H: Jesus himself certainly interpreted the OT crimes of Yahweh literally, as shown by his own words quoted in the gospels:
G: First off, here is an example of your unnecessary polemical language and smug self-confidence (although there are many better examples of this; I could give you some in my next e-mail, if you would like) rolled into one. Why "OT CRIMES of Yahweh?" You asked what you could do to be more cordial. How about "OT ACTIONS of Yahweh?"
We're not talking about whether Jesus believed that Yahweh issued the Ten Commandments, or allowed Abraham's infertile wife to conceive. We're talking about whether he believed in the specific actions that I claim are crimes. I don't see you claiming these actions aren't crimes; you apparently just believe they didn't happen. Even in a work of fiction, murder still is called a crime.
You know you are dealing with a practicing and believing Roman Catholic, who of course believes in the Yahweh of the OT. That language only serves to inflame and alienate. Please at least be respectful of my most profound beliefs (God is more than just a theory to me); I try to be of your's. Stick to attacking my logic, philosophical precision, confidence level, etc.
The subject I wish to discuss is the morality of Yahweh in the OT and of Jesus in the NT. Is this subject off limits?
As to your smug self-confidence: "Jesus himself CERTAINLY interpreted the OT crimes of Yahweh literally." I know of no biblical scholar, orthodox or radical in belief, who would assent to that statement of your's.
The all-caps emphasis on "certainly" is yours, not mine. No biblical scholar has ever found a single instance in the gospels of Jesus denying the historicity of any part of the Torah narrative. If any biblical scholar has any evidence that Jesus denied that historicity, I'd love to hear it.
Historical certainties are extremely difficult to prove; especially when dealing with the biblical record. [..] you convey not even the slightest knowledge of historical Jesus scholarship. Has the thought crossed your mind that perhaps certain statements that are assigned to Jesus are not from Jesus himself or are a nuance of his thought?
Of course -- as an atheist, I'm free to believe that the Bible is riddled with such mistakes. But you're not an atheist; you believe that the Bible is the revelation of a competent and benevolent deity. You can't have it both ways. Does your deity not have a moral responsibility to arrange that his written revelation describe him as virtuous? How vicious and barbaric must his revealed actions be before you would admit that he is either incompetent or non-benevolent?
Apparently not, as you have contended that Jesus' teaching on divorce (as understood 2000 years ago) is confused. Any biblical scholar will tell you that one of the few things that we can say with the greatest degree of probability about Jesus is that he entirely prohibited divorce (as presented in Mark). That is anything but confused. (You asked for an obvious error in your presentation on Jesus; there you go).
I didn't say "Jesus in Mark was confused about divorce". I said the doctrine of divorce is confused in the NT revelation. If Jesus were crystal-clear on this doctrine, and his disciples believed he was God, how could they have botched their interpretation of this doctrine?
So when you claim to know the thought of Jesus, you must question: Is it the thought of Jesus? Is it the thought of the evangelist? Is the evangelist being faithful to the thought of Jesus?
You must question: why was Yahweh so incompetent in making this revelation through Jesus?
Perhaps there are cases where the evangelist incorrectly thought that Jesus was being literal when in fact he wasn't (the Roman Catholic Church and every single mainline Protestant denomination that I know of does not insist that the evangelists immediately had a perfect understanding of Jesus, even after his death and resurrection).
A competent deity wouldn't have left such ambiguity in his revelation.
When one attempts to make judgments on the biblical text, he must attempt to enter the mindset of a first-century Jew (for Jesus) or, say, a 500 BC mindset for the biblical writer who speaks of the actions of Yahweh. I see no evidence that you have attempted to do so in either case; you read the biblical text as a 21st century American
I simply read the Hebrew and Greek words of the biblical texts (as literally translated to my native English by scholars who are expert in such translation). If your deity didn't intend for certain things to be written in his revelation, he could in his omnipotent omniscience have trivially caused them to be written otherwise. I'm not one of those "gotcha" skeptics who compile hundreds or thousands of minor biblical errors, as in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Instead I look for the glaring problems that no competent deity would have allowed to develop. Mass drowning of babies and mass murder of firstborn infants are such problems. Is there no action so heinous or policy so barbaric that its ascription to Yahweh in the OT would make you question the competence of his attempted self-revelation?
There are eight evidentiary problems that each independently refute the Christian doctrine of a divine Jesus:
and have the audacity to make harsh and sweeping judgments
I plead guilty to having the audacity to condemn mass drowning of babies and mass murder of firstborn infants.
To be sure, much of Jesus' message is harsh and unacceptable to modern sensibilities for both the believer and nonbeliever. But you must also understand that Jesus couched a lot of his truths and teachings in the most hyperbolic and exaggerated language (as did the 500 BC biblical writer). This was as common back then as it is uncommon today.
This is a good example of why revelation-based theism is dying. Moderns like you subconsciously concede that the Bible in general and Jesus in particular were merely products of their times, as opposed to elements of the divine revelation of a benevolent omniscient omnipotence.
In regard to Luke 17 and Matthew 24: Although I could give you a much more sophisticated analysis if I were back at school (were I have left my commentaries), I'll say in a nutshell what Jesus was trying to get across: that we must always be prepared for the eschaton, and that family relationships or friendships ultimately mean nothing when it comes to the final judgment.
How is this anything but wishful thinking? If your beliefs are so unconstrained by the actual words of your parents' sacred scrolls, why do you bother calling them holy? How differently would Jesus' speech in Luke 17 have had to be worded for you to consider it literal? Would he have had to actually say "Listen up, I'm not speaking metaphorically here!"?
Speaking of final judgment, the doctrine of Hell is far more immoral than the crimes of the OT. I mention the latter merely because most Christians cannot bring themselves to fathom the barbarity of eternal unrelenting torment. Indeed, true believers in Yahweh can excuse any of his apparent OT crimes (as did the author of Heb 11:19) merely by saying that each slaughtered person received an appropriate afterlife. It's ironic that the (literally) mundane but concrete OT crimes of Yahweh are rejected by moderns who nevertheless embrace the more abstract but far more horrific notion of eternal torment.
as a fully-human first-century Palestinian Jew, did not necessarily have to have some supernatural, divine understanding of what exactly the biblical text meant to convey; that is not proper to his divinity. What is proper to his divinity are the timeless truths of his Father's innate being and kingdom; that he phrased them in what believing and nonbelieving biblical scholars would judge today as unsophisticated need not at all detract from his mission
If for a moment you could step outside your lifelong Christian indoctrination, you'd not attempt such rationalizations for the revelatory incompetence of an allegedly benevolent omniscient omnipotence. The "fully human" Trinity oxymoron was originally invented to excuse Jesus' failure to identify himself as the incarnate deity he needed to be in order to preserve Jewish monotheism. Now Jesus' humanity is being used to excuse the prima facie immorality of the biblical revelation. It's a natural progression, the end result of which has Jesus being a merely human and flawed moralist who nevertheless improved on the morality of his religious tradition. Those of us who are at the end of this trail are just waiting for the rest of you to catch up. :-)
Hence, I have no problem saying that I can perhaps more properly interpret the biblical text than my Lord and Savior.
Right, because you've already internalized the modern secular understanding that Jesus was a mere human and nothing more.
Since you seem to have no concept of different theories of christology
I'm quite familiar with the various rationalizations that Christians have attempted in explaining the evidence about Jesus. What's sad is that Yahweh's revelation would be so incompetent as to even need "Christology" -- an entire field burgeoning with contradictory theories about who this "savior" is even supposed to be. A competent deity would have made sure that two or three sentences were included in the gospels that nipped in the bud the subsequent centuries of christological controversy. Yahweh simply wasn't up to the task.
In this e-mail alone you do not substantiate bold claims:
A competently beneficent deity would effect a revelation that is obvious and undeniable to any rational person who investigates it. The fact that there is nothing like a consensus among rational investigators for any revelation-based religion is an unmistakable sign that no competent deity has attempted a revelation to us.
How do you know this? What is this based on? Whose standards are you using?
I claim these statements are prima facie plausible to anyone with a native speaker's understanding of the words "competent", "beneficent", and "deity".
This is nothing more than your opinion of how a competently beneficent deity would reveal itself; nothing more.
This is a standard tactic of Christian polemicists: when they can't answer my arguments, they label them as mere "opinion". They pretend that because we aren't going to end up agreeing, the arguments on each side must be of roughly equal validity, and so there's no need to answer my specific arguments.
It is a far, far cry from being "an unmistakable sign that no competent deity has attempted a revelation to us."
If denying my assertions is all the counter-argument you care to muster, then I'm happy to rest on the prima facie reasonableness of my assertions versus yours.
H: Can you give an example of my sloppier reasoning?
G: "If God can be self-caused, then so can the universe."
That you disagree with this reasoning doesn't necessarily make it sloppy. Are you not aware that this is one of the philosophical literature's standard rebuttals to the Cosmological Argument?
Please also explain to me how "an infinite regress of causes is as logically possible as an infinite progress of effects." Is it as probable?
You're changing the subject. My statement is an explanation of why the Cosmological Argument fails to establish the metaphysical necessity of a First Cause. If you instead want to talk about what answer to the Ultimate Why is most probable, that's a different question. An answer based on modal realism and the anthropic principle is much more probable than the myths of Genesis or ideas of a bearded man in the sky.
H: Can you give an example of a "smug, overly self-confident" or "self-congratulatory" statement of mine? Can you give an example of how one of my more "smug" statements could have been "more cordial and humble"? You're the fourth or fifth Christian to call my writing arrogant or smug, but none of them have ever complied when politely asked for even a single example to substantiate this character attack. I'm led to suspect that such attacks on me are a rationalization or psychological defense mechanism of some sort.
G: Mr. Holtz, I have provided you with examples in my previous e-mail.
I didn't see any. You quibbled over my use of "certainly" in one sentence, and you disagreed with some of my assertions. The mere fact that you disagree with me is hardly evidence that I am "overly self-confident", let alone "smug". And you haven't attempted to point out a single instance of "self-congratulation" in the writings you were talking about.
Frankly, your whole website is filled with smug statements
"Filled"? Then please quote some. (Or are you claiming that my mere reiteration of the standard rebuttal to the Cosmological Argument is "smug"?)
(I don't know how I was so blind to this the first time around).
One possibility is that the more you realize how threatened your worldview is by the standard atheist arguments that I present, the more you need to see things in the messenger that rationalize your rejection of the message.
Using words like "certainty" and "unmistakable" when certainty cannot be had is either delusional or a misunderstanding of what we can know.
I said "certainly", not "certainty". When in a discussion of history someone says X, and someone else replies "certainly not-X", he's not making an epistemological claim of apodictic certainty, but rather just emphasizing how strong the case is for not-X and how odd it is that one should assert X. I've already told you that I'm not certain that Jesus even existed, so I of course am not claiming apodictic certainty that he both existed and had certain beliefs.
You take my word "unmistakable" out of context. By what I argue is the correct standard of competence, the sign is indeed unmistakable.
And to proclaim such things in areas where you rely upon your own expertise when you in fact have very little (biblical exegesis) is downright pompous.
pompous adj 1: excessively elevated or ornate 2: having or exhibiting self-importance: arrogant 3: relating to or suggestive of pomp
I don't "proclaim"; I simply assert -- and defend my assertions from all substantive criticism. I've never claimed "expertise", and in fact admit non-expertise in my book. Your charge of pompousness is ungrounded.
Further that by making bold and offensive claims about my God based upon such little knowledge, in alienating language nonetheless...
You've not demonstrated any relevant lack of knowledge on my part. If you're "alienated" by me quoting back to you the actual words of your sacred scrolls, then you should complain not to me but to the deity whose revelation they allegedly contain.
well, I can't help but agree with the core of Larry Lessig's sentiments: too often raging righteousness runs throughout when you don't know what the argument/facts are, yet you argue with supreme self-confidence that you do.
I showed Lessig's charges to be specious. You've not demonstrated any relevant ignorance of mine about the arguments or facts. My confidence that I can defend my statements is I think justified by both the careful nature of those statements and my track record of defending them. Calling that confidence "supreme" is cheap hyperbole.
And as far as I know, Larry Lessig is not a Christian and was not debating with you about Christian beliefs. Have you considered that these accusations against you might be true, but you are too proud to see otherwise?
I am both reasonably confident in -- and somewhat proud of -- everything I write, if only because I edit and edit and edit before I let others read. I can think of one or two debates in which I've conceded a substantive point, so I know I'm not too "proud" to modify my position. Lessig undoubtedly was lumping me in with a broad group of people (internet libertarians) based on the most cursory interaction with me. I'm fairly confident that such charges of arrogance stem from the unusual confluence of 1) the inherent defensibility of the particular positions I take and 2) my willingness to relentlessly defend them against all substantive criticism. There are a lot of unreasonably obstinate polemicists, and so it's only natural that people who collide with my polemics would impute to me such garden-variety obstinacy and unreasonableness.
Consider the possible universe in which I have a correct worldview and my defenses of it are valid. In that universe, what would be the reaction to my writings of people with opposing worldviews who nevertheless consider themselves reasonable? Would a majority of them recant? Would a majority even acknowledge the validity of my arguments? Or would most of them react emotionally, imputing to me some attribute (arrogance, obstinacy, non-expertise) that would allow them to rationalize their inability to answer my arguments?
G: you still do not demonstrate that "too much evidence that belief in it [an afterlife] derives MORE from emotional need than critical thought."
H: I never claimed to "demonstrate" that. "Demonstrate" is a very strong word, and I try to use it only to mean presenting a case that is effectively undeniable for a reasonable and educated person.
G: Sorry if I used the word "demonstrate" too loosely. At any rate, based upon your original contention (more on that below), I do not believe your case is effectively undeniable for a reasonable and educated person (more that below).
I never said it was. Making such a case isn't worth my time in this forum.
G: there is absolutely no way to scientifically quantify your contention
H: It's a common defense mechanism of Christians to insist on an unreasonable level of proof when their worldview is threatened. Do you have "scientifically quantified" evidence for the truth of Christianity?
G: Mr. Holtz, it is a common defense mechanism of anybody with very strong beliefs (not just Christians...e.g. devout atheists too) to insist on an unreasonable level of proof when their worldview is threatened.
Thus you do not deny that you insisted on an unreasonable level of proof.
I have no clue why you would think that you threatened my view on the afterlife (that's what the above comment was in regard to), when I specifically said that I am agnostic (as a believing Christian) as to how belief in an afterlife arose.
I didn't say I threatened your views on how belief in an afterlife arose.
Further, just a couple of sentences down, you acknowledge that even if belief in an afterlife arose more from emotions, it doesn't negate its existence!!! How is my belief in an afterlife threatened?
I didn't say my particular assertions about the origin of belief in an afterlife threaten your actual belief in an afterlife. What I'm saying is that atheist arguments like the ones I present are a threat to your worldview.
As an aside, don't be too self-congratulatory...you haven't threatened my worldview. Challenged some parts of my worldview, yes; threatened, no.
I'm not interested in debating the distinction you apparently want to make between "threaten" and "challenge". If there is some other explanation for why you reacted like other Christians do when their worldview is threatened, feel free to share it. I don't agree that my pointing out your unreasonableness and diagnosing its likely cause makes me "too self-congratulatory".
I never claimed to have scientific quantification for Christianity.
Thus you don't deny that you insisted on a higher standard of proof for me than for you.
I see that you do,
Wrong. Not all science is quantitative, and not all quantification is scientific. The laws of probability apply not only to phenomena subject directly to scientific investigation, but also to phenomena subject only to philosophical analysis.
and I have no idea where you came up with such probabilities.
Are you saying that we can make absolutely no comparisons of the relative probability of the possibilities I list? If so, then you have no basis for believing in Christianity rather than disbelieving it. If not, then the process by which you decide such probabilities is probably similar to mine. QED.
"Scientific quantification" was, admittedly, not the best phrasing on my part.
Indeed.
There's no way to get to exact percentages
I never said there was. How is this any different from your "scientific quantification" strawman?
(unless you presuppose a certain definition of critical...more on that later); you just have to show that there's more evidence for emotional derivation than critical reflection and, as I've explained in past e-mails, that's impossible
No, you simply asserted that "we could not begin to quantify" the emotional vs. critical factors, and then ignored my response: "We can of course make characterizations of the relative strength of the two factors. That we don't have a digital readout concerning these factors is no reason to pretend we have zero information about them."
H: That it does not negate its truth is one reason why I'm not very interested in presenting all the myriad and subtle evidence for that derivation -- much less "scientifically quantifying" it.
G: As I suggested above, this would seem to contradict you threatening my belief in an afterlife.
As I pointed out above, you misunderstand what I said was threatened, and what it was threatened by.
H: It's specious to claim that the grave goods practices of Paleolithic H. sapiens were as likely as not to have involved "critical reflection". Is that really your claim?
G: Mr. Holtz, you have showed me that yes, indeed, most likely belief in an afterlife did to some degree derive from emotions (which I have no problem with...even if it was entirely derived, in its genesis, from emotions).
I'll take this as an admission that Paleolithic H. sapiens wasn't very likely at all to have used much critical reflection in its adoption of grave goods practices.
But you have no privilege in knowing how much our ancestors reflected critically upon this belief; therefore, I do not see how you can make your claim on anything but emotions.
I'm not sure who you mean by "our ancestors". Are you claiming that paleontologists either need a time machine or can only use "emotions" to make judgments about the cognitive capacities of prehistoric humans?
I don't equate critical thought as beginning after the pre-scientific or pre-philosophical period. Critical thought to me is
analyzing something the best one can, given the knowledge of that period.
If someone not only has a near-total lack of relevant knowledge, but also a lacks a framework of rationality in which to evaluate the available data, you're saying we can't characterize his beliefs as based more on emotional needs than on critical thinking?
By your standards, it would seem that if down the road our current thought is deemed to be insufficient and pre-something or another, then what we're engaged in now cannot be confidently labeled as critical thought, even in our current times!
No, there is obviously a threshold of rationality, related to an awareness of and competence in the laws of logic. If you think that some of the laws of logic are subject to future revision, can you please point out which ones?
if you do think that, by your definition, critical thought could not have existed before the scientific or philosophical period,
I didn't say critical thought could not have existed. I merely said that emotions were obviously far more important. Unless you disagree that Paleolithic H. sapiens wasn't very likely at all to have used much critical reflection in its adoption of grave goods practices, we're done with this part of the discussion.
I now see wherein so much confusion lies. If you're point was the particular time of genesis, you should have made that clear on your website: "Unfortunately, there is no credible evidence for an afterlife, and too much evidence that it deriveSSSSSSSSSS..."
My point wasn't merely about the historical genesis of the afterlife meme. If you recall, both of my arguments were primarily about the present and not the past: "One is the near-universality across human cultures of rituals and customs implying belief in an afterlife, going back tens of thousands of years to the use of grave goods by Paleolithic H. sapiens. These beliefs obviously did not derive from philosophical or scientific rationality. The other kind of evidence is the lack of philosophical and scientific knowledge among the vast majority of humans who believe in an afterlife, combined with the obvious emotional appeal of that belief."
Your primary response to these arguments has been to quibble about "scientific quantification" and then to retract your quibble. My arguments stand essentially unrebutted.
You would be entirely correct if you said, "If this second category of yours is just people whose belief in an afterlife does not depend MORE on an emotional component..."
My sense of "depend" was necessity, not merely contributory effect.
Again, you "think." That seems to be an instinctual guess based more on emotions rather than critical thought.
Not all of my assertions are subject to equal confidence (or equal interest in giving them arbitrary amounts of justification). This is in fact a sign of reasonableness, and not a sign of emotionality or instinctual guessing or a lack of critical thought.
How do you presume to know how much believers reflect philosophically and scientifcally upon belief in an
afterlife?
Do you dare assert I have no information about how much believers reflect philosophically and scientifically? No, you just wheel out yet another strawman implication that I'm claiming some unreasonable precision of knowledge. (Do you think I might sometimes fail to diagnose this unreasonable-precision strawman if you use it often enough?) Ironically, you then immediately assert that you have a contrary belief about the very matter that you say I'm being presumptuous about:
I happen to believe it's a lot more than you think.