss all the ideologies, platforms, and issues that matter to me.
Seriously, though, better advice to the contrarian might be: take on those targets, or, if need be, defend them, yourself. You have your own voice, your own blog, your own petards to toss. It's just like the counselor's office poster: "If it is to be, it is up to me." Ten words, twenty letters!
"I do not think that Christianity is inherently stupid..."
I'm pretty sure you believe Christianity is inherently stupid. Maybe what you mean is that Christians (or people who call themselves that) aren't inherently stupid. And I'd agree, particularly since most of them seem smart enough to ignore most of the teachings of their Good Book most of the time.
Now if we could just wean them from that personal deity idea...
I'm pretty sure you believe Christianity is inherently stupid. Maybe what you mean is that Christians (or people who call themselves that) aren't inherently stupid.
No, I really don't think that Christianity is inherently stupid. I think there is a distinction to be made between a belief that is false and a belief that is stupid; at least I make such a distinction myself. I think there are beliefs for which one can make a reasonable argument that are still false, and I would put Christianity into that category. And I don't automatically discount personal faith as an argument, unless it is used to defend a position that is obviously falsified by the evidence. For example, I think believing in a literally true Noah's Ark story is stupid. The evidence against a global flood that killed off nearly all the animals and people on the planet in the space of a year is so overwhelming that it is perverse and absurd to say, "Well I have faith that all that evidence isn't true." But in the case of, say, the resurrection of Christ, there isn't similarly strong evidence against it. Now, obviously I do not find the evidence FOR the resurrection to be compelling or I would believe it, but believing it on the basis of the textual evidence, or even on the basis of personal faith, does not require the believer to ignore, distort or deny a huge body of evidence against the resurrection. There is a distinction there, I think, between believing something for which the evidence is not compelling (to me, at least), and believing something that the evidence is squarely against. In my opinion, the latter is a stupid belief, the former is not. Make sense?
True enough if one puts a figurative gloss on the Bible, believing that the Bible is the (figurative) word of God is not prima facie falsifiable. And indeed some parts of the Bible (like your example of the flood myth) are open to metaphoric interpretation.
But not all parts. In particular I have in mind the central tenet of Christianity: the resurrection story. On this score the Gospels are ineliminably fundamentalist, and if one were to recast Christ's resurrection as mere metaphor, it seems to me there's really nothing left of Christianity properly called). Yet surely our evidence is "squarely against" the notion of resurrection. It's an "inherently stupid" notion, then. QED, I think.
What is the reason for your fierce vitriol for the socially conservative?
What Ed said. These groups literally want to enforce an arbitrary and at times bizarre set of rules on the public at large to satisfy
their personal religious and ideological biases.
And with that potential power comes disingenuous manipulators who will seize on the underlying prejudices and wield it like a club against any minority or group unfortunate to find themselves in those ideological cross hairs. The resulting events have proven most tragic again and again through out history, as power by an once gained unquestionable authority regardless of the noble underlying original motives, changes nature over time and often leads to violent repression, even genocide.
Thus, such vigilance is fully warranted in any culture which values personal freedom and democracy. Theocracy in general is the antithesis to those qualities of liberty most people value highly.
As far as Christianity or any other faith, anyone who has been active in issues which bring incidental or direct discussion with theistically inclined individuals comes to understand sooner or later, that religions such as Christianity bring a great deal of comfort to people who practice them. Nevertheless for many of us the underlying mythology makes such little sense we simply cannot 'believe' in such a doctrine unless we quite literally fake it.
True enough if one puts a figurative gloss on the Bible, believing that the Bible is the (figurative) word of God is not prima facie falsifiable. And indeed some parts of the Bible (like your example of the flood myth) are open to metaphoric interpretation.
But that really isn't what I said at all. I'm not talking about the difference between literal and figurative interpretations of a text, I'm talking about the distinction between a stupid belief a (probably) false but not inherently stupid belief. The distinction there is between believing something for which we may not have evidence that would compel everyone else to believe in it (and I think we all hold beliefs that would qualify) and believing something that we have very strong evidence against.
Yet surely our evidence is "squarely against" the notion of resurrection. It's an "inherently stupid" notion, then. QED, I think.
That is where we disagree. I don't think we have specific evidence against the claim of resurrection. We certainly can say that in our experience, human beings do not rise from the dead. And we can say that, as an extraordinary claim, one should demand a very high standard of evidence before assenting to the claim. And we can say, with some justification, that the textual evidence is fragmentary, of doubtful origin, sometimes contradictory, and is unsupported by non-Christian texts from the same time frame. But that is still a different level of argument than saying that we have positive evidence against this particular claim. It's the difference between saying that a claim is uncertain (and I certainly think the resurrection claim qualifies as uncertain) and saying that we can be certain, based upon the evidence, that it did not happen. If someone tells me that he believes something that there is positive evidence against, I will call that a stupid belief. If someone tells me that he believes something for which the evidence is less than compelling, I won't call that belief stupid. I may call it doubtful, uncompelling, highly unlikely, and so forth.
I think this is particularly important in historical matters. If someone tells me, for example, that George Washington was a Christian, I'll gladly debate that point. There is textual evidence from his own hand, the testimony of others to look at, and so forth. And though I do not think that Washington was a Christian, I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable position even though I think the weight of the evidence points in the other direction. But if someone tells me that George Washington did not exist, in the face of an enormous mountain of evidence that he did, then that is a stupid belief. That is believing something contrary to the evidence, as opposed to believing something for which we may lack compelling evidence.
I know you don't recognize it as an authority, but perhaps the basic wisdom of it will appeal to you:
1 Corinthians 13:2
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
I don't think we have specific evidence against the claim of resurrection.
Well we don't have specific evidence against the flying ability of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer either. But then we don't need specific evidence, because we have general evidence coupled with a sound induction.
CHRISTIAN, n.
One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.
--Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
BTW, it is clear to anyone paying attention that conservative christian churches and organizations express an inordinate interest in homosexuals and homosexuality. It is also clear that they do so in large part because it is good for fund-raising.
Matt-
I find much in 1 Corinthians 13 that I find inspiring and admirable. In fact, just last week I suggested to Lynn that she read it and I added a bit to the ending myself about the ability of love to create hope. Having said that, I'm at a loss to understand why you quoted what you did to me, especially in the context of this thread.
Well we don't have specific evidence against the flying ability of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer either. But then we don't need specific evidence, because we have general evidence coupled with a sound induction.
And those are sound reasons to doubt the story, I agree. But it's still not the same as having evidence against it. I also wouldn't go too far with the analogy. I do think there is a difference between something that was clearly intended to be a fairy tale and a claim that was believed strongly by those who reported it at the time it allegedly occured. It's not enough of a difference to make the latter believable, in my view, but it's enough of a difference to make the acceptance of it considerably more reasonable than believing in Rudolph pulling a sleigh through the air. Remember, the distinction I'm drawing is not between which claims I believe and which I don't; it is between which claims I consider merely false (or likely so) and which claims I consider stupid or perverse to believe.
raj-
As much as I love Bierce's Devil's Dictionary and his nearly unrivaled ability to turn a phrase, I don't think that is an accurate description of most Christians. I think most Christians are entirely sincere in their beliefs and they try their best to live it.
As far as the Christian right using homosexuality to raise funds, I think you're quite right. It's a perfect issue for demagoguery and it's easy to scare older people, in particular, with images of out of control gays taking over the country. Times of social change are always times where demagogues prey on the fears of the simpleminded.
I do think there is a difference between something that was clearly intended to be a fairy tale and a claim that was believed strongly by those who reported it at the time it allegedly occured.
I don't think that's a principled distinction at all. The rational acceptability of any claim stands or falls on its merits, not the intentions of its author. Believing in the Rudolph fairy tale isn't absurd because it was intended to be a fairy tale; it's absurd because the fairy tale makes a kind of claim that runs squarely counter to our general evidence about claims of that kind.
So it is too with the resurrection story. Is it not?
The resurrection story doesn't seem like a fairy tale to me.
We have people revived today who were clinically dead. Children who have fallen through the winter ice have been successfully revived after 30 - 40 minutes. It seems to me that as medical technology improves, these times can be improved to perhaps several hours, then even several days.
Also, just as we are now immunized against certain diseases, I'm sure that technology will develop which will predespose the body to heal more quickly. If a little spittle can make the blind see, it appears that this is a possibility we should look forward to.
Since God is a whiz of a technician, Who knows all these things already, raising Christ from the dead should have been a snap. We might have the technology to do the same thing ourselves some day.
This extrapolation may seem implausable, but it is not impossible.
Speaking of Rudolph, have you heard of his cousin, Randolph, the brown nosed raindeer? He could run as fast as Rudolph, he just couldn't stop as fast.
Bill, if God exists he could also endow reindeer with the power of flight, so I'm not sure how that helps distinguish the resurrection tale from its cervidaeous counterpart.
Also, absent medical intervention, a clinically dead person undergoes chemical changes that ineluctably cause swelling of the blood vessels in the brain and a rise in pressure in the brain cavity. The result is that all blood flow shuts down within about five minutes. Once that happens, all of the brain cells will die within hours. It's easy enough to see from this that any story about an actually (rather than mistakenly designated) dead person autoresuscitating after three days is as implausible as any fairy tale.
Actually, due to the late hour, He was rushed to the tomb and the door was sealed all within a few hours. He could have revived then. He only reappeared a few days later.
Brain cells dying is certainly one difficulty to be overcome as we improve our ability to revive people later after death, that's for sure.
Reindeer can't fly because there is no reason that God would want them to.
"He was rushed to the tomb and the door was sealed all within a few hours. He could have revived then. He only reappeared a few days later."
The biblical account (1) has Jesus dying ("yield[ing] up the ghost," at Matt 27:61) and (2) saying "After three days I will rise [not "appear"] again." (Matt 27:63.) So the quoted attempt to naturalize Christ's death doesn't really square very well with what the Bible actually says.
Furthermore, at Matt 27:52 et seq. we have that "many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many"! (Whoa! But what then are we to make of Job 7:9?) So it's not just one resurrection we're talking about here. (Now I know where George Romero gets his plot ideas.)
Postscriptum: I'd never really thought about it, but this whole line of discussion points up the real Catch 22 (hinted at by Hume) for Christian belief. The reason Christ's rising is so special is that on its face it is wildly improbable. But this means that Christian faith by definition requires belief in a claim that on its face is wildly improbable. But improbability normally means belief should run in the opposite direction. And what do we normally call it when someone believes something that is wildly improbable on its face?
Wow, Looks like some more practical version of cryogenic storage and revival has been around for a long time!
Ed Brayton at August 15, 2004 03:45 PM
>As much as I love Bierce's Devil's Dictionary and his nearly unrivaled ability to turn a phrase, I don't think that is an accurate description of most Christians.
Perhaps not of most Christians, but it is a reasonably accurate description of more than a few Christians of the conservative stripe. For example, I don't recall hearing any Buddhists decrying the Supreme Court's decision in the Texas sodomy case last summer. And at least one southern state controlled by conservative Christians has passed a ban on the sale of "marital aids." Those are just two recent examples illustrating Bierce's point.
Bill Ware at August 15, 2004 05:48 PM
>The resurrection story doesn't seem like a fairy tale to me.
From what I have read, the death and resurrection of the god--typically the sun god--was fairly common in religions in the Levant.