Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think it can be denied in that the Czarist state power and wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few people, and that attempt at peaceful reform had been put down by force. Isn't that the excuse for the Russian revolution?

Is violence an excuse for violence?

I think you've not got an evil and a good there; you've got two evils, each at least as bad as the other. The Bolsheviks were not more merciful to the Czarists than the Czarists had already been to them.

If one believed:

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate.

then all social change is wrong.

I wouldn't agree with that hymnology.

I guess I'd be fine if all it means is, "God loves rich and poor people alike." But if it means, "You have to stay where you're put, because God loves unfairness," then I would agree it's an unchristian song, and probably a self-serving product of the privileged -- propaganda, not theology.

However, the wording seems ambiguous. I wonder which was intended.

The moral precepts of religion are not objective either.

Which religion? I'd agree with you in regard to most. But also, in most religious systems are some precepts that are moral, their admixture with less-moral ones being the problem, in that case.

You criticise Islam, yet you cannot point to any objective fact to prove that you are right and Islam is wrong.

Actually, I can. I can make at least strong inductive arguments (which is the most anyone can do) that Islam sponsors evil. But even in their case, I wouldn't argue that everything they believe is evil. Hardly anyone in this world is wrong 100% of the time...even the crazies guess right occasionally.

You can only claim that religion has more authority than any other belief system if you claim that your own belief is objectively true,

Yes. Which is precisely what everyone -- religious or not -- asserts. Even relativists have to say that Relativism is objectively true (paradoxically).

that Muslims and Communists and atheists must (if they claim to be rational) agree with you.

No. Rationality depends on premises. They could be being rational, but be wrong about their premises. Reason plus a bad premise is still "reason," and still yields what logicians call "valid" conclusions: but not "true" ones, unless the premises are also true. In the case that premises are true and reason is being used in a valid way, the argument is called "sound," and ought to be believed by all rational persons.

Me: To say the state must 'steal' the property of the well-off is to assume that the well-off are that way because that is somehow the natural order of things.

Actually, it's not. It's just to say that's how things are. No more. Not that it's "right" or "necessary" or even "natural."

Then why use the word 'steal'?

To take what another legitimately possesses is theft. What you would need to show, in order to eliminate that charge, is that people who earn things have no right at all to keep them, or that people who do not earn them have an unrestricted right to take what belongs to others. For surely, some people do earn things, do they not? And that will automatically produce advantages for some, and disparities in income.

I would suggest that it would be difficult to achieve any material success if we all acted as individuals, everyone against their neighbour.

That is not required. You can be an individual and cooperate with your neighbour, to the benefit of both.

We are a social animal, we work through co-operation. That being the case, the co-operation can be either intended to benefit everyone, or just a sub-group.

Well, so far so good; but we must ask ourselves, what does "cooperation" look like? Is it the free action of individuals, or a compulsory arrangement enforced by the State? And can people "cooperate" with whomever is on hand, or do all humans bear obligation to "cooperate" equally with everyone else at all times?

If so, how could you enforce that without creating injustices? And how would forcing some people to "cooperate" amount to "justice" for them?

I do not see how we can argue it is 'transparently false' to point out that frequently a sub group gets to control most of the wealth, and that this is by no means linked to how much work they do.

Oh, "frequently," yes: but not always. Would you not agree that there are people who work hard, and who thus get ahead legitimately? Let's say just a few. Or is every case of their success automatically a case of injustice?

I do not think the small numbers of Russian aristocrats worked harder than the vast numbers who were peasants.

I would not think so. So we agree on that.

If you are charitable with your wealth then you will not be able to accumulate it.

The opposite is surely true: if you have no wealth, you are in no position to be charitable. It's just impossible.

Jesus seems to be rather uncompromising on that point:

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Ah, I knew the "Rich Young Ruler" would come up sooner or later. Good.

This is a classic example of individual moral injunction, not social justice. The Rich Young Ruler is rich. And he's called upon to share because he's rich; and he fails because he loves his riches. But that is his personal problem, not a general one.

How can you tell? Because Christ doesn't say to him, "Go to Jerusalem, get yourself on the city council, create a social justice system, and redistribute everybody's wealth to the poor." If social reform were on His mind, that's exactly what he would have ordered -- or would have done Himself. But He did not.

And that was his key point: the problem of inequitable distribution is not ultimately just a problem of social arrangement. It's a problem of the individual human heart. It is only because individuals are evil in their greed that economic misery persists. But the elimination of misery does not require equalization: it only requires caring for one's neighbour so as to provide him or her with sufficiency, providing he/she is willing to work and earn if he/she can. (But, as Paul said, "If a man will not work, neither let him eat.")

Uneven distribution of wealth is not 'just how things work out sometimes'. We have the power to change it.

We do. But it will take power. And violence. And theft. Head will roll, historically.

Above you argued that ' the religious zealot is restricted in some ways. He cannot happily go beyond the moral limits of his religion'. If that was true, surely it goes both ways. He cannot do things which he believes are not moral, but he must do things which he believes are moral.

Yes.

As a Christian we would have volunteered; we would have those moral convictions. I do not see how we could say the state could be said to be acting immorally if it was doing the things we consider moral.

Perhaps. But you would have to first establish a Christian State with a Christian government, at the cost, presumably, of denying freedom of conscience to everyone else. And that in itself would be, as Locke said, quite unchristian to do, so long as people are not voluntarily committed to Christian belief.

But whether the state we lived in was communist or anything else, the duty of the individual Christian would be to behave like a communist.

No, because again, there is no principle of economic equality. Nothing in theology or life tells us that everyone is owed the same level of prosperity. Those who are honest and work have a right to prosper; those who will not work have a right not to prosper. Those who will not work and yet prosper do not deserve their prosperity, and deserve to lose it. But even so, those who are not prosperous have no license to steal though the State.

Jesus does not ask the wealthy young man how he obtained his wealth before telling him he should give it away.

No. But neither does He tell him to distribute anyone else's wealth. Just his. Again, the solution is to do with his individual heart, not with social reconstruction.

If not, if the state can abolish slavery even though this interfered with existing property rights, why can't it change other things?

No man can own another precisely because all men are owned by God. Were it otherwise, men could own each other, merely by using force. And nothing in the Naturalistic world would say they ought not.

... communistic Christian communities.
Did you have one in mind?

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. And Gods grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. (Acts 4)

Clearly voluntary and local again. There was no Communism being established there; merely a community of sharers. Read on, and you'll read the story of Ananias and Sapphira, who played fast and lose with that. The apostle says to them "Before you sold your property, was it not yours?" (implication: yes, it was; they didn't have to sell it and pretend to share. Nobody was forcing them.) Again, and appeal to the individual conscience is here shown to be the basis for any such economic redistribution. It's not a government issue, nor is it a permanent arrangement, even here.

I would say that the monastic and mendicant orders attempted to realize this very directly, and all Christian institutions hold to it in theory; the Pope owns no personal property.

Oh, he does alright. I haven't noticed him down at the welfare center.

Even at its most fiercely anti-communist, although the Papacy argued that the right to have private property is essential to individual freedom, private property is still subordinated to the common good, such that governments have a right to enact re-distributive policies, including direct expropriation if necessary.

This is wrong. It's nothing but thuggery and institutionalized theft. Private property, if legitimately obtained by any fair means, is the property of the one who earned it. That's justice. If the Pope thinks otherwise (and I don't know if he does, of course) he's wrong. (But he should be getting used to that.)

The economic disaster of the Soviet Union reminds us of just how 'skilled' governments are at creating "justice" out of "re-distribution." Never trust a government to establish "the common good." They are just as potentially corrupt as the individuals in them, but with more power than any individual can ever have.

[Londoner]

Is violence an excuse for violence?

I think you've not got an evil and a good there; you've got two evils, each at least as bad as the other. The Bolsheviks were not more merciful to the Czarists than the Czarists had already been to them.

Unless you are a pacifist, then yes; violence is an excuse for violence. You cannot tell how attempts to improve things will work out, but what is the alternative? That we must submit to injustice?

Me: The moral precepts of religion are not objective either.
Which religion? I'd agree with you in regard to most. But also, in most religious systems are some precepts that are moral, their admixture with less-moral ones being the problem, in that case.

No religion. If the moral precepts were objective, then they would be compelling evidence, such that other religions would be obliged to agree their correctness. I do not know of any religion that can say that.

Me: You criticise Islam, yet you cannot point to any objective fact to prove that you are right and Islam is wrong.
Actually, I can. I can make at least strong inductive arguments (which is the most anyone can do) that Islam sponsors evil. But even in their case, I wouldn't argue that everything they believe is evil. Hardly anyone in this world is wrong 100% of the time...even the crazies guess right occasionally.

Muslims would point out that Christianity sponsors evil. They wouldn't hold that everything Christians believe or do is evil, but a lot is.

We could then argue which religion is responsible for the most evil, but the fact we are having the argument indicates that a difference of opinion is possible, therefore neither side can point to any objective fact that would settle the matter.

Yes. Which is precisely what everyone -- religious or not -- asserts. Even relativists have to say that Relativism is objectively true (paradoxically).

If they do assert that, then they are making the claim that we agreed they should not make, that their claim that their claim of knowledge is unconditional.

I do not agree that relativism makes that claim and nor does the atheist. It is the theist making the claim, so it is for the theist to justify it. I can point out that somebody has presented no objective evidence for a claim, without needing to make a claim of my own.

Me: that Muslims and Communists and atheists must (if they claim to be rational) agree with you.
No. Rationality depends on premises. They could be being rational, but be wrong about their premises. Reason plus a bad premise is still "reason," and still yields what logicians call "valid" conclusions: but not "true" ones, unless the premises are also true. In the case that premises are true and reason is being used in a valid way, the argument is called "sound," and ought to be believed by all rational persons.

The premise in this case would be the objective fact you keep mentioning; that would make the subsequent chain of reasoning sound. But we do not have that objective fact.

To take what another legitimately possesses is theft. What you would need to show, in order to eliminate that charge, is that people who earn things have no right at all to keep them, or that people who do not earn them have an unrestricted right to take what belongs to others. For surely, some people do earn things, do they not? And that will automatically produce advantages for some, and disparities in income....

Well, so far so good; but we must ask ourselves, what does "cooperation" look like? Is it the free action of individuals, or a compulsory arrangement enforced by the State? And can people "cooperate" with whomever is on hand, or do all humans bear obligation to "cooperate" equally with everyone else at all times? ....If so, how could you enforce that without creating injustices? And how would forcing some people to "cooperate" amount to "justice" for them?

Cooperation is compulsory in that if you do not fulfill your side of the bargain, people will not work with you. Indeed, they will put you in prison. This happens in non-Communist states too.

Are you arguing for anarchy? If not, then you accept there will be some rules, in which case there is no point of principle at issue here. We both think there should be rules and compulsion, we are just discussing what about.

If you are charitable with your wealth then you will not be able to accumulate it.
The opposite is surely true: if you have no wealth, you are in no position to be charitable. It's just impossible.

You can give away what you do not need as you go along. Some Christians and Muslims pay a tithe. I would be suspicious of the Christian who claimed they needed to accumulate massive wealth, while others starved, just so they could be very charitable at some future date. Strangely, that date never seems to come! Again, Jesus seemed to be clear we should get on with doing the right thing - now.

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Ah, I knew the "Rich Young Ruler" would come up sooner or later. Good.

This is a classic example of individual moral injunction, not social justice. The Rich Young Ruler is rich. And he's called upon to share because he's rich; and he fails because he loves his riches. But that is his personal problem, not a general one.

How can you tell? Because Christ doesn't say to him, "Go to Jerusalem, get yourself on the city council, create a social justice system, and redistribute everybody's wealth to the poor." If social reform were on His mind, that's exactly what he would have ordered -- or would have done Himself. But He did not.

Indeed, Christians are not required to go into politics, although many would say it is implied they should. However, they are supposed to lead by example. I would point out that there are many texts on the same lines as the 'rich young ruler' story; I cannot think of any where Jesus says; 'Go away and line your pockets; you're worth it!'.If you want to help the poor sometime, OK, but there's no obligation.'

As I recall, there is a powerful level of compulsion in Christianity. The rich young man isn't compelled by the city council to do good on earth, but if he doesn't he isn't half going to pay for it in the next life! Or is that another misunderstanding of the Christian message?

Me: But whether the state we lived in was communist or anything else, the duty of the individual Christian would be to behave like a communist.
No, because again, there is no principle of economic equality. Nothing in theology or life tells us that everyone is owed the same level of prosperity. Those who are honest and work have a right to prosper; those who will not work have a right not to prosper. Those who will not work and yet prosper do not deserve their prosperity, and deserve to lose it. But even so, those who are not prosperous have no license to steal though the State.

If somebody was unwilling to work, that might be an argument. But we are talking here about people who do work, often very hard, or cannot work because of misfortune, yet are still poor. Can we really argue that Christianity does not ask us to support the sick and the poor? If we airbrush that out of the Gospels, I don't think there is much left.

If not, if the state can abolish slavery even though this interfered with existing property rights, why can't it change other things?
No man can own another precisely because all men are owned by God. Were it otherwise, men could own each other, merely by using force. And nothing in the Naturalistic world would say they ought not.

I would remind you that when slavery was allowed the Church saw no problem with it (where was the 'objective moral precept' then?)

But OK, no outright slavery. What about other forms of coercion? Where the employer has a monopoly over some resource that everyone needs? Or where there is only one employer? Or no right to organise labour or to strike? Is Christianity OK with those? Because it all seems rather arbitrary what religion thinks God allows and disallows, religion often seems to change its mind.

Marx would explain this by saying that what religion will think about issues like slavery at any given time has little to do with God and more to do with how much political and economic power slaver owners have in that society. You can see his point.

... Nobody was forcing them.) Again, and appeal to the individual conscience is here shown to be the basis for any such economic redistribution. It's not a government issue, nor is it a permanent arrangement, even here.

Again, your beef seems to be about compulsion, that compulsion is bad irrespective of our good intentions. Against a government deciding what is in the general good and then enacting laws to bring it about. As I say above, that is certainly an argument against communism, but it also an argument against any and all attempts to regulate society. You cannot say; Your laws are wrong because they interfere with freedom...but my laws are OK.. You cannot say 'there should be no rules...but if you take my property that is 'theft''.

But that is fine. Earlier I did not see why there seemed to be a particular issue with communism, or atheism, or Islam, but if there is an equal condemnation of all attempts to put ideologies into practice, including Christianity, that levels the playing field.

[Immanuel Can]

Unless you are a pacifist, then yes; violence is an excuse for violence. You cannot tell how attempts to improve things will work out, but what is the alternative? That we must submit to injustice?

Violence doesn't fix violence. The French Revolution gave way to The Terror. The Russian Revolution gave way to Stalinism...the story is old.

It's like The Who said, in "Won't Get Fooled Again": "Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss."

No religion. If the moral precepts were objective, then they would be compelling evidence, such that other religions would be obliged to agree their correctness. I do not know of any religion that can say that.

This doesn't seem obviously true to me. Why are we guaranteed that "compelling evidence" will be provided to everyone, such that a confused, indoctrinated or obstinate person cannot possibly miss it? I don't know of such guarantees.

Muslims would point out that Christianity sponsors evil. They wouldn't hold that everything Christians believe or do is evil, but a lot is.

Yes, they would. And as Aristotle taught us, that means that we can know for certain that both cannot even possibly be right. Both could be wrong, or one could be wrong and one right; but for certain, and beyond all reasonable doubt, it cannot be the case that both are true.

The same applies to any two ideologies, if they contain a direct contradiction on any point. That's pretty much any two you pick.

We could then argue which religion is responsible for the most evil, but the fact we are having the argument indicates that a difference of opinion is possible, therefore neither side can point to any objective fact that would settle the matter.

Well, let's suppose this: if there were an objective morality, then whether the Muslims had it, or the Christians had it, or the Hindus had it, or the agnostics had it, or even if none of them yet had it...would it not be perfectly reasonable that all those conflicting views, as soon as the objective truth about morality was revealed, should correct all their various mistakes and follies to fit that truth?

Will you grant that much?

Yes. Which is precisely what everyone -- religious or not -- asserts. Even relativists have to say that Relativism is objectively true (paradoxically).

If they do assert that, then they are making the claim that we agreed they should not make, that their claim that their claim of knowledge is unconditional.

Worse. They're contradicting themselves. If Relativism is objectively true, then it is not true that nothing is true -- Relativism has to be. But if Relativism is "the Truth," that is, if it's the way things really are, then Relativism itself is false, because "relative" means, in their case, without objective basis.

So is Relativism true? Then it's false. And if it's false, then it's not true. In fact, it can't be true either way. It has to say that nothing -- including Relativism -- is true.

I do not agree that relativism makes that claim...

Are you saying that it's "true" that Relativism doesn't make that claim?

The premise in this case would be the objective fact you keep mentioning; that would make the subsequent chain of reasoning sound. But we do not have that objective fact.

Do "we" not? How do "we" know what others have?

Cooperation is compulsory in that if you do not fulfill your side of the bargain, people will not work with you. Indeed, they will put you in prison. This happens in non-Communist states too.

A "bargain" it is not. Communism doesn't offer you a "side" to keep. You "cooperate," or you end up in the gulag. And that doesn't happen in every State.

You can give away what you do not need as you go along.

Yes, of course you can. But is it right for the State to force you to do so, whenever IT feels you ought? That's the question.

We're not debating the desirability of charity or fairness; only the justice of forcing people to conform to the State's version of it.

Indeed, Christians are not required to go into politics, although many would say it is implied they should.

Not so many. I certainly wouldn't. It's a snake pit. All the more reason not to give it the power to rob people of property, particularly if they've justly earned it.

However, they are supposed to lead by example.

This is true.

I would point out that there are many texts on the same lines as the 'rich young ruler' story; I cannot think of any where Jesus says; 'Go away and line your pockets; you're worth it!'.If you want to help the poor sometime, OK, but there's no obligation.'

I don't recall having campaigned for that.

As I recall, there is a powerful level of compulsion in Christianity. The rich young man isn't compelled by the city council to do good on earth, but if he doesn't he isn't half going to pay for it in the next life! Or is that another misunderstanding of the Christian message?

No compulsion at all. The rich young ruler made his own choice; and even though it wasn't a good one, he was permitted to make it, with absolutely no coercion at all.

You may recall that it was the rich young ruler who asked the question in the first place. It was he who wanted to assure himself about the Kingdom of God, not anyone who corralled him into doing it...and certainly not the State. Likewise, he made his own choice.

If you're asking for all choices to be without consequence, I think you'd be asking too much.

But as it is, we know no more about that young man. He may have changed his mind, or he may not; we don't know. What we do know is that he was not forced to do so. Individual conscience again...not State thuggery.

If somebody was unwilling to work, that might be an argument. But we are talking here about people who do work, often very hard, or cannot work because of misfortune, yet are still poor.

Yes, that happens.

Can we really argue that Christianity does not ask us to support the sick and the poor?

Absolutely not. It just doesn't tell them to do it by coercion by the State.

I would remind you that when slavery was allowed the Church saw no problem with it (where was the 'objective moral precept' then?)
Categorically untrue. From the inception of slavery, no voices were more constantly raised against it. True, there were those who colluded with it; shame on them. But you need to read about the true beliefs of the Abolitionists; the vast majority were Christians. Check it out.

Meanwhile, I await the first purely Atheist rationale for the elimination of slavery. I don't know of one.

But OK, no outright slavery. What about other forms of coercion? Where the employer has a monopoly over some resource that everyone needs? Or where there is only one employer? Or no right to organise labour or to strike? Is Christianity OK with those? Because it all seems rather arbitrary what religion thinks God allows and disallows, religion often seems to change its mind.

Well, I can't speak for "religion." I can only tell you that Christianity is the project of fallible men and women attempting, with God's help, to discover and follow what God truly intends for us. Sometimes human beings get things right, and sometimes they get them wrong; but we don't cure fallibility by eliminating the standards, do we?

Marx would explain this by saying that what religion will think about issues like slavery at any given time has little to do with God and more to do with how much political and economic power slaver owners have in that society. You can see his point.

He would have to explain the preponderance of Abolitionists, then. And I don't think they explain away easily in those terms. He would also have to explain people like MLK and William Wilberforce.

Good luck, Karl.

Again, your beef seems to be about compulsion, that compulsion is bad irrespective of our good intentions.

Quite so. For that reason, it is immoral. It denies people autonomy, property, any moral agency of their own, and forces them to conform to the State's values. That's totalitarian, and does not need an appeal to conscience at all.

Against a government deciding what is in the general good and then enacting laws to bring it about. As I say above, that is certainly an argument against communism, but it also an argument against any and all attempts to regulate society.

Not so. Is there no distinction between, say, criminality and private property? Of course.

On that note, what do you do with the industrious and honest person who earns economic advantage through his labours? Do you force him not to benefit? For what then will he work, since you destroy any advantage he gains in so doing? And how will you induce him to learn charity, since he has nothing with which to share -- you already took it away from him by law?

Earlier I did not see why there seemed to be a particular issue with communism, or atheism, or Islam, but if there is an equal condemnation of all attempts to put ideologies into practice, including Christianity, that levels the playing field.

I am happy to condemn all institutional and State-sponsored attempts to impose ideology. There is no legitimacy in using force to compel belief -- not even true belief. I'm with Locke on this: autonomy of the conscience must remain inviolable. And that means that people must be free even to reject the truth (see the Rich Young Ruler, for example).

The truth must be offered free, frankly, and to the individual conscience. Anything else is propagandization or compulsion, give it what ideological name one will.

That's my view.

[Londoner]

Me: No religion. If the moral precepts were objective, then they would be compelling evidence, such that other religions would be obliged to agree their correctness. I do not know of any religion that can say that.
This doesn't seem obviously true to me. Why are we guaranteed that "compelling evidence" will be provided to everyone, such that a confused, indoctrinated or obstinate person cannot possibly miss it? I don't know of such guarantees.

It isn't just confused persons, but anyone. When we discussed your theism before, you agreed that you had no objective evidence that could persuade an atheist that their belief was wrong and yours was right. (If that wasn't the case, where is the proof of God? Or that Christianity is the one true religion?)

Well, let's suppose this: if there were an objective morality, then whether the Muslims had it, or the Christians had it, or the Hindus had it, or the agnostics had it, or even if none of them yet had it...would it not be perfectly reasonable that all those conflicting views, as soon as the objective truth about morality was revealed, should correct all their various mistakes and follies to fit that truth?

Even relativists have to say that Relativism is objectively true (paradoxically)....Worse. They're contradicting themselves. If Relativism is objectively true, then it is not true that nothing is true -- Relativism has to be. But if Relativism is "the Truth," that is, if it's the way things really are, then Relativism itself is false, because "relative" means, in their case, without objective basis.

You say 'suppose' there were an objective morality, but the situation is that there isn't one. Since that is the case, then we agree with the relativists. If we cannot claim any particular system of belief is objectively true, all claims to truth remain relative.

Perhaps there will be a Day of Judgement, when God will show himself to be real, and that Islam is the one true religion, but the situation for humans now is that we cannot know that.

To put it another way, relativism makes no claim to objective truth. Rather it points out that nobody can make a (convincing) claim of objective truth. It describes how things are.

Me: The premise in this case would be the objective fact you keep mentioning; that would make the subsequent chain of reasoning sound. But we do not have that objective fact.
Do "we" not? How do "we" know what others have?

Again, we have already agreed that theism, including your own belief, does not claim to have one. If that isn't the case, what is it? What is the fact that means every rational person must believe Jesus was the Son of God, say?

So, since we seem unable to prove the correctness of Christianity as a fact, what is left?

Me: I would remind you that when slavery was allowed the Church saw no problem with it (where was the 'objective moral precept' then?
Categorically untrue. From the inception of slavery, no voices were more constantly raised against it. True, there were those who colluded with it; shame on them. But you need to read about the true beliefs of the Abolitionists; the vast majority were Christians. Check it out.

The vast majority of slavers had been Christians too. That just shows that what Christians call Christianity changes; sometimes it is Christian to keep slaves, sometimes it isn't, sometimes it is Christian to treat women as inferior, sometimes it isn't, some Christians think gays are an abomination, some don't, some Christians believe society should help the poor, some don't, some Christians are pacifists, some aren't...

The position seems to be that Christianity is whatever somebody who call themselves a Christian happens to think.

Meanwhile, I await the first purely Atheist rationale for the elimination of slavery. I don't know of one.

I have not seen the Christian one yet. The atheist, including Marx, would say that the reason we came to dislike slavery is that we gained a sense of empathy towards the slaves. You do not have to be a Christian to feel empathy (and those Christians who did not feel any empathy for black people did not feel there was anything in Christianity that compelled them to end slavery).

Me: Again, your beef seems to be about compulsion, that compulsion is bad irrespective of our good intentions.

Quite so. For that reason, it is immoral. It denies people autonomy, property, any moral agency of their own, and forces them to conform to the State's values. That's totalitarian, and does not need an appeal to conscience at all.

Again, Christians (and other theists) tend to be very flexible on this; they do not necessarily agree with you.

Christian states can be just as repressive as atheist ones, including on the subject of Christianity. They have demanded conformity to the state's view of religion, to the point of even burning at the stake fellow Christians, just because they differed on some theological point.

So, regarding freedom of conscience, just as with slavery, charity, equality and everything else, Christianity seems to be infinitely flexible.

So, we are not claiming we can present compelling proof that Jesus was the Son of God. Nor can we claim that being a Christianity is the guarantee that people will have those social values we happen to like ourselves. So what is the point? Religion simply seems a sort of metaphysical endorsement for our own prejudices; 'I am a republican/socialist/revolutionary/slave trader/wife beater/giver to charity/heretic burner/pacifist/property owner etc., etc. - and God says I am right!'

The truth must be offered free, frankly, and to the individual conscience. Anything else is propagandization or compulsion, give it what ideological name one will.

That's my view.

Doesn't that amount to what I say above? That what I think and say is true as-endorsed-by-God (whereas what those who disagree with me say is propaganda). The laws I approve of are in accord with God's will (whereas but those laws that I don't like are evil compulsion).

[Immanuel Can]

When we discussed your theism before, you agreed that you had no objective evidence that could persuade an atheist that their belief was wrong and yours was right.

The idea that a fair case will win presupposes two things:

a) the reasoner's knowledge of the evidence, since some people simply don't know certain facts or have not heard the reasons, or simply opt not to think about the issue at all, and

b) his or her willingness to consider the evidence as evidence, since there is literally no evidence that cannot be ignored, doubted or explained as an anomaly by someone who is in a frame of mind to do so.

Christianity recognizes this: the condition of the heart of the reasoner is an essential factor in his/her willingness to see truth. As Christ said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." However, some people just choose not to have "ears to hear." Sad, but true.

You say 'suppose' there were an objective morality,...

It's only my first of two arguments above. All I'm asking is IF there were, what would follow. I'm not asking you to take for granted that there IS one, just to consider what would follow IF such were so...but that supposition has no bearing on my criticism of Relativism. You could deny it entirely, and still see that Relativism self-defeats.

...but the situation is that there isn't one.

Are you telling me the truth there? Then you're denying Relativism, because you're saying there's a truth -- namely, the truth of Relativism. But Relativism is a denial of what you say -- it claims there IS no singular truth, just as you also say...so you're now caught in a self-contradiction.

But if all you're saying is that you guess Relativism MAY be true, then that could be possible; but you cannot go so far as to say it IS true, and that I'm wrong for thinking otherwise, or you've contradicted both Relativism and yourself again. You'd have to keep your claim there very, very modest and less-than-certain.

Since that is the case, then we agree with the relativists. If we cannot claim any particular system of belief is objectively true, all claims to truth remain relative.

Well, you've just made an epistemologically Absolutist claim to the singular truth of Relativism. I think you can see that that does not add up.

Perhaps there will be a Day of Judgement, when God will show himself to be real, and that Islam is the one true religion, but the situation for humans now is that we cannot know that.

How do you know what others cannot know? Is your assumption that nobody can know more than you or the people you currently know happen to know? Why would we think that was so?

To put it another way, relativism makes no claim to objective truth.

Is that objectively true?

Rather it points out that nobody can make a (convincing) claim of objective truth. It describes how things are.

Actually, no: it has no warrant for its claim. It just assumes its conclusion, or bases it on the non-sequitur that "people believe different things." But that would not conduce one step toward Relativism.

Again, we have already agreed that theism, including your own belief, does not claim to have one. If that isn't the case, what is it? What is the fact that means every rational person must believe Jesus was the Son of God, say?

Oh, I see. You're thinking that because I was happy to acknowledge that all human belief is something less than absolutely certain, that I was saying there was no argument that is rationally compelling.

No, I didn't mean that. For it must be quite obvious that something upon which we have a 99.9995 certainty is much more certain than something that's, say, 30% certain. And rational people always go with the highest odds, especially where the disparity is great. I would argue that Atheism is obviously irrational, because of its' grossly inflated epistemological claim. Agnosticism is much more probable, but not terribly strong or highly intellectual, because it's really just a confession of limited knowledge or experience, and doesn't rule out other people from knowing things. I would argue that there are good evidences for Christianity, and that reasonable persons should consider them. And there I would stop.

The vast majority of slavers had been Christians too.

We're having a problem establishing what a "Christian" is in a mutually agreed way. I would not accept that someone who was born in a putatively "Christian" country was Christian. Nor would I accept that someone who simply claimed to be "Christian" is a Christian, any more than I would believe a man who called himself an egg was an egg.

I would argue for a definition of "Christian" that is something like, "A (fallible) person who believes the truth, and therefore stands in relation to God through Jesus Christ and who therefore seeks to model his or her life after the nature and will of God." Not everybody agrees with that, perhaps; but I simply think they're flat-out wrong, so I can't defend their view on that.

That just shows that what Christians call Christianity changes...

Or more simply, as Christ said, that not everybody who calls him "Lord" actually obeys Him. The apostle Paul also says the same thing.

The position seems to be that Christianity is whatever somebody who call themselves a Christian happens to think.

And that would be crazy. Right. I agree.

Meanwhile, I await the first purely Atheist rationale for the elimination of slavery. I don't know of one.

I have not seen the Christian one yet.

I don't want to seem imperious, but then you need to do some reading on the historical debates over slavery. You'll find there were good Christian rationales against it, and many Christians on the front line, but not a single Atheist explanation of why slavery is wrong. Atheism has no view on that, as its proponents will happily tell you: it's a one-issue (dis)belief, and after that has no information to contribute to the world.

You do not have to be a Christian to feel empathy (and those Christians who did not feel any empathy for black people did not feel there was anything in Christianity that compelled them to end slavery).

No. But empathy is often misguided. Some people feel sorry for unrepentant serial killers and write them fan mail. No doubt much they say is "empathetic," but so what?

What's key is that while an Atheist may feel empathy, he has nary a way to know if he's feeling warranted or unwarranted empathy -- Atheism has no such criteria. But a Christian has such criteria, and so is able to pass rational judgment on his or her feeling and discover if it is really moral and justified.

Christian states can be just as repressive as atheist ones, including on the subject of Christianity.

There's no such thing as a Christian State, anymore than there's such a thing as an Atheist seagull. That's an oxymoron. But there are states with more or less influence from Christians in them, and some obvious facts follow: firstly, that even the post-Christian states, like Britain, Canada, Australia and America are by far the most compassionate and open states in the world. But every Atheist regime has proved miserable, murderous and closed.

Atheists killed far more human beings in the last century than in all of human history previously combined, and the Muslims killed as many as all other religions combined. That's very, very easy to verify.

They have demanded conformity to the state's view of religion, to the point of even burning at the stake fellow Christians, just because they differed on some theological point.

Again, you're having a different definition of "Christian" from me. I would not call any state that did these things "Christian" in any way but the nominal. I'm not plugging for Catholicism; but even the Catholic countries, including their Inquisitions and persecutions of my forefathers, have been comparatively minuscule in the cruelties they have perpetrated compared to both Islamic states and Atheistic ones. And that's just dead easy to show.

The truth must be offered free, frankly, and to the individual conscience. Anything else is propagandization or compulsion, give it what ideological name one will.

That's my view.

Doesn't that amount to what I say above?

Nope. Not even close. But I hope I've clarified my position a bit with the above.

[A_Seagull]

[

Non-religious guidance of this nature seems to be very limited. Is it inevitable that such social guidance must take a religious form?

Must we believe is some god to behave as socially responsible beings? I would say no.

While I agree with you; I suspect that when it comes to guidance being proffered by one and taken by another, there will arise a question by the receiver of the guidance of the form: "How come you know so much about what I should do?" And perhaps the most convincing answer (albeit not necessarily true) would be of the form "Because I am in communication with God." To which there is no simple and rational rebuttal.

So perhaps religion is inevitable in a heterogeneous society?

[Londoner]

Me: When we discussed your theism before, you agreed that you had no objective evidence that could persuade an atheist that their belief was wrong and yours was right.

The idea that a fair case will win presupposes two things:

a) the reasoner's knowledge of the evidence, since some people simply don't know certain facts or have not heard the reasons, or simply opt not to think about the issue at all, and

b) his or her willingness to consider the evidence as evidence, since there is literally no evidence that cannot be ignored, doubted or explained as an anomaly by someone who is in a frame of mind to do so.

Christianity recognizes this: the condition of the heart of the reasoner is an essential factor in his/her willingness to see truth. As Christ said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." However, some people just choose not to have "ears to hear." Sad, but true.

The condition of our hearts is not objective evidence.

Certainly, no evidence cannot be questioned at some level, but we can agree what that level is. For example, if everybody sees the same object, we agree that this is sufficient evidence to call it 'real'. This does not exist for theism/atheism. All the agreements about what we think make something 'real' in other spheres cannot be applied to God; if we say God is real we have to make him a unique case. With God, you say that evidence for God depends on the 'frame of mind' or 'condition of the heart' of the believer. Would you accept this in other cases? For example that dragons count as objectively real, because a person who believes in dragons has a frame of mind where they believe in dragons?

But we had this discussion earlier. You agreed that the reasons that you believe in God are not compelling on others; that you were not making a claim that you knew of the material existence of God. That your knowledge of God was only a personal claim, not an objective one.

Are you telling me the truth there? Then you're denying Relativism, because you're saying there's a truth -- namely, the truth of Relativism. But Relativism is a denial of what you say -- it claims there IS no singular truth, just as you also say...so you're now caught in a self-contradiction.

I do not know what you mean by Relativism with a capital letter, but I am making exactly the same point as you did, as already quoted above:

b) his or her willingness to consider the evidence as evidence, since there is literally no evidence that cannot be ignored, doubted or explained as an anomaly by someone who is in a frame of mind to do so.

Relativism says that we have no truth that cannot be questioned at some level. It isn't a metaphysical claim, it is an observation. If we could come up with an unquestionable truth then there would be an exception from that observation, but - as you agree - we can't.

To put it another way, all the examples we have come up with are relativist. There might be another example that isn't, but that does not make the statement 'all the examples we have are relativist' false.

Me: Perhaps there will be a Day of Judgement, when God will show himself to be real, and that Islam is the one true religion, but the situation for humans now is that we cannot know that.
How do you know what others cannot know? Is your assumption that nobody can know more than you or the people you currently know happen to know? Why would we think that was so?

Because they present no reason for thinking so. Their reason amounts to 'I know because I know'. When they say that, they are using the word 'know' to mean 'it is what I think' rather than 'it is knowledge' in the sense that 'knowledge' is generally understood.

Again; 'I know there are dragons' does not mean the same as 'there are dragons'. In the second case, I would be expected to point to some sort of objective evidence; 'look -there is one over there!' . But in the first case I am only describing my own mental state; what I say is true if it is an honest report of what I think, that there are no such things as dragons would not make my statement false. In the same way' 'I know there will be a Day of Judgement' just tells us about the mental state of the believer. If it was meant to be understood as more than that we can ask them 'How do you know?' and see if they reply.

Oh, I see. You're thinking that because I was happy to acknowledge that all human belief is something less than absolutely certain, that I was saying there was no argument that is rationally compelling.

No, I didn't mean that. For it must be quite obvious that something upon which we have a 99.9995 certainty is much more certain than something that's, say, 30% certain. And rational people always go with the highest odds, especially where the disparity is great. I would argue that Atheism is obviously irrational, because of its' grossly inflated epistemological claim. Agnosticism is much more probable, but not terribly strong or highly intellectual, because it's really just a confession of limited knowledge or experience, and doesn't rule out other people from knowing things. I would argue that there are good evidences for Christianity, and that reasonable persons should consider them. And there I would stop.

You can only have degrees of certainty within a context that is certain overall. For example, I can give the degree of certainty that a coin will fall 'heads' because I am certain that tossing a coin contains only two possibilities; 'heads' and 'tails'. You cannot claim particular degrees of certainty about whether God exists or not, not unless you had a meta-knowledge of a universe that might or might not contain God, such that you could count the possibilities.

If I was asked how an object whose shape I didn't know would land, if it was tossed like a coin, the rational response is to say that I have no knowledge, that no knowledge is possible. That is the case with God; the atheist does not say 'it is probable/certain that God does not exist', rather they say that the theists claim to have any knowledge, probable or certain, cannot be justified.

Again, you're having a different definition of "Christian" from me. I would not call any state that did these things "Christian" in any way but the nominal. I'm not plugging for Catholicism; but even the Catholic countries, including their Inquisitions and persecutions of my forefathers, have been comparatively minuscule in the cruelties they have perpetrated compared to both Islamic states and Atheistic ones. And that's just dead easy to show

.

As a matter of fact, I don't think it is. But to make any argument of this type stick depends on heavy use of the 'no true Scotsman' argument, whereby we can disown Christians who do discreditable things. But even if we agreed the regimes of Stalin and Hitler were entirely atheist, we would have to note that the Russians and Germans, including their leaders, had been Christian before that. So, if our contention was that Christianity provides a moral anchor, how could it have happened?

Me: The vast majority of slavers had been Christians too.
We're having a problem establishing what a "Christian" is in a mutually agreed way. I would not accept that someone who was born in a putatively "Christian" country was Christian. Nor would I accept that someone who simply claimed to be "Christian" is a Christian, any more than I would believe a man who called himself an egg was an egg.

I would argue for a definition of "Christian" that is something like, "A (fallible) person who believes the truth, and therefore stands in relation to God through Jesus Christ and who therefore seeks to model his or her life after the nature and will of God." Not everybody agrees with that, perhaps; but I simply think they're flat-out wrong, so I can't defend their view on that.

I think the problem is that they could all agree with your definition, and probably would, yet still be slavers, burn heretics at the stake, give all their possessions to the poor, get rich, make war, be pacifists....and the mass of other contradictory ways that Christians have behaved.

The contention was that Christianity (not a belief in God, since you are very hostile to Muslims) provided some sort of moral anchor, unlike atheism, but I do not see any evidence that this anchor does not simply drift with the tide.

So today, if I look at a conservative Christian, I cannot see any difference from a conservative.

[Immanuel Can]

The condition of our hearts is not objective evidence.

No, it's a fault in the measuring instrument, and that is just as fatal.

If one's microscope is dirty, it doesn't matter anymore what's on the slide: the results will not be clear anyway, no matter how good the sample is.

And that is a most scientific concern, to be sure.

Certainly, no evidence cannot be questioned at some level, but we can agree what that level is. For example, if everybody sees the same object, we agree that this is sufficient evidence to call it 'real'.

We can debate it, of course. But I've met many people who profess not even to be sure there is an "everybody," let alone an "object." Do I think them eccentric at best and lunatic at most? Probably. But you and I don't agree with them, surely.

This does not exist for theism/atheism. All the agreements about what we think make something 'real' in other spheres cannot be applied to God; if we say God is real we have to make him a unique case.

How could it be otherwise?

With God, you say that evidence for God depends on the 'frame of mind' or 'condition of the heart' of the believer.

No, no...I said that seeing the evidence AS EVIDENCE depends on the willingness of the observer. An Atheist who does not want to accept life after death will not even be impressed if a Man does rise from the dead. He'll just find an alternate "material" explanation, and carry right on.

But if something is real, and is actually "evidence," then it won't matter whether or not the skeptic believes in it: it will be really true either way. And likewise, nothing will become true simply because somebody believes in it. That door swings both ways.

Would you accept this in other cases? For example that dragons count as objectively real, because a person who believes in dragons has a frame of mind where they believe in dragons?

False analogy, I'm afraid, as you can see above. I wasn't saying that.

But we had this discussion earlier. You agreed that the reasons that you believe in God are not compelling on others; that you were not making a claim that you knew of the material existence of God. That your knowledge of God was only a personal claim, not an objective one.

Not quite what I said. I said that I can't force other people to believe (remember the dirty microscope?). I didn't say that there were no material evidences of God -- I think there are -- but only that those evidences are not sufficiently strong to force an adamant Atheist to concede them, since nobody can convince a hard-hearted person.

And I would add that my knowledge of God is also a personal one...not merely material and factual. But it's objective as well as subjective.

Relativism says that we have no truth that cannot be questioned at some level.

No. It says, "All truth claims are relative to the situation of the observer." That itself is advanced by Relativists as a truth claim not relative to the situation of any observer.

It isn't a metaphysical claim, it is an observation.

If you mean, "People are confused about truth" then that is indeed an observation. But if you mean "because people are confused about truth therefore there can be no truth," then it's a non-sequitur.

All truths can be questioned. That does not mean truths are relative. I can question the existence of planet Earth. That does not mean there is no planet Earth. It just means I'm very skeptical.

...that does not make the statement 'all the examples we have are relativist' false.

The statement itself makes itself false. For it is an objective, categorical claim, and relativists deny the existence of objective categories.

How do you know what others cannot know? Is your assumption that nobody can know more than you or the people you currently know happen to know? Why would we think that was so?

Because they present no reason for thinking so. Their reason amounts to 'I know because I know'. When they say that, they are using the word 'know' to mean 'it is what I think' rather than 'it is knowledge' in the sense that 'knowledge' is generally understood.[/quote]
You're talking to the wrong people, if those are the answers you're getting, Londoner. I wouldn't back that.

In the same way' 'I know there will be a Day of Judgement' just tells us about the mental state of the believer. If it was meant to be understood as more than that we can ask them 'How do you know?' and see if they reply.

Not so. Either there will be one, or there will not -- that we know for sure. But if there is, you and I will know it; and if there is not, neither you nor I will know it. Either way, the objective facts don't change.

You cannot claim particular degrees of certainty about whether God exists or not,

Sure you can. What's the certainty level of your belief in Niagara Falls?

...not unless you had a meta-knowledge of a universe that might or might not contain God, such that you could count the possibilities.

No, this doesn't follow. You would only have to be able to imagine it as being the case. And even the erroneousness of that assumption would not prevent you from making a calculation of probability. You might be wrong, but you could do it.

rather they say that the theists claim to have any knowledge, probable or certain, cannot be justified.

If that were true, nothing could be "true" unless one had a way of proving it beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, and to others. But we can't "prove" the size of our own universe -- nevertheless, we believe in one, and we know it has a size.

Again, you're having a different definition of "Christian" from me. I would not call any state that did these things "Christian" in any way but the nominal. I'm not plugging for Catholicism; but even the Catholic countries, including their Inquisitions and persecutions of my forefathers, have been comparatively minuscule in the cruelties they have perpetrated compared to both Islamic states and Atheistic ones. And that's just dead easy to show

.

As a matter of fact, I don't think it is.

It is. Want the body count?

But to make any argument of this type stick depends on heavy use of the 'no true Scotsman' argument, whereby we can disown Christians who do discreditable things.

No, it's not. The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is only half-understood by most people. Like many fallacies (the ad hominem, for example). It's only a fallacy in some of the cases.

If you say, "No true Scotsman drinks ale," then it's a fallacy. If you say, "No true Scotsman has no relevant connection to Scotland," then it's no longer a fallacy: it's true. And it's true if you say, "No true Scotsman is a woman," for by definition, to be a "woman" is not to be a "man."

In other words, there are relevant criteria for being a Scotsman, and irrelevant ones. Likewise, there are relevant criteria for being a Christian, and irrelevant ones. We can discuss what the relevant criteria are, if you like; but we both can see there ought to be some criteria applied.

In fact, even if you only say, "A Christian is someone who says he/she is," then you've set a criterion. I would dispute it, but you have still set one. So you can hardly accuse me of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy; for I only do precisely what you yourself are doing also.

But even if we agreed the regimes of Stalin and Hitler were entirely atheist,

We do. So did they.

...we would have to note that the Russians and Germans, including their leaders, had been Christian before that.

Some, nominally, and not authentically, I would argue.

I think the problem is that they could all agree with your definition, and probably would, yet still be slavers, burn heretics at the stake, give all their possessions to the poor, get rich, make war, be pacifists....and the mass of other contradictory ways that Christians have behaved.

I would argue you're completely incorrect about that. A "Christian," if it means nothing else, must mean "follower of Christ." And I think it's pretty darn easy to show that neither He nor his disciples ever counselled anyone to do those things, and that they taught them to do very different things.

The contention was that Christianity (not a belief in God, since you are very hostile to Muslims) provided some sort of moral anchor, unlike atheism, but I do not see any evidence that this anchor does not simply drift with the tide.

Well, we have to establish what a "Christian" is and does, before that holds any water. I would argue that you are corrupting your data with a multitude of manifestly refutable cases. But until you decide what qualifies a person to be a "Christian" -- or a "Scotsman" -- you're not going to find it easy to sort that out, I fear.

[uwot]

No, no...I said that seeing the evidence AS EVIDENCE depends on the willingness of the observer.

Yup. Four year olds are quite content to believe that presents by the fireplace is evidence of Santa.

An Atheist who does not want to accept life after death will not even be impressed if a Man does rise from the dead. He'll just find an alternate "material" explanation, and carry right on.

This is a profoundly stupid thing to say. An atheist seeing a man rising from the dead may well question their sanity, but given the appropriate conditions, they would believe it. There are even people willing to pay to have their body cryogenically preserved, in the hope that resurrection may one day be possible. That would be a waste of time to anyone believing that Jesus will do it on the cheap, so it is reasonable to conclude that some of those stiffs are atheists. People like you, Mr Can, who are desperate to believe in life after death, insist it happened without even seeing it.

[Greta]

An Atheist who does not want to accept life after death will not even be impressed if a Man does rise from the dead. He'll just find an alternate "material" explanation, and carry right on.

This is a profoundly stupid thing to say. An atheist seeing a man rising from the dead may well question their sanity, but given the appropriate conditions, they would believe it. There are even people willing to pay to have their body cryogenically preserved, in the hope that resurrection may one day be possible. That would be a waste of time to anyone believing that Jesus will do it on the cheap, so it is reasonable to conclude that some of those stiffs are atheists. People like you, Mr Can, who are desperate to believe in life after death, insist it happened without even seeing it.

I hate to agree with Mr Can, especially since he won't admit being wrong. The other day he took me to task over a comment that he misunderstood. I explained the issue but even then he could not admit that he'd erred, instead ignoring it all with a smart alec one liner. On the plus side, he's infinitely preferable to fiveredapples

My own beefs aside, he's right that if someone rose from the dead it would be pronounced that the person wasn't actually dead, just in an unknown form of suspended animation.

[uwot]

...if someone rose from the dead it would be pronounced that the person wasn't actually dead, just in an unknown form of suspended animation.

Really? What do you base that on?

[Immanuel Can]

My own beefs aside, he's right that if someone rose from the dead it would be pronounced that the person wasn't actually dead, just in an unknown form of suspended animation.

Thank you, Greta; that's gracious of you, the multiple preparatory disclaimers notwithstanding.

That was my thought. How assiduously have Atheist scholars worked on explaining away the idea of the Resurrection? I can think of little upon which they have lavished so much attention, and to so little effect. Clearly, there is more than an interest in the facts in their passion; and it serves to show that what I said about that was quite warranted, I believe.

There was the theory: "He didn't really die."
Then "It was actually another man."
Then there was: "His disciples beat up a squadron of soldiers and stole the body."
Then, "The disciples only wished for a Resurrection, and had a corporate delusion."
Then, "He was in a swoon for three days, then woke up, tore off hundreds of pounds of wrappings, rolled away a stone, overpowered the guards, and escaped to India, leaving behind the legend of His rise."
And so on.

Not one plausible, and not one demonstrated with a scratch of historical evidence; but all preferred by the Atheists to any more obvious explanation. That's how the mind works when it's dead set not to know.

[uwot]

Not one plausible, and not one demonstrated with a scratch of historical evidence...

Duh! There is fuck all historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

[Greta]

My own beefs aside, he's right that if someone rose from the dead it would be pronounced that the person wasn't actually dead, just in an unknown form of suspended animation.

... preparatory disclaimers notwithstanding.

Love the turn of phrase

Not one plausible, and not one demonstrated with a scratch of historical evidence; but all preferred by the Atheists to any more obvious explanation. That's how the mind works when it's dead set not to know.

My "help" has to stop here as I don't believe in the resurrection, nor any of the supernatural tales of the Bible, Koran etc, although there's much meaning in metaphorical interpretations of the texts. I'm with the non-religious scholars here.

I chimed in thinking about near death experiences. No matter how long a patient shows a lack of vital signs, if they awaken later on then they weren't considered to be dead. Three days without medical intervention or being frozen is suspended animation, though, is a huge stretch. So many Bible tales have been shown to be purely allegorical and it seems most likely that this one is too, that it was a tale from superstitious people who believed that illness and insect plagues were caused by evil spirits or sent by God as punishment.

[Immanuel Can]

I chimed in thinking about near death experiences. No matter how long a patient shows a lack of vital signs, if they awaken later on then they weren't considered to be dead. Three days without medical intervention or being frozen is suspended animation, though, is a huge stretch. So many Bible tales have been shown to be purely allegorical and it seems most likely that this one is too, that it was a tale from superstitious people who believed that illness and insect plagues were caused by evil spirits or sent by God as punishment.

Thank you. You've so eloquently illustrated exactly what those determined not to believe so often do. My point precisely.

There is no way to convince a person against his or her will. There is always a theoretical way out, no matter how improbable. Some willingness to believe has to be present in order for evidence to be regarded as evidence -- no matter how good the evidence might be.