Dawkins : "I'm a cultural Christian".

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Professor Richard Dawkins has said the he is ' A Cultural Christian'.
In a news story on the BBC website, he declared that he has no wish to see Christmas cancelled, or see Britain lose any part of it's Christian heritage. This may come as a surprise to some, but his website tends to direct its venom towards the more negative aspects of religious belief.

These include the Catholic Church's stance on child molesting priests, it's opposition to contraception, and its condemnation of gay people. Yet Protestant believers come in for criticism too. It isn't simply a belief in Adam and Eve that Dawkins criticises, it's the Old Testament's account of Joshua's conquests, the concept of Hell and the moral standards taught in the O.T. that also provoke his ire.

Well, my take on it is as follows -
the Jews didn't really do the conquest of Canaan like the Bible says,in fact they didn't conquer Canaan at all - Joshua's campaign was largely a propaganda exercise done in a later period;
the concept of Hell as a place of eternal torment rests upon misinterpretation and misunderstanding of certain Biblical passages, as well as a certain amount of Hellenistic influence;
the sexism, racism and homophobia are all there in the Torah, but the Jews themselves got over a lot of it before Jesus came along and finished the job.

If we were to teach History in school and pay more attention to events in the Levant around the Bronze Age, it would do a lot to dispel the negative influence that religious mythology still has on society. We can dump all that stuff and still have a version of Christianity that is different from Atheism. And, yes, I would be happy to explain the specifics in the comments - if I get any:)

Comments

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

But your OP made reference to Christianity. Hence my question -- which I will repeat:

Is there nothing reliable about the narratives of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Is there any reason, outside of their corroboration of each other to credit anything in the narratives that is not otherwise known historical fact? I mean, so far as we know there was no massacre of innocents, despite Matthew's claims.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Despite what some people believe, these documents did not fall out of the sky. They existed in communities of witnesses.

But, no, there is no reason to believe Matthew, Plato or Pepys for that matter. I believe it is even possible to doubt our own direct experience of consciousness.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Plenty of other things existed in communities of witnesses, but changed in crucial aspects over time when they were passed mouth-to-mouth rather than by written record. This is a good reason to be skeptical of their validity as historical records.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Then one advantage that the gospel narratives would have over, say, Plato's work would be the contemporaneousness of the manuscripts.

But, sure, the gospels are not great history. It doesn't seem that the intent of the authors was to document the government of Idumea.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Relative contepmoraneousness. John wasn't completed until, what, seventy years after Christ died? Two generations to get screwy. It's easy to pick on John since it's the odd Gospel out in a lot of ways, but still. Even Matthew was, what, like a full generation out from the reported events?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Right. As opposed to centuries for Plato.

Of course, people are still writing histories of Ancient Egypt today. They really ought to stop.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Argh, LJ keeps eating my posts.

Let's presume that Plato's writings were not written by Plato, or that we now have totally different documents from what Plato said. The arguments stand independent of their place in history, no? The Republic is still The Republic if it was all a clever joke played on us by fourteenth-century scriveners. As for Ancient Egypt, nobody is basing their morality on the factual accuracy of ancient Egyptian succession chains. Maybe their Hollywood blockbusters about vengeful corpses, but not their morality.

Compare to the Gospels, where if the facts surrounding Jesus are incorrect, then it is likely that his claim that none of us can come to Heaven but through him (one of the central claims of the faith) is also incorrect. Change The Republic's author or any of the facts surrounding the argument, and it's A-OK. But since the Gospels boil down to an appeal to divine authority (since the logical necessity of supernatural forgiveness cannot be derived from any first principles that are not themselves supernatural, and thus rooted in divine authority), removing their factual accuracy calls into question how closely they accord to the authority that is their only vindication.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Except that's not the issue at hand. You've jumped from the relative claims about the authenticity of a document to the relative stakes associated with that authenticity.

The authenticity of Christian theology is not based on the historical accuracy of the scriptures. At all.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

So, had Jesus neither lived nor died, Christian theology would remain unscathed? I find that... difficult to believe.

And I'm not defending Plato or ancient Egyptian histories. You're proposing that the Gospels are in some way historically accurate. Your main argument seems to be the "community of witnesses" thing and pointing out that some unsubstantiated stuff occurs in other fields, which are not the topic of discussion. If anyone is jumping claims, it's you. So far all I've really said is that the historical accuracy of the scriptures is central to the claims made by Christian theology, which you've refuted with... a blanket statement without argument behind it. I respect if you don't want to do theological debates with an admittedly not-as-theologically-educated atheist on LJ of all places, but that's just kinda terrible argumentative form.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

So, had Jesus neither lived nor died, Christian theology would remain unscathed? I find that... difficult to believe.

No, nobody said anything remotely like this. The statement was "The authenticity of Christian theology is not based on the historical accuracy of the scriptures." If you think about it for a few moments, it should be quite evident why any assertion that Christianity is fully rooted in the gospel narratives is absurd.

In fact, you just pointed out why this would be an absurdity yourself.

Your main argument seems to be the "community of witnesses" thing and pointing out that some unsubstantiated stuff occurs in other fields, which are not the topic of discussion.

If you're making an epistemological inquiry, then a broader investigation of epistemology is definitely relevant.

So far all I've really said is that the historical accuracy of the scriptures is central to the claims made by Christian theology, which you've refuted with... a blanket statement without argument behind it.

Yes, well I have indeed made the assertion without an argument yet. But I'm just giving you the opportunity to consider why this is obviously the case. Just think about it for a minute. How could the Christian religion at its core possibly be based on the New Testament? Can causality go backwards?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

No, nobody said anything remotely like this. The statement was "The authenticity of Christian theology is not based on the historical accuracy of the scriptures." If you think about it for a few moments, it should be quite evident why any assertion that Christianity is fully rooted in the gospel narratives is absurd.
Well, I tested your assertion by making all elements of the scripture historically inaccurate. And you appear to agree (or at least don't immediately and clearly disagree) with the claim that, absent Jesus's existence, life, and death, Christian theology would not exist as we know it. Therefor, Christian theology must be based in at least some of the Gospels being historically accurate on several counts. I suppose I could see an argument that it'd still be true on some inaccessibly high plane of existence, like the Grecian urn buried and forgotten is yet beautiful, but I don't even buy that. If no one died for your sins, then how can the central claim of Christian theology (of salvation through Jesus's death and resurrection) be correct? Feel free to correct me if you think I'm that far off on what I consider the central claim, of course.

If you're making an epistemological inquiry, then a broader investigation of epistemology is definitely relevant.
Only if I'm defending the epistemological superiority of Plato, which I'm not. You made a claim, and I'm asking you to support it. Generally, pointing out that some other, unrelated claim might be false is irrelevant to whether your claim is true or not.

Yes, well I have indeed made the assertion without an argument yet. But I'm just giving you the opportunity to consider why this is obviously the case. Just think about it for a minute. How could the Christian religion at its core possibly be based on the New Testament? Can causality go backwards?
So delete the entirety of the New Testament from historical reality (and we'll presume for the moment that the OT/Torah/Pentateuch/whateveryouwanttocallit is, at the very least, an accurate and true metaphor). Again, does Christian theology exist in this new world we've created? Not so far as I can see, not in any form we'd recognize as members of our world peering through the window to the New Testament-less world. I hate quoting scripture because I'm always fairly certain I get it wrong, as again, I'm no expert, but I'll hazard a shot here: "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Christian theology (and again, I consider soteriology the central claim of the faith) is absolutely dependent on the accuracy of certain elements of the Gospels.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The problem is you're conflating "absent Jesus's existence, life, and death, Christian theology would not exist as we know it" with "Therefor, Christian theology must be based in at least some of the Gospels being historically accurate". The events are not the same as the written record of the events, but you are switching between them indiscriminately.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Well, I tested your assertion by making all elements of the scripture historically inaccurate. And you appear to agree (or at least don't immediately and clearly disagree) with the claim that, absent Jesus's existence, life, and death, Christian theology would not exist as we know it. Therefor, Christian theology must be based in at least some of the Gospels being historically accurate on several counts.

Again, the level of logical fallacy here is stunning.

Pastor: "My existence is not contingent upon the accuracy of my birth certificate."
Machine: "Let's test that hypothesis. I will make your birth certificate false. See? In that case you wouldn't exist!"

I'll make it simple for you. The Christian faith predates the New Testament scriptures. Therefore, the Christian faith cannot be contingent upon the New Testament scripures. Causality cannot go backwards.

It is very telling that apparently intelligent people -- including both atheists and sola scriptura Christians -- fully abandon the most basic principles of reason when discussing theology.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

A fair enough point. I saw it differently when I phrased it, sort of the negative space of what you're saying here. If nothing in the scriptures was true, then the opposite of the scriptures were true, then the facts of Jesus' life and death would be untrue. He would never have lived or died. Sorta more like saying "Well, you don't exist, therefor your birth certificate is inaccurate, because you were, in fact, never born." I actually didn't really reverse causality - I posited that the scriptures say X, and not just "not X" but "the opposite of X" is true. Therefor Christian theology, which undeniably shares some necessary facts with the Scriptures, is shaken to its core by the Scriptures being opposite-of-true.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I actually didn't really reverse causality

The reversal of causality is inherent in any assertion that Christian theology is at its core contingent upon the New Testament scriptures. Christian theology predates the New Testament scriptures. Things cannot be contingent on things they predate.

This is more than just a "fair enough point." It is an obvious and foundational reality that you did not previously consider. I would strongly suggest considering this now-obvious reality. It may have more significance than you immediately realize.

I posited that the scriptures say X, and not just "not X" but "the opposite of X" is true.

I still don't think you're grasping the relationship between the Church and scripture. There were documents that said "the opposite of X." They were falsified.

Do you believe false claims just because they appear in documents?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

You're just repeating yourself. If the opposite of what the document says is true, then Christian theology (yes, even the theology that predates the Christian theology) is false. If Jesus was never born and never died (a central claim of the scriptures) there's no Christianity. THAT is what I'm saying. Not that the birth certificate is false therefor the person never existed, but that if the person never existed the birth certificate is false.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

There's considerable variance within the surviving sources too. Which raises all sorts of fun questions about the nature of inspired texts.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Exactly. So if you're some kind of sola scriptura Protestant, what the hell do you do when scholars begin to argue convincingly that the passage about "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is probably a late addition?

The premise that Christian doctrine must of necessity be contingent upon a document portfolio that didn't even come into being until that doctrine was already established is absurd and fully falsifiable.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

That's where Catholicism comes in with the theology of tradition and apostolic authority. And I'm sure you believe in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

It's not just Catholicism. It's also all the variants of Eastern Orthodoxy. And it really speaks to a much broader theological principle.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

They're one and the same in my mind :-)

Although they're very different in approaches to that Papal infallibility issue, authority within the church, etc .....

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

The differences go way beyond that. Catholicism never produced anyone like Lossky, for example. And the Eastern churches never laid an egg like Protestantism. :P

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah I know this. I'm keeping it light for LJ.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

You are the lite of the world.