It’s true that some people believe silly things, and it’s also true that people have faith. It does not follow that all faith is silly.
Consider: If faith were obviously silly, useless, with no value whatsoever, then no rational person would choose to believe. By rational I mean “rational choice” as defined in economics, and how people will spend their time and money based on a utility function representing the value they perceive. It is not reasonable to assume that so many people would make irrational choices that do not benefit they in any way. Therefore people who make this choice must experience greater utility - greater value for faith, than others.
No time for more today, but consider the entirely secular reasons that allow value from faith.
If they cannot believe in God, Christianity, religion despite such criticisms then I don’t see why they should. I don’t believe that all Christianity and religion is better than atheism – quite the contrary. If you cannot find the authentic value of it, then better not to bother at all.
Yeah, I can see that I suppose, I guess one of my issues ( along with a list of others) that I should work on is understanding the purpose of religion and why so many find comfort in it, I just don’t know the origin of religion nor what it’s intended purpose was in its original form however I would love to find out though I am not sure if anyone has done extensive research on such a matter.
To be honest I am not sure why a part of me is drawn to such otherwise irrelevant matters such as religion in regards to the cosmos, maybe it is apart of human nature?
In regards to this statment, may I ask as to how and/or why you became a Christian and when you say quite the contrary I assume you mean one is better than the other?
In one sense, Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a Person. The purpose is interaction with him primarily, and secondarily other adopted siblings. We’ve already talked about some evidence.
Another factor is truth. A good Christian worldview covers it.
ETA:
I know I don’t need to know the origins of it, since it’s about a Person. It’s directly analogous to not having to know where my father was born, or my brother, to have them in my life.
I mean that not all versions of theism are better than atheism.
The point is only that some are decidedly bad. Take the human sacrifice religions of the Aztecs for example. I do think there is good religion that has a positive value. But I also think that religion is quite dangerous and extreme caution is needed.
I’ve always appreciated how openly you concede that. By the same token I can happily throw any number of atheist worldviews under the bus as being inadequate. Placing a great deal of importance in dismissing the existence of something whose importance is essentially consensual is no great accomplishment.
Atheism isn’t a moral or social philosophy. I would say that atheism could be closely tied to skepticism, but there is no way that a simple statement about a lack of belief can be used to form any coherent moral or philosophical worldview.
I also think that we should cast our gaze a bit wider and look at ideologies in general, of which religion is just a subset. Steven Weinberg infamously stated that (paraphrasing), “with or without religion, good people do good things and bad people would bad things, but religion is the only thing that causes good people to do bad things.” I would disagree with Weinberg and say that bad ideologies cause good people to do bad things. Theist and atheist alike need to be ever vigilant in choosing which ideas they accept and follow.
Yes, I have suggested the same correction to Weinberg’s comment. I also think that in comparing ideologies, whether it includes a belief in god(s), by itself, is not among those things to check in determining whether this is a beneficial or harmful ideology. Yet it can certainly focus the questions you need to ask in the case of theism, such as looking at the character deity which is worshipped, and particularly whether obedience for its own sake is demanded.
I like the moniker “Trippy.” To go right to your question about “why do some think that God and the Bible is nonsense” — I rather suspect it is because they get their theology from people like George Carlin — and from whomever said that sort of thing before Carlin came along. I remember telling myself that people who go to church are hypocrites — and I was a 15-yr-old atheist at the time. Carlin was unknown to me at the time. His thinking is just a mantra that gets repeated until we think it is wisdom.
George Carlin is a fine comedian, known for his snarkiness in all things. He is not an historian or a theologian. Yet I will bet that those “10 things [God] doesn’t want you to do” — are things that (for the most part) George Carlin (or you or me) also do not want people much to do. Lie, murder, sleep with another man’s wife, steal…check out the 10 Commandments and I will bet you like them for the most part…Aside from that, there are plenty of other biblical teachings that you would like. Feed the hungry…be honest in business dealings…care for the sick and needy…care for orphans and widows …stand up for the underdog…visit the dying …etc…much of what falls under the teachings of religion in general is not the abhorrent thing that Carlin’s late-night musings “for a laugh” portrays it to be. And for the most part the people doing the above “right” things have some level of religious or spiritual faith. I think there are studies that show this to be true.
Of course, not all who profess a belief live by it. But I can think of atheists who also do not live well and that does not sour people like Carlin on disbelief.
You would do well to just try reading the Bible for yourself. If you are inclined, maybe try one of the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)…or the like. There is a lot more to this discussion than what I have just said. But those are my thoughts for now. Others will add, I am sure.
Nice thoughts, Vinnie. But you did just say “The Bible being nonsense is obvious. People are predisposed to literalism and read scripture through a lens of concordism as if it fell from heaven and reflects God’s divine perspective on every issue. When read in this manner, as an encyclopedia of theological facts, a lot of scriptur”
So how do you know that “your Jesus” is the real thing if the data is laden in such a nest of nonsense?
II appreciate the reference. Have always “meant” to read Bonhoeffer (Cost of Discipleship is somewhere around!) but not really had or taken the moment…I especially like the below. And so true:
f it is I who determine where God is to be found, then I shall always find a God who corresponds to me in some way, who is obliging, who is connected with my own nature. But if God determines where he is to be found, then it will be in a place which is not immediately pleasing to my nature and which is not at all congenial to me. This place is the Cross of Christ. And whoever would find him must go to the foot of the Cross, as the Sermon on the Mount commands. This is not according to our nature at all, it is entirely contrary to it. But this is the message of the Bible, not only in the New but also in the Old Testament…
Yes, I did just say that. What level are you asking your question on? If I zoom all the way out, to be 100% honest, I don’t have any intellectual certainty I get it right and everyone else is wrong in regards to the deepest questions of existence. I have faith in the God I experience through Jesus in reading the Gospels. I can only offer someone the Gospel and occasionally interpretations of it that many non-conservatives might find more palatable. I find the best witness is usually living the Gospel. Preaching it on a street corner is not my calling. Some are pulled in that direction for sure but I feel called to just be the salt of the earth. I need to let God’s love show itself in my life and behavior. I am ashamed to admit that light can be dim at times. Beyond that its all about the person and the Holy Spirit to me in most cases. God saves, not apologetics and certainly not apologists. That doesn’t mean they aren’t useful in many circumstances though.
On a more zoomed in level, I am as certain as is humanly possible things like a global flood and a concordant reading of scripture produce insurmountable intellectual errors and problems. Or were you asking a more focused question on Christian interpretation compared to itself? How can I know what is true in the Bible compared to what isn’t? What is accommodated and what isn’t? My answer would be to use science, archaeology and history, and to examine scripture fairly. I don’t see how one could examine Matthew and Luke fairly and conclude they don’t contradict on Judas’s death. Add in a third contradictory account–ca 110-- by Papias to the mix. Then recognize his version survives in two different forms! We can invent all sorts of hypothetical scenarios because we have already convinced ourself the texts couldn’t possibly ever contradict in any way, but to me, that is not approaching the Bible fairly. It is not treating it as I treat other truth claims. It is not letting it speak for itself. If God wanted us to have that sort of theological encyclopedia, he would have given us one.
How do I interpret the Bible? Jesus and the incarnation is my hermeneutic. If it coheres with Jesus I can affirm it. If it seems to be against Jesus I deny it. As a Christian, Jesus is my image of God and the lens through which I see the world. Christ-ian not Bible-ian. Jesus is the hinge of scripture. All interpretation swings by the Cross. Its WWJD not WWBD? Because sometimes when asking WWBD the answer is to kill your neighbors and take their land. Jesus told us the parable of the good samaritan and to love our neighbors.