We all question things in life, some more than others, but people seem to have a difficult time question their own religion. They may say they do, but the fact is that most people will follow the same religion they were brought up in. If they really questioned it, we wouldn't see religions dominating certain populations around the world. Since religions shape the way people see the world, it is extremely important for people to question their ideas and beliefs. Ideas in life affect people in three ways, negatively, neutrally, and positively. So let's look into how these three affects change the way things are perceived.
When an idea appears to affect us negatively, we have no problem questioning it. We want what is best for us, which is why we will question something that affects us negatively, because if we can prove there is another way, it benefits us. For example when politicians discuss raising taxes, if we can prove the state/country can still operate and accomplish everything they need to without raising taxes, citizens can keep more of their hard earned money. So when something appears negative we question it and we will usually attempt to prove it wrong.
When an idea appears neutral and doesn't really affect our lives, we rarely give it much thought. However, some do in attempts to make a product or a situation even better. Sometimes those changes are improvements, but if the changes turn out to have a negative effect, guess what? We question it. We will argue for changing it back the way it was, or attempt to improve on it again. But for the most part, most of us don't even question ideas that affect us neutrally because we don't think about it.
When an idea appears positive and seems to improve our lives we rarely question it, and in fact hope it’s true. Why ruin a bad thing, right? Well that is why people rarely question their religion. It promises them great things, and in most cases promises a negative result if not followed. We like the thought of going to a "heaven" and not going to a "hell", being able to see our loved ones again who have passed, feeling like there is an ultimate plan for our lives, or a "God/the creator of everything" helping us in tough times. These ideas all seem to be positive and wonderful things. Plus not having these beliefs might seem scary to some. This is why it's extremely tough for people to question ideas that appear positive.
People fall for schemes every day for this same reason. It may appear to be the chance of a lifetime and they don't want to pass up a good thing. Not many want to volunteer for the "let me shoot this apple off your head" trick. Most realize this could end negatively, but when something appears to be positive they don't question it and don't realize that it could have a negative effect if not true. It is obvious that an investment that sounds positive but turns out to be a scam is negative. The same goes for believing something that isn't true when it appears positive.
Pascal's Wager which argues, "you should believe in God even if there's a strong chance that he might not be real, because the penalty for not believing, mainly going to hell, is so undesirable that it is more prudent to take our chances with belief." Pascal's Wager may seem like a good idea because it is basically an investment that cost nothing and we have everything to gain. However there is a hidden cost, when following a religion we are putting our intelligence and reality at risk. That may sound harsh, but believing something which is false will absolutely affect one's ability to make smart and rational decisions. This is hard to see for one's self, because it turns their reality into a false one. The easiest way to see this is by looking at those who have a different religion/belief than their own.
Those who invest in something and later fear that it could be a scam seem to be afraid to do the research afterward for fear of discovering that they have been duped. Their money is already invested so they just hope for the best. However, people who do their research first before investing and discover it would have been a scam are relieved they didn't invest. They realize that although it might have seemed like a great opportunity, the opportunity was really never there and was just an illusion promising great things. The same goes for religion. Believers once invested in a religion; have a hard time questioning it for fear that they may have been misled. They have invested their time every Sunday and have most likely developed many friendships within their religion and their social circle would be completely disrupted. They would not only be losing their hope of an afterlife but also losing what they know of their current life on earth.
People of all religions will say it is about discovering the truth. This could not be further from the truth whether they realize it or not. If the goal was to discover truth, they would not only study their own religion, but other religions as well. They couldn't possibly be so arrogant to think that the first religion they were taught was the correct one. At the least they would be knowledgeable about the top 5 to 10 religions and compare which ones make the most sense and are the most consistent. Many times the way a belief makes someone feel is their evidence for it being true, but they don't realize or want to acknowledge that people of different religions have those same feelings about their own religion. So the only thing proven is that people can become emotionally attached to their belief, which gives them the feeling that it is true.
The truth is religion is about making people feel comfortable and giving them hope, although it may be false hope, it is still hope. It is hard for people to come to grips with the harshness of reality, but facing reality makes us better and stronger people. We can make better decisions in our life when based on reality, because like Voltaire once said, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." If this is the only life we get, let's hope people choose reality over fantasy.
What about people who suffer because of their faith? You don't address people who have questioned their faith and convert. Often those people suffer ostracizing by their families, employers and communities. Sometimes they suffer physical violence as well. This happens routinely in other parts of the world. Your main point is obvious and good: everyone should look at their belief system objectively. However, you have an oversimplified and patently Western understanding of peoples' adherence to their faith-systems.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm saying is that its preposterous for someone sitting from a western viewpoint, where there are very few consequences for questioning our beliefs, changing religions or sharing viewpoints, to assume that people who put their lives on the line for their faith don't question its validity.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments, you are right I didn’t address people who have questioned their faith and have converted. This is because the people I am trying to speak to here are those who grew up believing one religion and have never seriously questioned it. And you are right, I am coming from a western understanding of religion as I live in the west and can only speak from my own experience. I know this post may seem a bit simplified but hopefully someone who hasn’t questioned their faith might read this and it will get them to think. But this is just a blog post and not meant to be a book that discusses every situation that arises in religion.
ReplyDeleteI know that the penalty for apostasy in Islam is death, but situations like this are a whole different topic and I don’t blame people for not questioning their beliefs when it means their life would be in danger.
If you'd like to share your experience feel free to write about it here in the comments. I'd love to hear about it. Thanks.
Hello Ted, thank you for your response. I appreciate the civil tone of your blog, and I apologize if I came across as hostile in my earlier posts. I am also sorry if you feel misled, I didn’t intend for you or your readers to think that I was from a religiously restricted nation. To be honest, I live in the west as well. And just to show you all my cards, I am an evangelical Christian. I bring up the question of suffering because, although it is fairly irrelevant in the west, persecution has often been the norm for the church, and often for other faith groups as well. In fact, when I was personally going through the phase of my life when I WAS questioning my faith, the question of suffering for one’s faith was one of the key components in the overall puzzle which convinced me that the Biblical worldview is correct. More on the puzzle concept and the biblical worldview later, if you are interested in that discussion.
ReplyDeleteThe early church was birthed in suffering. 11 of the 12 disciples died a martyr’s death, and the 12th—John—was imprisoned after enduring a botched execution. Until Constantine legalized Christianity in AD 313, it was not unusual for Christians to die for their confession of faith in Christ. Jesus himself kicked off the movement with his own martyrdom. But let’s assume for a moment that Jesus’ life ended in Jerusalem at the cross, and there was no resurrection. Put yourself in the shoes of one of his close followers: Jesus was not the man you thought he was. He was simply a moral guide (at best) or possibly a con-artist (because he told people he was the messiah, but he couldn’t deliver). What do you have to gain by telling people that he WAS raised from the dead, contrary to actual fact? As a Jew, you are not really promised life after death in your Scriptures. You certainly don’t have the promise of comfort in the near term either. You don’t have the promise of political control. You have nothing. You are powerless, and forced into hiding by the mob that just killed your boss. There is nothing to gain by telling people that Jesus had defeated death. But let’s now pretend that you are delusional and want to start a cult. You have to convince 10 other disciples (Judas had killed himself at this point and they were down one) to go along with your plan, as well as a small contingent of other followers (perhaps one to two hundred) in the Jerusalem area. Your job is to unite this group of people together to go along with a story that everyone had seen the resurrected Jesus. You will risk certain repercussions from local authorities, up to and including crucifixion for treason. And nothing to gain. AND, at any point, the authorities could squash your conspiracy by simply producing the body of Jesus.
Does that sound likely, or even plausible?
This is why Paul later tells us that the resurrection is the bedrock doctrine of the Christian faith. Take away the resurrection, and “we are, of all people, to be most pitied”. You see, Paul assumed that persecution would be par for the course for Christians. To those who face the prospect of hardships and pain, the stakes are higher and they had better be sure. Why should Christians be pitied if we are following a delusional con-artist whose bones are resting in a near-eastern tomb? Not just because we would be living in a fantasy world and have people post rude things about us on Facebook. It’s because many have died, and continue to die. Who wants to die for a lie?
ReplyDeleteFor example, Richard Wurmbrand spent nearly 14 years in communist prisons in Romania because he preached publically that Christianity and Communism were not compatible. After his release in 1964, he testified before the U.S. Senate’s Internal Security Subcommittee concerning his experiences. Doctors who examined him were stupefied as to how he had remained alive. Normal life expectancy for a prisoner in an east-European communist prison was months. His book, Tortured for Christ, can be obtained for free at www.persecution.com. If Jesus was not resurrected, Wurmbrand did it all for nothing. As did many millions of Christians under communist Russia. And China. Some in North Korea. Vietnam. You get the picture.
Does religious persecution alone validate the persecuted faith group? Absolutely not. But it brings into precise contrast the questions of faith that many Westerners never ask.
The awareness of what Christians often face caused me to ask if there might be something to the legend. Unfortunately, commonplace as it is, it is often downplayed in mainstream media. For example, 19 people were blown up in a church in Nigeria just last week. 17 were killed on the border of Kenya and Somalia on July 1. In Egypt after Former president Mubarak was ousted, there was frequent violence toward Coptic Christians. In September, 2008, anti-Christian violence in Orissa state, India left numerous dead, more wounded and thousands of low-caste Christians homeless. But most of this goes under the radar. So hopefully some of your readers will gain a new perspective on a seriously under-reported world-wide phenomenon.
So I put the question to you: why do people identify themselves with Jesus, even if it will cause them pain? More importantly, if Jesus is NOT who he said he is, why did the early church lie about it?
No need to apologize, compared to other comments I’ve received it didn’t seem hostile. But thanks again for the comments. I’m glad you finally made the comment toward the end “Does religious persecution alone validate the persecuted faith group? Absolutely not.” Because it doesn’t and I don’t see why it matters, because there are many other groups/cults/religions who have died for their faith but it doesn’t have any effect on whether what they died for was true. Muslims die every day for their faith, remember the cult “heaven’s gate” they also died for their faith. There are countless examples of this. And if you have read any other post on this blog you probably know I was a strong Christian for many years, and since I’ve been an atheist, I’m persecuted way more than I ever was as a Christian. If you want to do a little experiment, go to a conservative facebook page and work into a comment that you’re an atheist or even just not a Christian and see what kind of response you get back. So the question, “why do people identify themselves with Jesus, even if it will cause them pain?” Isn’t really a question worth thinking about because the answer is people can be very intolerant of those who are different.
ReplyDeletePlus the thing that matters most is evidence, so that brings me to your last question, “if Jesus is NOT who he said he is, why did the early church lie about it”.
So there are good reasons to question whether a man named Jesus even existed. But I’m not even going to argue that and for sake of argument will say he did exist. But you still have the problem that the gospels were written 50-80 years after Christ death. So apparently whatever happened on the 3rd day wasn’t spectacular enough to write about that same day, week, month or even year. Doesn’t it seem likely that this story had been passed around and when it was finally exaggerated enough someone thought to write about it. Many think the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but the authors are actually unknown and Biblical scholars acknowledge this.
But what is an even bigger nail in the coffin is if you go back to before the Bible was written to the Enuma Elish which is the Babylonian creation story which is similar to the Bibles creation story. This was basically was a polytheist belief and out of it evolved the god of war Yahweh (which btw, is why the god in the old testament is always giving instructions for war). There are still many signs in the old testament that the monotheistic view of god was derived from polytheism, even though it was edited in 600 BC to make it seem like Yahweh was always the only god. For example, Exodus 18:11, “now I know that Yahweh is greater than all other gods” because there were other gods such as Baal, El Elyon, and Asherah at the time that they also worshipped. I’d recommend you look into this more and would be happy to provide sources for you if interested. But the point is, if there was a creation story in the Enuma Elish based on polytheism before the Bible, and then the Bible took that story and made it their own there is no way the god in the Bible is real.
You are basing your position off of anti-supernaturalist presuppositions. I'm familiar with Wellhausen's Documentary theory of the old testament, which basically says that every book in the Old Testament was written later than it claims to have been, because if it were to be taken at face value, the bible would be a supernatural book. It's circular reasoning. I'm not claiming that conservative scholar's don't engage in circular reasoning as well, but when it comes to evidence that the OT can be taken at face value, the Documentary theory is bunk. We can be more specific if you like, but I rather go back to the resurrection, because you didn't answer my question directly. What did the early church have to gain from faking the resurrection?
ReplyDeleteI’m actually not that familiar with Wellhausen’s theory of the old testament. I learned about the Enuma Elish through Karen Armstrong’s A History of God. The point is, the Enuma Elish is a real book that was written well before the Bible and the creation story in the book is basically the same as the Bible except it was polytheistic and used a handful of gods to explain creation. So this is evidence the god of the Bible is not real for so many reasons. The most obvious of these are 1) It shows that man invented the concept of gods way before the Bible. 2) It shows that men stole the creation story from the Enuma Elish and made it their own for the Bible.
ReplyDeleteBut you said you didn’t want to talk about that so I’ll move on to the question you are asking. I just wanted to make those points since you said it was circular reasoning. And btw, His theory could be circular reasoning since I'm unfamiliar with it, but what I was talking about is not.
So your question, “What did the early church have to gain from faking the resurrection?” The funny thing about that question is you could basically ask that same question for all other religions that still exist or have existed. There are thousands of religions that have existed; and they all started by a lie or misinformation. If only one of them can be right, then all others would have to be wrong. So if that is a key question that has stumped you and given you a reason to believe in Christianity, than you also need to ask that same question for other religions.
Like I said before, the Gospels were written 50-80 years after Christ death. So it’s hard to say whether the church was lying about his resurrection or if they just believed the exaggerated stories that had been passed down about it. If they were lying, then there are many reasons why they would lie. It would give the church power over others. It would help unify people. It gave people a story to believe in to help explain their understanding of the world. You can pick anyone of these reasons why they would lie. I’m sure there are probably others that I’m missing.
I hope that answers your question clearly.
That was a line of reasoning that I held onto for a while. The story is out of this world enough to be credible. Would people open up to possible redicule or violence over a fake story? Turns out though if you can convince someone of something that requires no evidence, they might be more likely to believe you. Especially if it concerns unknowns like life after death. Heavens Gate didn't die of persecution. Thier own leader killed them, and they went along with it willingly. These had been educated people up to that point but for some reason latched onto a guys story about a spaceship, and sneakers.
ReplyDeleteWhat was a line of reasoning you held onto for a while?
ReplyDeleteI know Heaven's Gate didn't die of persecution. My point was they died for what they believed in, and just because you are willing to die for your beliefs doesn't make it credible. And from what I remember their leader didn't kill them, they all committed suicide at the same time so they could meet up with a comet that was flying close to earth. People can belief some crazy things!
Concerning Enuma Elish, (which I’m not all that familiar with) I believe the resemblances aren't universally accepted as evidence that the author of genesis borrowed. I can mention three scholars (Heidel, Lambert and Millard) who “reject the idea that Gen. 1-2 had any close relation at all to the Babylonian Enuma Elish.” (Archer, Old Testament Introduction p.156). Specifically, the bible is the only creation account that describes creation ex nihilo. But even if we grant that the enuma elish came first (which is debatable), and that there are similar elements, how does that show that Yaweh isn't real? There are echoes of biblical truth embedded into every culture. What if the genesis account is true and stands as a correction to other creation epics?
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, just as the suffering of Christians does not prove that Christianity is true, so the multiplicity of other religions does not prove that it is false.
As to your explanations for the early church, they don't line up historically and culturally. A splinter sect under Roman rule had no chance of gaining power. Jesus ministry was strictly apolitical, as was that of the early church. The early church existed against all odds. And again, the fact that other religions have begun does not mean that they are all false.
The dating of the gospels is another interesting point. The fact that many of the eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection were still alive corroborates the gospel testimony: namely, there is no contemporary manuscript evidence to the contrary. In fact, the unity of New Testament manuscripts throughout history shows us that since the earliest copies were written, no embellishment has taken place. Therefore the theory that the first Christians embellished or invented a legend is not only contrary to their own teaching, it is unsubstantiated. If it is evidence and reason you are looking for, the only argument for that theory is an argument from silence.
All of this aside, I urge you to read the writings of Wurmbrand. This conversation prompted me to open his book again, and the pages overflow with love for his tormentors. The atrocities that he witnessed were unspeakable, yet he carried no grudge. In fact, he tells us that many of the communists whom he began to know as secret police, interrogators and prison guards were converted to Christianity, in spite of the consequences they KNEW would come. They began as the torturers and ended up being tortured alongside those they once hated. It is facts like this that buttress my faith in Christ. The scholars can debate dates and comparative religion all day long. Occam’s razor gives me no option but to ascribe this superhuman love to a superhuman God-Man who was predicted hundreds of years before his time (Psalm 22, Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 52-53, Daniel 9:24, Micah 5:2, Zech 9:9, 11:12 and 12:10).
ReplyDeleteIf you want to base your beliefs on anecdote’s that’s up to you, but it is in no way a path to truth.
ReplyDeleteIf you honestly care about what is true, I would recommend learning about fallacies, because you are making a lot of them. Please don’t take that offensively, I just want you to be aware that you are making them. If your beliefs are correct, you will be able to make stronger points and present evidence without making fallacies and this will help you convince others that your belief is right.
For example, you mentioned three scholars (Heidel, Lambert and Millard) who reject the idea that Gen. 1-2 had any close relation to the Enuma Elish. This is the fallacy called an argument from authority. In order to make this not a fallacy you would need to say why they think this, because the only thing that matters is the argument itself not who is making the argument (unless somehow these men are infallible). But that would require a whole lot more of evidence!
Also, I would recommend checking out this video, about the history of god. He used to be an evangelical Christian would just wanted more answers. He does a really great job of explaining it, and presents many sources so that you can go check it out for yourself and not just take his word or anyone else’s. His whole series is great, but at least check out this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg
Let me know what you think.
I’ll leave you with this quote. “If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences.” - H. P. Lovecraft
I know I didn’t answer all your questions or address all of your points, I felt this would be a more helpful response. So if there was a question I didn’t answer that you want me to let me know and I will. I don’t want you to think I’m dodging anything.
You also made an argument based on authority, quoting Karen Armstrong. Thanks for keeping it civil, I appreciate the discourse and I will keep reading! Good blog.
ReplyDeleteI still catch myself sometimes thinking about making an argument from authority because it is so easy to do haha. And when I do, I want people to point that out. However, I don't think I did this time. I was just saying I learned about the Enuma Elish from her book. And because she used evidence to support her stance I didn't just take her word for it. And I wasn’t saying you should believe me because of it, at least I didn’t mean to if I did.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the kind words, and have enjoyed the discussion. Keep in touch; let me know what you find.
For your reader's reference, a key passage from Enuma Elish, tablet 1, (translated in "Ancient Near Eastern Texts"): "When on high heaven had not been named, firm ground below had not been called by name, naught but primordial Apsu, their begetter, (and) Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all, their waters commingling as a shingle body; no reed hut had been matted, no marsh land had appeared. When no gods whatever had been brought into being, uncalled by name, their destinies undetermined, Then it was that the gods were formed within them. Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth, by name they were called".
ReplyDeleteIt's a stretch to find similarities between the two.
The problem with the idea of an evolution of God, is that the model is trying to force ancient Near Eastern religious history (or any religious history) into a Hegelian Dialectic framework. Don’t you think it’s significant that no Biblical scholar, conservative or liberal, conceived of an evolution of religion until after Darwin introduced his theory of evolution? (Similarly in linguistics: there is no tendency for language to move from simple in primitive cultures to complex in modern cultures. Just the opposite is true). There isn’t any actual evidence that the ancient Jews moved from polytheism into monotheism. When the Old Testament uses the words "gods", it is always in the context of crafted idols. Sorry to slip in an extra comment...had this burning in my brain.
Don’t apologize for the comment, feel free to post as much as you like.
ReplyDeleteBut I don’t see how you can say it is a stretch to say the creation stories are similar. The simple fact that there are 7 tablets in the Enuma Elish and the Bible says god created everything in 7 days. Man was created on the 6th tablet and god created man on the 6th day. And I believe light and land were created on the same days if not more things. I’d have to go back and look at the other similarities. But if the Bible was correct and the Enuma Elish is wrong, then what are the chances that a creation story that predates Geneses would be similar? Think about it.
But when people use the word evolution to describe the way religion has changed throughout time. They aren’t using evolution as Darwin defines it. If evolution was never discovered and the term didn’t exist, we would just be saying the religions/gods changed over time by people changing their minds and stories. But because we now have another word for change over time, we use the word evolution instead but not in the same way as Darwin. Does that make sense?
I believe you are half right about the old testament referring to graven idols when it uses “gods”. At least that is what the Bible when rewritten wanted us believe, which is why I say you are half right. But it is a long explanation to explain the other half, but I’ll try.
I know you think this is debatable, but the Enuma Elish was written about 1000 years before Geneses and was polytheist. Back then when someone chose one god over the other polytheist gods to worship they would call that god their Elohim. So that is where the term Elohim comes from in the Bible, but when rewritten to make the Bible based on monotheism the word Elohim was left in because it also means one god. So that is why “gods” is not just referring to graven images.
What is the evidence that the bible was rewritten?
ReplyDeleteOr that the Jewish nation was ever polytheistic?
ReplyDeleteDid you check out the link I left for you? It answers those questions very well. I don't like saying "hear listen to this" but since you asked the question it makes a lot more sense to just refer you to this 15 min video instead of me taking a lot of time to write it all out. He does a great job of explaining it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg
DeleteMark's original writings did not include the resurrection scene this can be seen in the Codex Sinaiticus and several other documents. It ends at verse eight. Versus 9 - 20 were added later because of the obviousness that Jesus was not and did not come back as predicted before the apostles died. You can see it for yourself. If you read it it says clearly that the women did not say anything to anyone out of fear, yet a few versus later they tell the apostles...
ReplyDeletehere http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34&chapter=16&lid=en&side=r&verse=8&zoomSlider=0
in reply to unknown, sorry.
DeleteWhen early surrender is allowed, find a way to|you probably can} surrender your hand if the vendor is displaying an Ace and solely lose half your bet instead of all of it. It’s a troublesome ability to choose up and takes plenty of practice. If you’ve obtained a robust thoughts for arithmetic, it 온라인 카지노 might help you become a winner – particularly in Vegas.
ReplyDelete