Tim O’Neill devotes his life to calling out bad history by New Atheists.
1 Like
Well I do not know him =). So perhaps you are right.
Now I’m lost.
@Swamidass, you say Athiests get history wrong.
@Reggie_O_Donoghue protests.
@Swamidass clarifies.
@Reggie_O_Donoghue produces a link to a page showing “bad history” by Athiests
https://historyforatheists.com/
.
.
.
[ Click on the image … it will blow your mind! ]
@Swamidass says: maybe Reggie is right.
Right about what? That Atheists are frequently guilty of bad history? Or that they aren’t?
That specifically Tim Oneal should not be grouped with atheists known to be bad with history. Though I do not know him well enough to know for sure.
So… Tim ONeal is an atheist who writes about other atheists writing bad history?
Obviously we cannot expect any group to be perfectly consistent.
1 Like
In my experience, the general public sees scientists (and perhaps doctors) in a much different light than they do other professions. At times, scientists are viewed as being part of a priesthood that guards some mysterious ancient knowledge that non-scientists could never hope to understand. Some scientists are even guilty of feeding this distorted view. I am a scientist, and I have had people tell me that they could never be smart enough to be a scientist, and I really don’t think this is true. With the right training and guidance I think almost anyone could be a great scientist.
One of the cool things about the Information Age is that it is breaking down the wall between scientists and the general public. At no time in history has this much information been easily accessible to so many. Hopefully this will allow the general public to see that scientists are no different than they are. In fact, everyday Joe’s and Jane’s use the same approach to problem solving in their everyday lives that scientists use in their work. When the car won’t start in the morning you look for natural causes as to why it won’t start. Scientists do the same when they try to figure out the questions they are tackling. No one would say that you can’t believe in the Resurrection because you test the battery in your car when it won’t start, so why should scientists be put under any more scrutiny because they look for natural causes elsewhere in the universe?
If it is any help, even this atheist scientist sees no problem with Christian scientists believing in the Resurrection, and you can quote me on it. The vast, vast majority of scientists fully support and believe in religious freedoms, and they see no contradiction between doing good science and faith based religious beliefs. The only time problems arise is when religious beliefs lead to bad science.
4 Likes
How i wish more people knew and accepted this.
I think one of the problems that lead to this “scientists hate religion” picture, as well as to the bad public understanding of science is the fact that most scientists are not really willing to devout a lot of their time to scientific divulgation, and a great deal of the minority who did (like Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins) happened to have very agressive personal views against religion, which may unadvertedly lead to an increase the rejection of science by religious groups, which is a big problem in countries like the U.S which have a really big religious population.
EDIT: I remember being in a bookstore the other day looking at the science divulgation section, and not counting in the books about mathematics, every single one had (very negative) mentions to God in their introductions and prefaces. It is no wonder that religious people might feel discouraged to read them.
OK. I am a believing Christian engineering professor who teaches, course ranging from mechanics through design to philosophy of science. I would like to test out a few ideas in this forum related to the question of the resurrection.
-
First, I would like to think that my faith in the resurrection is (virtually?) identical to the faith I use when doing science - believing things others have transmitted without testing everything myself, accepting theories that have not yet been proved or are difficult to prove, because they make sense and are elegant etc…I follow Michael Polanyi here…
-
The resurrection is of course mind-boggling because it is a unique event and not repeatable (or does not appear to be). Very few people other than Christians will accept it, and a large majority of the latter tend to commit intellectual suicide and “accept it on faith” - that is what I said I did not like to do.
-
There are of course unique events (called singularities) in science - the big bang is one of them; to some extent black holes are singularities - so at these points the “usual laws of science” break down. I suppose I would treat the resurrection as a singularity.
-
If so, then my “theory of everything” has this resurrection-singularity in it (like the big bang); and all our own resurrections are presumably like other black holes; and of course the new heaven and new earth etc. So is such a theory “elegant” intellectually?
-
For that we need to step into the realm of philosophy and literature…to ask questions like “do we need someone from outside to remedy the human predicament of “fallen-ness” (a notion that many non-Christians would agree with)?”; “how do we know that the forces of good will overcome those of evil if not for an event such as the resurrection?”; “why is it that many literatures of the world reflect the notion of an afterlife - are we constructed for eternity?”. So the elegance of my resurrection-including-theory-of-everything" must be judged for its elegance in the realm of philosophy.
-
Then our course we have the historical events, both around Jesus and his suddenly changed followers to give us some circumstantial evidence for our theory above…many people are familiar with these…
-
Anyway, since my faith is like that employed in science I hold it in the face of many doubts (and indeed subject it to many doubts). The trick is to act in spite of the doubts, which is probably why Jesus required us to have only a mustard seed’s quantity of faith…
Some of my thoughts on faith and science can be found here:
Is science very different from religion by Priyan Dias, SCB 22:43-55
Priyan Dias
2 Likes
@T_aquaticus you have always been an excellent ambassador of science as an atheist. I hope some day you idnentify yourself and get more involved in direct outreach to the public.
I would love to better understand how the atheists/agnostics on this board respond to these kinds of claims, given that I have not seen any directly interact with them thus far - Not to start a debate but just to better understand your position.
I imagine that for any given alleged historical supernatural event (say, an alleged UFO sighting), I would be skeptical of an extraordinary claim, even if I didn’t have a compelling explanation for what actually occurred, and I would be content to leave it at that. However, usually nothing comes of such stand-alone events. If there were undeniably significant real-world effects that were attributed to the event, I’m not sure how I would respond. In this case, we have an alleged event (the resurrection), and significant real-world effects attributed to it (the emergence of Christianity from Judaism).
I would be interested in hearing some of the atheists/agnostics on this board discuss their opinion of the arguments presented in this article or in the mentioned N T Wright page, specifically regarding the claims of the “the inexplicability of Jesus’s followers’ transformation,” especially compared to the other one-time would-be messiahs of the time period.
For the event itself: Do these arguments for the resurrection strike you as implausible, or plausible but not compelling, or compelling but not strong enough evidence to believe the extraordinary claim?
For the effects attributed to it: Do you agree or disagree that the emergence of Christianity from Judaism is a striking historical event that begs for a compelling explanation? Even if the resurrection is not the only plausible or compelling hypothesis, does it strike you as a plausible or compelling hypothesis for that emergence? Is there another hypothesis you find more plausible or compelling, or do you simply not find the evidence for the resurrection compelling enough on its own, regardless, even if you don’t have a more compelling explanation for the emergence of Christianity? (What is Tim O’Neil’s position? - I’d be happy to read some specific material of his or others if you’d rather simply point me to a thought-out position that responds to some of these kinds of claims)
2 Likes
We also tend to focus more on something controversial. Disagreement makes for more dramatic theatre, and for better book sales.
A comparable event would be Muhammad ascending into heaven after receiving the Koran from Allah, and the significant real-world effects attributed to it (the emergence of Islam). The same could be said of Joseph Smith receiving the Golden Tablets from the angel Gabriel.
The question of why one religion becomes more popular than another is certainly interesting, especially from an anthropological view. However, I don’t see why a religion becoming popular necessarily indicates that it is based on real events. I would suspect that you would not see the emergence of Islam or Mormonism as compelling evidence for their supernatural claims.
1 Like
As my priors, no - my default baseline would be that the emergence of any religion has no compelling or even plausible connection to supernatural events, and that it’s reasonable to doubt such claims without investigating to find compelling explanations for what happened for each one.
But Biologos and N. T. Wright are claiming in good faith that a supernatural event was not just incidental but core to the emergence of their religion, and that there are specific empirical facts about the emergence of their particular religion for which there are no compelling explanations besides that event - i.e. they’re arguing that it’s not comparable to other religions - they’re challenging the view that those priors are justified in this particular case, arguing, if not for proof, that their view is at least plausible and at most very compelling.
That doesn’t mean they’re right, any more than a Mormon or Muslim making the same claims about their religion, but to respond that we all have those priors about the supernatural claims of emerging religions before investigating a specific challenge isn’t really a response to the challenge itself.
2 Likes
Skimming through the N. T. Wright page you linked below, it reads like a lot of opinion and conjecture, not empirical facts. You could ask why the Mormons and Joseph Smith moved all over the country and faced such persecution. The only explanation is that Joseph Smith really did get those Golden Tablets from Gabriel, according to the logic I am reading on Wright’s page. Is that then empirical evidence for Mormonism? I don’t think so.
Also, I don’t know how appropriate it is to debate this subject in this thread. It really isn’t my intention in this forum to have a debate over the existence of God or the truth of Christianity (a sentiment we seem to share). If you are curious as to my general reaction to arguments like the one on Wright’s webpage it is that those are the types of arguments that are convincing to the already convinced. If you don’t already believe that the gospels are true and that the disciples were incapable of making stuff up then those arguments really aren’t all that compelling (again, in my own view).
That’s more or less what I was looking for - thanks!
1 Like
Or at least that his followers honestly believe that he did.
In the name of completeness, there are certain things that set off alarm bells in the minds of skeptics.
-
A lot of people already believe it is true, so it must be true.
-
Why would that person lie?
-
You can’t show that it is false.
-
There are different kinds of evidence. Variation: I have evidence, but you won’t consider it evidence.
I’m not saying that these are necessarily false things to say, only that they look like bad arguments. It’s a bit like a police detective who sees a suspect start sweating when tough questions are asked.
Skepticism (of the atheist variety) is much more about the method by which we determine truth than what you believe truth is. If you want to make inroads into the atheist psyche then you need to focus on the logic and reason of the argument, not on the conclusion of the argument. It isn’t that atheists don’t want to believe in God. Atheists don’t want to believe in something that is false, and will err on the side of disbelief if there is ambiguity. And to reiterate once more, I am only saying these things to give a glimpse into my own thoughts on the matter and it isn’t meant to be some grand challenge for a debate on the matter.
On that note, a bit of witticism from someone who has always made me chuckle:
“Tell people there’s an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.”
― George Carlin
2 Likes
Perhaps a quote from another ambassador who was a little more public with his outreach:
"People are not stupid. They believe things for reasons. The last way for skeptics to get the attention of bright, curious, intelligent people is to belittle or condescend or to show arrogance toward their beliefs.”
― Carl Sagan
2 Likes
Thanks.
Just to explicitly confirm what you implied about your competing position (without debating it :))- compared to the resurrection, you find more compelling the idea that the disciples simply lied (or perhaps some variation on self-deception?), and by extension, that the doctrinal and lifestyle changes from Judaism and the early growth of Christianity can all be compellingly explained by that idea.