From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 10:27 AM To: James Patrick Holding Subject: RE: Christianity: arguments against; questions for >> as the primitive Christian notion of having a physical >> body in heaven. > > calling [this notion] > names ("primitive") is not relevant and proves nothing. My summary characterization of this notion was offered as neither a insult ("name") nor a "proof", and I'm intrigued by your eagerness to take it as either. > What is it about heaven that precludes such a thing? Logically nothing, just as there is not logical contradiction inherent in the Hindu idea of reincarnation as a cow. But being logically non-contradictory grants no immunity from being aptly characterizable as "primitive". > If that is primitive, what is "advanced" and why? If we surveyed 100 theologians and asked them which notion of heaven -- physical or purely spiritual -- they considered to be more "primitive", I'm confident they'd say physical. > What makes that concept "advanced" as opposed to NOT > having a physical body? One reason might be that physicalist notions of afterlife correlate more strongly with earlier stages of historical development both across and within religions. Another reason might be that a physicalist heaven creates all kinds of sticky questions: is it in spacetime, or not? Do our rules of physics apply, or some other? If ours apply, then how do they reconcile with the presumably miraculous operation of heaven? If others, then what happens when one runs earth-type physical experiments in heaven? (I could go on and on, of course.) Note that "primitive" does not necessarily imply "false". Primitiveness correlates with simplicity, and simplicity correlates with truth. Some of my favorite ideas are primitive. :-) > Were intelligent Jews and Persians (Josephus, Philo, Zoroaster) > ignorant fools for believing in this concept? That depends on what else they knew or should have known. Non-negligent ignorance is often a worthy reason to not be considered a fool. > And just how much do you know about the Jewish/Persian > conception of the resurrection body in the first place? Not much, but I know that this conception was formed in ignorance of how physical laws operate, and thus in ignorance of the most interesting implications of physicality. > Do these questions give you an idea of exactly WHY I find it > hard to take what you have written seriously? Yes, but the reasons that I infer are probably not the same ones you are thinking of. :-) >> are quite straightforward, and I understand if they >> make you uncomfortable > > Please!! They make me LAUGH. Hmm, now is this name-calling, or characterization...? :-) > Many of them are simply > designed to incur an "I don't know" answer to make the > replier look as though they are ignorant. You've managed to misunderstand the intention of their design, despite being told by their designer precisely what that intention is. :-) I said that they are designed to explore how comfortable Christians are with exploring the logical consequences and possibilities inherent in their beliefs. That is, they are designed to make the replier look not ignorant but close-minded. > (My answer would > be to many of them, "Sorry, no data available.") And that would be it? You would be unwilling to speculate on the various possible answers to them, and the implications thereof? Such unwillingness might be considered close-minded. > Few if any > present any logical or physical data to show that the > situation enquired upon is in some sense erroneous Of course. They are questions more than they are data or arguments. Now, there are arguments that might be obviously associated with some of them, but their point is to elicit and clarify the thinking and arguments of the Christian side. Or, alternatively, to show that no such thinking or arguments seem to exist. :-) > You want them answered? Fine. I have a space open in a few > weeks. Cool. And feel free to point me to the best set of potentially uncomfortable questions for atheists that you have (or have seen). >> confident that none of the great Christian thinkers have >> ever seriously addressed such questions > > Well, then, may I see your bibliography? No need. Observe that the great Christian thinkers would never have faced some these issues: Compelling Evidence. The great Christian thinkers predate the modern situation of global communication and a marketplace of ideas in which truth is converged on pretty much asymptotically and monotonically. Dwindling Design. As the question notes, the problem of dwindling design was not apparent until after Darwin, who antedates the great Christian thinkers. Prophecy. The great Christian thinkers predate the notion of professional historians operating under peer review. For other issues, the great Christian thinkers were (as far as I know) not interested in exploring how Christianity might be falsified, or what they would do if they had no hope of salvation. If you know otherwise, please enlighten. The nature of heaven and hell were of course of interest to the great Christian thinkers, but my impression is that they were either uninterested in (or afraid of) considering questions about e.g. our intellectual life in heaven. Again, whip out the great Christian thinkers' answers if you know of any. > If more time was > spent on such speculation, the critics would complain (and > do) that not enough time is spent on helping one's fellow > man. This sounds like a convenient omnipurpose excuse to duck any question you please. :-) I doubt you would use it though, and I sympathize with how you get unjustified complaints from those who disagree with you. >> The questions simply explore a) the logical consequences of Christian belief > > Obviously, but without proving the consequences to be wrong. As I said before, my questions are not proofs, and strictly speaking are not even arguments (though they may suggest arguments or contain contentious premises). > I.e., it is simply assumed that eternal punishment is > unfair, Right. In case it's not obvious, the point of the question is to get you to explicitly say why it's not unfair. > which attempts to play upon the emotions of pity and > shame to force a conclusion. It's not my problem that the natural feelings of humans are prima facie incompatible with a position that you assert but that I deny. I'm just asking why you would feel no such pity or shame -- or what other considerations would override those feelings. > if you had indeed read your Anselm, you would know that this > question has been addressed many, many, many times. As I said, I'm aware that great Christian thinkers have offered various arguments for the justness of hell. I want to know which argument(s) you agree with.