Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 68

Thread: Religious Skepticism

  1. Top | #21
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    3,005
    Rep Power
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    I answered everything that had a question mark.
    Only just now do you ask...
    [can a Christian be] ...skeptical of the Genesis creation story of God creating the Earth?

    If a Christian doesn't believe God created the Earth, I'd like to know who else they think did so.
    Ok, I got it now.

    A belief in a few lines of a disjointed inconsistent set of wrings from thousands of years ago saying that some god creatd the Earth and the universe. Any Christian who doubts is suspect as a Christian.
    No True Scotsman is usually considered a logical fallacy.

  2. Top | #22
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Georgia, US
    Posts
    2,945
    Archived
    3,862
    Total Posts
    6,807
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    I was hoping for a theist to talk about why he or she is not skeptical of the biblical creation myth. I suspect it is fearful to even frame the thought of skepticism. To do so brings into question one's entire set of beliefs. It can not be answered without invalidating faith.
    How does a child experience skepticism with regards to Santa?

    Adults know Santa isn't real, doesn't bring presents or ride a sleigh and flying reindeer, live at the North Pole, have a workshop with elves. Children hear the same thing but believe it.

    Then at some point a child experiences someone telling them that Santa isn't real. How do they experience this, skeptically speaking? What is going on with that child's thinking at this point, what does the child do, how does the child resolve the two conflicting claims?

    Flat earthers must be experiencing heaps and heaps of skepticism, as are any number of people who embrace conspiracy theories. What's going on in the head of a person who claims the earth is flat?
    Okay. I know this is off topic, but I stopped believing in Santa when I was four. I told my mother that I didn't think Santa was real and that it was the parents who gave us the presents. She told me I was correct, but not to tell my younger sister. I was told that Jesus was God and God was all powerful etc. I believed because I was heavily indoctrinated and my parents believed it too, but by the time I was 7, I had some doubts, aka skepticism about some of the things I was told. It took me until my late teens before I was sure I had been told something untrue and it took me until my mid 20s before I realized that gods were a human invention. I considered many other religions with a skeptical eye before I rejected all of them.

    So, I think that there are probably a lot of Christians who are somewhat skeptical of what they claim to believe, but most probably keep believing for all kinds of reasons. These reasons could include fear, love of community, love of liberal Christian values, habit, etc.

    It's like a climate change skeptic. At first it sounds crazy to think that the climate is changing due to human activity, but as more and more evidence appears, most people realize that there is plenty of science to support climate change. The rest are like the line from Paul Simon's song, "The Boxer." "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". This reminds me of the time I told my young church friends that we had been duped and one of them told me not to think about it so much. She was right. It's often easy to accept things if they are things that you want to believe.

    If there was some actual evidence of the existence of gods, many if not most atheists would stop being skeptical about the existence of gods, but some would disregard the evidence. One can be skeptical of a claim made without any reliable evidence, but believing something without evidence has nothing do with skepticism.

    I think god would have shown us that she exists if she really did, instead of telling people to take it on faith. People can have hallucinations, dreams etc. which make them think that something is true, but such things aren't the same as evidence.

  3. Top | #23
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,557
    Rep Power
    14
    To be religious Christian it is god, Jesus as your savior, and the resurrection. There are philosophical Chritians and combinations of Christianity and other traditions.

    If you reject the resurrections of Jesus narrative then Christianity vanishes. There is no point to the faith if it lads nowhere.

    If you reject god than you reject Jesus in other NT narrative.

    If you reject Jesus as savior then again you eject the gospel narrative.

    Anything else is a personal adaptation and a philosophic exercise. The gospel narrative is not philosophical supposition, it is presented as supernatural fact.

    People who make it a philosophical debate involving semantics and meaning are missing or evading the fundamental foundation of the gospels, a supernatural being who fostered a human son.

  4. Top | #24
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,572
    Archived
    3,946
    Total Posts
    5,518
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    To be religious Christian it is god, Jesus as your savior, and the resurrection. There are philosophical Chritians and combinations of Christianity and other traditions.

    If you reject the resurrections of Jesus narrative then Christianity vanishes. There is no point to the faith if it lads nowhere.
    Yeah, but I'm not sure that to "reject the resurrection of Jesus" as an actual historical event obliterates the redemptive value of a metaphor about self-transcendence.

    I have a little acquaintance with the neo-jungian archetypalist view about mythology, and from that POV I can see how a lot of things that maybe originally were meant as historical events really don't have to be viewed only that way. As products of the human imagination they're metaphors/symbols regardless of whatever their "presenter" intended, so they're true in some way imaginally. So they're potentially deeply informative for whomever takes the metaphors and symbols to heart and transforms the quality of their life using such tools for that purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Anything else is a personal adaptation and a philosophic exercise. The gospel narrative is not philosophical supposition, it is presented as supernatural fact.
    Again, so what about how it was originally presented? Artists don't get to tell you what you must make of their art, and neither do mythtellers. If it's good art or myth then it's bigger than its presenter's conscious mind knows.

    I thought it was fundies who venerate the original texts as "The Word"? Are you scared religion's going to fail to be squashed by secularist ideologues for being a moving target? "Stand still while I'm shooting at you, dammit!" "Stay simple so I can make simple-minded criticisms!"

    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    People who make it a philosophical debate involving semantics and meaning are missing or evading the fundamental foundation of the gospels, a supernatural being who fostered a human son.
    Or some don't believe in seeing it all in a fundy-esque light.

    I would hope all religionists would "liberalize" their views and not be literalminded and dogmatic about how they have an inviolate objective truth that everyone must submit themselves to. And, same about secularist ideologues. Not everything shares the same "this is just how it is" quality of [some] scientific facts, nor should that be the barometer of what's true and false in everything.

  5. Top | #25
    Contributor Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    5,115
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    8,999
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Is there a skepticism for atheists or non believers and a skepticism for Christians, or is there just one skepticism?
    There's just skepticism. That's saying 'prove it' to a truth claim.
    The difference is what you accept as evidence in support of a truth claim.
    While not universal, an answer to evolution was to make it part of god's plan. Conflict between science and theology resolved.
    That wasn't the resolution, though.
    The conflict came from two very different accounts being taken as historical: Genesis and Evolutionary Theory.
    Making it 'god's plan' didn't resolve the conflict. That was accomplished by making Genesis allegory or metaphor or poetry, something other than a historical account.

    So rather than holding both accounts to be accurate, one is accurate history, one is whatever it needs to be to not conflict with the accurate history.
    Guided evolution is how many Christians resolve the problem of evolution and special creation. Francis Collins is a well known scientist who pushes this idea. He runs Biologos, an organization the promotes this claim. For example, he has written a book, "The Language of God" that expounds this idea. He admits that creationism is false, and that intelligent design is not scientific, and then claims guided evolution is the answer to the problem. Lots of more 'sophisticate' Christians accept guided evolution.

    And there, skepticism stops. The proposition of there being a God is a shaky one. Especially if one accepts the perfect being theology of Anselm etc. Collins in his book (which I own and have read) does not demonstrate that God must exist. He just assumes that.

    https://biologos.org/resources/what-is-biologos
    ...
    So what is BioLogos? Well it all began with a scientist and a book. Francis Collins, the physician and geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, wrote the book, The Language of God. In it he describes his own journey from atheism to Christian faith, and the harmony between Christianity and science (and especially evolution). Collins began receiving letters from people asking further questions about science and faith so he formed the BioLogos Foundation in 2007.
    ...

    Plus the usual Youtube videos and podcasts.
    Cheerful Charlie

  6. Top | #26
    Contributor Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    5,115
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    8,999
    Rep Power
    59
    As per Pew Research, 80% of Americans claim to believe in God, bit of that 80%, 23% do not believe in the god of the Bible, but rather believe in "some other higher power/spiritual force".

    https://www.pewforum.org/2018/04/25/...-do-they-mean/

    19% do not believe in God, but 9% do believe in some "some other higher power/spiritual force". So this what do you believe about God is not as simple as it seems if we look at what people report about their beliefs in regard to God.
    Last edited by Cheerful Charlie; 01-24-2020 at 12:42 AM.
    Cheerful Charlie

  7. Top | #27
    Contributor Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    5,115
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    8,999
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    To be religious Christian it is god, Jesus as your savior, and the resurrection. There are philosophical Chritians and combinations of Christianity and other traditions.

    If you reject the resurrections of Jesus narrative then Christianity vanishes. There is no point to the faith if it lads nowhere.

    If you reject god than you reject Jesus in other NT narrative.

    If you reject Jesus as savior then again you eject the gospel narrative.

    Anything else is a personal adaptation and a philosophic exercise. The gospel narrative is not philosophical supposition, it is presented as supernatural fact.

    People who make it a philosophical debate involving semantics and meaning are missing or evading the fundamental foundation of the gospels, a supernatural being who fostered a human son.
    There are people who accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but not as a divine being. And most certainly not trinitarianism. And old idea espoused for example by Thomas Jefferson. I have no idea of how many self proclaimed Christians hold this view.
    Cheerful Charlie

  8. Top | #28
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,557
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post

    Yeah, but I'm not sure that to "reject the resurrection of Jesus" as an actual historical event obliterates the redemptive value of a metaphor about self-transcendence.

    I have a little acquaintance with the neo-jungian archetypalist view about mythology, and from that POV I can see how a lot of things that maybe originally were meant as historical events really don't have to be viewed only that way. As products of the human imagination they're metaphors/symbols regardless of whatever their "presenter" intended, so they're true in some way imaginally. So they're potentially deeply informative for whomever takes the metaphors and symbols to heart and transforms the quality of their life using such tools for that purpose.



    Again, so what about how it was originally presented? Artists don't get to tell you what you must make of their art, and neither do mythtellers. If it's good art or myth then it's bigger than its presenter's conscious mind knows.

    I thought it was fundies who venerate the original texts as "The Word"? Are you scared religion's going to fail to be squashed by secularist ideologues for being a moving target? "Stand still while I'm shooting at you, dammit!" "Stay simple so I can make simple-minded criticisms!"

    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    People who make it a philosophical debate involving semantics and meaning are missing or evading the fundamental foundation of the gospels, a supernatural being who fostered a human son.
    Or some don't believe in seeing it all in a fundy-esque light.

    I would hope all religionists would "liberalize" their views and not be literalminded and dogmatic about how they have an inviolate objective truth that everyone must submit themselves to. And, same about secularist ideologues. Not everything shares the same "this is just how it is" quality of [some] scientific facts, nor should that be the barometer of what's true and false in everything.
    Neo what-ian? You make my point. Christianity is simply based on Jesus as savior and the Resurrection. There is no debate or philosophy. It is faith based on the gospels.

  9. Top | #29
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    5,783
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    10,822
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Neo what-ian? You make my point. Christianity is simply based on Jesus as savior and the Resurrection. There is no debate or philosophy. It is faith based on the gospels.
    People like to have their cake and eat it too. No doubt even the most ardent fundy considers himself skeptically minded, able to make good observations. This is after they've assumed a lot of comforting beliefs.

    Obviously lots of claimants don't adhere to their beliefs beyond lip service. I think it's like wearing your least favorite outfit.

  10. Top | #30
    Veteran Member Tigers!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    On the wing waiting for a kick.
    Posts
    1,814
    Archived
    2,558
    Total Posts
    4,372
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronzeage View Post
    There is no universal standard of what constitutes a Christian, so the question of "Do Christian believers have skepticism", sounds like you're trying to construct a paradox.

    .......

    If there is an all knowing, all power being who is independent of time and space, why should anyone assume a bunch of humans could hope to comprehend the true nature of such a being. Just being a human being in this situation means that any observation or conclusion is doubtful.
    Damn you Bronzeage you occasionally have some absolute pearlers.
    NOTE: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •