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

[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.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Yes, if children give birth to their parents, we have a serious problem. Also if you get thirstier from drinking water.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

You keep hammering at this, and it's obvious you're not reading what I'm saying. The Scriptures say X. You say Christian theology has no reliance on the scriptures' accuracy. So I say, "Well, let all of the scriptures be false - down to the last detail." This means that historically, any claim made by the scriptures is false, right down to the existence of Jesus. Yes, I understand that the scriptures post-date Christianity. I'm just saying that you must defend at least some parts of them for accuracy, because if they are proven 100% inaccurate, then Jesus never existed. That is, if they are proven a 100% incorrect statement of the facts - like a birth certificate for a birth that never happened - then Christianity collapses. I'm not reversing causality. I'm saying there's an overlap in what the Scriptures say and what must be true for Christianity to be valid theology. Do you disagree? Or do you think that if the scriptures were proven 100% false, down to the statement that Jesus existed, Christianity would survive?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Obviously, if Christ never existed, Christianity would not exist. The issue is therefore not scripture -- but the existence of Christ.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Obviously, if Christ never existed, Christianity would not exist

Would not be true, I think is more correct. If thetans do not exist, is Scientology merely a bad dream? If Buddha never existed, and was just an amalgamation of various folk sayings given a character, then Buddhism still exists.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

There are all sorts of assertions we could make about Christianity without a Christ. But they are all consequences of His existence or non-existence -- not of documents pertaining to that existence or non-existence.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

We're in agreement, but arguing like we're not. If Christ did not exist, the Scriptures are false, I'll grant. However, in the reverse, if the Scriptures are in no way accurate, then Christ did not exist (because everything the Scriptures say is in fact untrue, and they say he existed) and Christianity is at least untrue. So, to get back to the original point... you must defend some element of the scriptures' accuracy. So you can't just handwave away challenges to the accuracy of the scriptures as irrelevant.

Man it took a long time to get here from there.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

If everything the Scriptures say is untrue, then we have a bigger problem -- because water makes you thirstier and children give birth to their parents. Our entire experience of reality is thus falsified.