Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding.
— Martin Luther
31.3.14
Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. — Martin Luther
What Did Paul Know About Jesus? Not Much.
What Did Paul Know About Jesus? Not Much.
For being the founder of Christianity, Paul knew surprisingly little about Jesus.
Paul is our first and, for that reason, potentially our most reliable
source of information on the life of Jesus. Let’s sift Paul’s writings
for information about Jesus.
If we were to do this with the gospels, we’d have a long list—the
story of Jesus turning water into wine, walking on water, raising
Lazarus, the Prodigal Son story, curious events like his cursing the fig
tree, and so on. But what information about Jesus does Paul give us?
We’ll start with that well-known passage from 1 Corinthians 15.
1. Jesus died “for our sins.”
2. Jesus was resurrected from the dead three days later, in fulfillment of prophecy.
3. Jesus made many post-resurrection appearances.
Though 1 Corinthians was written perhaps 20 years after the death of
Jesus, some scholars argue that this 3-sentence passage was written with
a different style and so is an early creed that preceded Paul’s
writing, taking us back closer to the earliest disciples. Others use the
same logic to argue the opposite conclusion: that it was a later
scribal addition. (Our oldest copy of this passage comes from our earliest complete Bibles, written in about 350. That’s three centuries of party time during which changes could’ve been made.)
First, we’ll sift through Paul’s epistles to find confirmation of these first claims.
1. Confirmed—many verses report that Jesus was a
sacrifice (see Rom. 3:25, 5:6–8, 8:3; 1 Cor. 5:7; and more). The passage
above does not contain the word “Jesus,” but many other Pauline verses
combine “Jesus” and “Christ.”
2. Confirmed: many verses report
that Jesus was raised from the dead (see 1 Cor. 15:20; Rom. 1:4, 4:24; 2
Cor. 4:14; and more). Note, however, that there is no confirmation of
the three days or the scriptural prophecy.
3. Not Confirmed: I could find no confirmation of the post-resurrection appearances in Paul’s epistles.
What other biographical details about Jesus can we find in Paul?
4. He was crucified: “we preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 1:23; also 1 Cor. 2:2, Gal. 3:1, 2 Cor. 13:4, and more).
5. He was a descendant of David: “his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David” (Rom. 1:3).
6. He was betrayed: “The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed” (1 Cor. 11:23; also 2 Tim. 2:8).
7. He asked that his followers eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of him (1 Cor. 11:23–6).
8. Jesus was killed by Jews: “the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus” (1 Thes. 2:14–15)
We can go further afield, into books that are almost universally
rejected as authored by Paul. For example, 1 Tim. 6:13 places the trial
of Jesus during the rule of Pontius Pilate, and Heb. 5:5 gives an
adoptionist view of Jesus (that is, Jesus was a man adopted by God).
By the way, this list comes from my own search. Please point out any omissions.
If we stick to the reliably Pauline works and assume the authenticity of 1 Cor. 15, here is the Gospel of Paul:
important element—death as a sacrifice for our sins and resurrection—but
very little else.
No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the
rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact,
no Jesus as teacher at all.
No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or
cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As
far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all.
No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no
public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great
Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing
to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King
Herod, or Pontius Pilate.
Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this
already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion,
and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul
mentions 14 times.
Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles.
didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know
any. The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the
Jesus of the gospels.
But perhaps the problem is Jews demanding actual miracles performed
in front of them, not merely stories of miracles. That shouldn’t be a
problem either. Jesus said, “Whoever believes in me will do the works I
have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these” (John
14:12). And, indeed, Luke (that is, the author of both Luke and Acts)
reports that this happened. Peter healed a lame man (Acts 3:1–8) and
raised a woman from the dead (Acts 9:36–42), Philip exorcised demons to
heal people (Acts 8:5–8), and “the apostles performed many signs and
wonders” (Acts 5:12).
Again, the Jesus of Paul isn’t the Jesus of the gospels. Robert Price
questions whether Paul even imagined an earthly Jesus (Bible Geek
podcast for 10/3/12 @ 1:15:10). I’ve written more about the evolution of the Jesus story here.
What would Paul have said about the philosophical issues that divided the church for centuries?
These don’t mean much to most of us today because they’ve long been
decided, but they were divisive in their day—whether Jesus was
subordinate to God or not, whether Jesus had a human body or not,
whether he had a human nature or not, whether he had two wills or not,
whether the Holy Spirit was part of the Godhead, and so on. No one knows
how Paul would have resolved them or even if they crossed his mind.
The Gospel of Paul is more evidence that the Jesus story is a legend that grew with time.
December 17, 2012 By 220 Comments
For being the founder of Christianity, Paul knew surprisingly little about Jesus.
Paul is our first and, for that reason, potentially our most reliable
source of information on the life of Jesus. Let’s sift Paul’s writings
for information about Jesus.
If we were to do this with the gospels, we’d have a long list—the
story of Jesus turning water into wine, walking on water, raising
Lazarus, the Prodigal Son story, curious events like his cursing the fig
tree, and so on. But what information about Jesus does Paul give us?
We’ll start with that well-known passage from 1 Corinthians 15.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appearedThis tells us that:
to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than
five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom
are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to
James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also,
as to one abnormally born. (1 Cor. 15:3–8)
1. Jesus died “for our sins.”
2. Jesus was resurrected from the dead three days later, in fulfillment of prophecy.
3. Jesus made many post-resurrection appearances.
Though 1 Corinthians was written perhaps 20 years after the death of
Jesus, some scholars argue that this 3-sentence passage was written with
a different style and so is an early creed that preceded Paul’s
writing, taking us back closer to the earliest disciples. Others use the
same logic to argue the opposite conclusion: that it was a later
scribal addition. (Our oldest copy of this passage comes from our earliest complete Bibles, written in about 350. That’s three centuries of party time during which changes could’ve been made.)
First, we’ll sift through Paul’s epistles to find confirmation of these first claims.
1. Confirmed—many verses report that Jesus was a
sacrifice (see Rom. 3:25, 5:6–8, 8:3; 1 Cor. 5:7; and more). The passage
above does not contain the word “Jesus,” but many other Pauline verses
combine “Jesus” and “Christ.”
2. Confirmed: many verses report
that Jesus was raised from the dead (see 1 Cor. 15:20; Rom. 1:4, 4:24; 2
Cor. 4:14; and more). Note, however, that there is no confirmation of
the three days or the scriptural prophecy.
3. Not Confirmed: I could find no confirmation of the post-resurrection appearances in Paul’s epistles.
What other biographical details about Jesus can we find in Paul?
4. He was crucified: “we preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 1:23; also 1 Cor. 2:2, Gal. 3:1, 2 Cor. 13:4, and more).
5. He was a descendant of David: “his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David” (Rom. 1:3).
6. He was betrayed: “The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed” (1 Cor. 11:23; also 2 Tim. 2:8).
7. He asked that his followers eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of him (1 Cor. 11:23–6).
8. Jesus was killed by Jews: “the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus” (1 Thes. 2:14–15)
We can go further afield, into books that are almost universally
rejected as authored by Paul. For example, 1 Tim. 6:13 places the trial
of Jesus during the rule of Pontius Pilate, and Heb. 5:5 gives an
adoptionist view of Jesus (that is, Jesus was a man adopted by God).
By the way, this list comes from my own search. Please point out any omissions.
If we stick to the reliably Pauline works and assume the authenticity of 1 Cor. 15, here is the Gospel of Paul:
Jesus died for our sins by crucifixion and was thenThe Gospel of Paul is one brief paragraph. It arguably has the most
raised from the dead three days later, according to prophecy. He was
seen by many after the resurrection. He was a descendant of David, he
was betrayed, he defined a bread and wine ritual for his followers, and
the Jews killed him.
The End.
important element—death as a sacrifice for our sins and resurrection—but
very little else.
No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the
rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact,
no Jesus as teacher at all.
No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or
cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As
far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all.
No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no
public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great
Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing
to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King
Herod, or Pontius Pilate.
Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this
already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion,
and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul
mentions 14 times.
Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3)Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why
didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know
any. The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the
Jesus of the gospels.
But perhaps the problem is Jews demanding actual miracles performed
in front of them, not merely stories of miracles. That shouldn’t be a
problem either. Jesus said, “Whoever believes in me will do the works I
have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these” (John
14:12). And, indeed, Luke (that is, the author of both Luke and Acts)
reports that this happened. Peter healed a lame man (Acts 3:1–8) and
raised a woman from the dead (Acts 9:36–42), Philip exorcised demons to
heal people (Acts 8:5–8), and “the apostles performed many signs and
wonders” (Acts 5:12).
Again, the Jesus of Paul isn’t the Jesus of the gospels. Robert Price
questions whether Paul even imagined an earthly Jesus (Bible Geek
podcast for 10/3/12 @ 1:15:10). I’ve written more about the evolution of the Jesus story here.
What would Paul have said about the philosophical issues that divided the church for centuries?
These don’t mean much to most of us today because they’ve long been
decided, but they were divisive in their day—whether Jesus was
subordinate to God or not, whether Jesus had a human body or not,
whether he had a human nature or not, whether he had two wills or not,
whether the Holy Spirit was part of the Godhead, and so on. No one knows
how Paul would have resolved them or even if they crossed his mind.
The Gospel of Paul is more evidence that the Jesus story is a legend that grew with time.
Where did Paul get his authority? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Where did Paul get his authority? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
If Paul did not know Jesus while He lived on this earth, then how can Paul have any authority to teach and preach the Gospel?
Though Paul did not walk with Jesus while he was on this earth, he did receive
approval from the followers of Jesus. In Galatians chapters 1-2, Paul
explains that he took two different trips to Jerusalem to see the
Jerusalem apostles.1
have discussed some very important matters! I wish that I could have
been a fly on the wall to hear Paul and Peter's conversation. What a
sight that must have been! As one scholar stated, they probably did not
spend all of their time talking about the weather. It is quite likely
that given the context of Galatians 1 where Paul is discussing his
authority to preach the gospel, that Peter and Paul discussed the
content of the Gospel during their time together.
before the Jerusalem apostles (Peter, James, and John). He indicates
that he had a fear "that I might be running, or had run, in vain." Some
have speculated that Paul wanted to verify the content of his preaching
to be sure that he was correct. Therefore, he goes up to Jerusalem a
second time to see Peter, James, and then John.
Interestingly, the apostles respond:
nevertheless, Paul claimed that his ultimate authority did not come from
humans, but directly from Christ's revelation to him:
If Paul did not know Jesus while He lived on this earth, then how can Paul have any authority to teach and preach the Gospel?
Though Paul did not walk with Jesus while he was on this earth, he did receive
approval from the followers of Jesus. In Galatians chapters 1-2, Paul
explains that he took two different trips to Jerusalem to see the
Jerusalem apostles.1
Trip #1: 36 A.D.
In his first trip, Paul mentions the most popular apostles by name: Peter and James. In Galatians 1:18-19, Paul says,
"Then three years later [36 A.D.?] I went up to Jerusalem to become
acquainted with Cephas [or Peter], and stayed with him fifteen days.
19But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's
brother."
If Paul and Peter spent fifteen days together, they mustacquainted with Cephas [or Peter], and stayed with him fifteen days.
19But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's
brother."
have discussed some very important matters! I wish that I could have
been a fly on the wall to hear Paul and Peter's conversation. What a
sight that must have been! As one scholar stated, they probably did not
spend all of their time talking about the weather. It is quite likely
that given the context of Galatians 1 where Paul is discussing his
authority to preach the gospel, that Peter and Paul discussed the
content of the Gospel during their time together.
Trip #2: 47-50 A.D.
However, Paul also mentions a second trip to Jerusalem in Galatians 2:1-2:
"Then after an interval of fourteen years [47-50 A.D.?] I went up again to
Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2It was because of a
revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach
among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of
reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain."
In this second visit, Paul mentions that he explicitly brought his gospel Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2It was because of a
revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach
among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of
reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain."
before the Jerusalem apostles (Peter, James, and John). He indicates
that he had a fear "that I might be running, or had run, in vain." Some
have speculated that Paul wanted to verify the content of his preaching
to be sure that he was correct. Therefore, he goes up to Jerusalem a
second time to see Peter, James, and then John.
Interestingly, the apostles respond:
"And recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and
John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right
hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to
the circumcised (Gal. 2:9)."
In other words, the early apostles agreed with Paul's Gospel that he preached.John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right
hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to
the circumcised (Gal. 2:9)."
The Ultimate Authority
Even though Paul had approval from the eyewitnesses of Jesus' life,nevertheless, Paul claimed that his ultimate authority did not come from
humans, but directly from Christ's revelation to him:
"For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by
me is not according to man. 12For I neither received it from man, nor
was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11-12)."
Paul himself saw Jesus via revelation on his encounter on the road to Damascus (Acts 9, 22, 26) in which Christ revealed Himself to Paul . He was an eyewitness in the sense of having seen Jesus after his death (1 Cor. 9:1). Therefore, Paul certainly had the authority to teach and preach the Gospel.me is not according to man. 12For I neither received it from man, nor
was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11-12)."
Summary:
- 33 A.D. - Paul's Conversion
- 36 A.D. - 1st Trip to Jerusalem: meets Peter and James
- 47-50 A.D. - 2nd Trip to Jerusalem: meets Peter, James, and John
Did Paul Ever Meet Jesus? - Gracethrufaith
Did Paul Ever Meet Jesus? - Gracethrufaith
Q. We first wanted to thank you for your website on the Bible and Jesus Christ. We have a question about the Apostle Paul that we hoped you may be able to answer. I was at a Sunday school class and asked the question, did Paul ever meet Jesus? The answer I got from the group was no. On the road to Damascus Paul met Jesus after he had ascended into heaven. Was Jesus’s appearance physical or spiritual? Please give us some insight.
A. There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident. And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or
not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time.
But Paul did spend 3 years in Arabia where he received the Gospel from the Lord (Galatians 1:11-17). And he made a visit to the Throne of God (2 Cor. 12:1-4) where he saw things he was not allowed to talk about. In 1 Cor. 15:3-8, when Paul recounted all the Lord’s post resurrection appearances, he included himself as one who had seen Him. So, at some point, he
apparently did have a physical meeting with the Lord.
A. There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident. And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or
not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time.
But Paul did spend 3 years in Arabia where he received the Gospel from the Lord (Galatians 1:11-17). And he made a visit to the Throne of God (2 Cor. 12:1-4) where he saw things he was not allowed to talk about. In 1 Cor. 15:3-8, when Paul recounted all the Lord’s post resurrection appearances, he included himself as one who had seen Him. So, at some point, he
apparently did have a physical meeting with the Lord.
16.3.14
Bill Maher Trashes the Bible Noah Story and Psychotic Mass Murderer God
Published on 14 Mar 2014
March 14, 2014 - On Friday evening,
Bill Maher's "New Rules" segment concluded with a lengthy tirade against
the arbitrary rules and customs set forth in the Bible, as well as some
of the more unbelievable details religious folks still believe to be
literally true. Maher began the monologue by declaring that America is
"stupid" because 60 percent of the country reportedly believes the tale
of Noah's ark is literally true. He went on to slam the film Noah as
"floating giraffe crap," but said it "must be doing something right"
since it's been condemned by both Muslims and Christians. And the fact
that it might lose a lot of studio money, he joked, "may put it in hot
water with the Jews too."
That gave way to a rant on how the
world is now four centuries removed from the scientific revolution, and
yet we still find the Noah's ark story to be entirely true, despite some
of the more... unbelievable... details. Christians are mad about the
blockbuster film, he noted, because it doesn't take the Bible literally
enough. "They're mad that this made-up story doesn't stay true to their
made-up story," he quipped.
But, really, Maher said, Noah's tale
is an "immoral" one because it's about a "psychotic mass murderer who
gets away with it and his name is God." The Earth's creator became so
irate that he had created mankind so flawed, as Maher related, that he
sent a flood to kill everyone, including babies.
"What kind of tyrant kills everyone just to get back at the few he's mad at? I mean, besides Chris Christie," he jabbed.
"Isn't
life hard enough without making shit up out of thin air to fuck with
yourself?" he later asked of religion's arbitrary rules about food,
clothing, and other material goods.
Bill Maher's "New Rules" segment concluded with a lengthy tirade against
the arbitrary rules and customs set forth in the Bible, as well as some
of the more unbelievable details religious folks still believe to be
literally true. Maher began the monologue by declaring that America is
"stupid" because 60 percent of the country reportedly believes the tale
of Noah's ark is literally true. He went on to slam the film Noah as
"floating giraffe crap," but said it "must be doing something right"
since it's been condemned by both Muslims and Christians. And the fact
that it might lose a lot of studio money, he joked, "may put it in hot
water with the Jews too."
That gave way to a rant on how the
world is now four centuries removed from the scientific revolution, and
yet we still find the Noah's ark story to be entirely true, despite some
of the more... unbelievable... details. Christians are mad about the
blockbuster film, he noted, because it doesn't take the Bible literally
enough. "They're mad that this made-up story doesn't stay true to their
made-up story," he quipped.
But, really, Maher said, Noah's tale
is an "immoral" one because it's about a "psychotic mass murderer who
gets away with it and his name is God." The Earth's creator became so
irate that he had created mankind so flawed, as Maher related, that he
sent a flood to kill everyone, including babies.
"What kind of tyrant kills everyone just to get back at the few he's mad at? I mean, besides Chris Christie," he jabbed.
"Isn't
life hard enough without making shit up out of thin air to fuck with
yourself?" he later asked of religion's arbitrary rules about food,
clothing, and other material goods.
9.3.14
Religion ‘unacceptable’ says Chris O’Dowd | News.com.au
Chris O’Dowd calls religion ‘unacceptable’ | News.com.au
Actor Chris O'Dowd thinks following a religion will eventually become as offensive and unacceptable as racism.
The Irish star of films such as The Sapphires and Bridesmaids says
he grew up respecting people of faith despite his atheist views, but has
become “less liberal” as he ages.
Now he says religious doctrine is halting human progress and brands it “a weird cult”.
He also thinks US president Barack Obama had to overstate his Christian faith in order to get to the White House.
O'Dowd
has told Britain's GQ magazine: “For most of my life, I've been, 'Hey,
I'm not into it, but I respect your right to believe whatever you want'.
But as time goes on, weirdly, I'm growing less liberal. I'm more like,
'No, religion is ruining the world, you need to stop!'.
“There's going to be a turning point where it's going to be like
racism. You know, 'You're not allowed to say that weird s**t! It's mad!
And you're making everybody crazy!'
“And you know, now America
can't have a president that doesn't say he believes in God. So we're
f**ked! Like, they f**ked everything!
“You wanna go and live in
your weird cult and talk about a man who lives in a cloud, you do that,
but don't. I mean, you really think that Barack Obama believes in God?
No way!”
Actor Chris O’Dowd calls calls religion ‘unacceptable’
Source: AAP
Source: AAP
Actor Chris O'Dowd thinks following a religion will eventually become as offensive and unacceptable as racism.
he grew up respecting people of faith despite his atheist views, but has
become “less liberal” as he ages.
Now he says religious doctrine is halting human progress and brands it “a weird cult”.
He also thinks US president Barack Obama had to overstate his Christian faith in order to get to the White House.
O'Dowd
has told Britain's GQ magazine: “For most of my life, I've been, 'Hey,
I'm not into it, but I respect your right to believe whatever you want'.
But as time goes on, weirdly, I'm growing less liberal. I'm more like,
'No, religion is ruining the world, you need to stop!'.
“There's going to be a turning point where it's going to be like
racism. You know, 'You're not allowed to say that weird s**t! It's mad!
And you're making everybody crazy!'
“And you know, now America
can't have a president that doesn't say he believes in God. So we're
f**ked! Like, they f**ked everything!
“You wanna go and live in
your weird cult and talk about a man who lives in a cloud, you do that,
but don't. I mean, you really think that Barack Obama believes in God?
No way!”
7.3.14
The Best Arguments for God's Existence Don't Challenge Atheists | New Republic
The Best Arguments for God's Existence Don't Challenge Atheists | New Republic
The most common critique
leveled at New Atheists is that we attack only puerile, fundamentalist
forms of religion, and never engage with the “best” arguments of the
faithful: those adumbrated by Sophisticated Theologians™. Never mind
that most believers accept a view of God far more anthropomorphic than a
simple “ground of being” or a deistic entity that made the world and
then refused to engage with it further. If you want data to support
this, at least for U.S. Christians, go here.
Polls consistently show that around 70-80% of Americans believe in the
existence of Heaven, Hell, Satan, and angels. And let’s not even discuss
whether the majority of Muslims think of Allah as a “ground of being”
rather than as a disembodied ruler who tells them how to behave. Anyone
who claims that regular monotheists view God like Karen Armstrong’s
Apophatic Entity or Tillich’s Ground of Being simply hasn’t gotten out
enough.
leveled at New Atheists is that we attack only puerile, fundamentalist
forms of religion, and never engage with the “best” arguments of the
faithful: those adumbrated by Sophisticated Theologians™. Never mind
that most believers accept a view of God far more anthropomorphic than a
simple “ground of being” or a deistic entity that made the world and
then refused to engage with it further. If you want data to support
this, at least for U.S. Christians, go here.
Polls consistently show that around 70-80% of Americans believe in the
existence of Heaven, Hell, Satan, and angels. And let’s not even discuss
whether the majority of Muslims think of Allah as a “ground of being”
rather than as a disembodied ruler who tells them how to behave. Anyone
who claims that regular monotheists view God like Karen Armstrong’s
Apophatic Entity or Tillich’s Ground of Being simply hasn’t gotten out
enough.
Further, it’s obvious that the bulk of harm
committed in the name of religion is done by those not who see god as a
Ground of Being, but rather as an anthropomorphic entity who has a
personal relationship with his minions and supplies them with a moral
system. For it is the belief that God has wishes for humanity, and a
code of right and wrong, that drives people to do things like oppose
abortion and stem cell research, deny rights to women and gays, burn
“witches,” throw acid in the faces of schoolgirls, and torture Catholics
with guilt about masturbation and divorce.
committed in the name of religion is done by those not who see god as a
Ground of Being, but rather as an anthropomorphic entity who has a
personal relationship with his minions and supplies them with a moral
system. For it is the belief that God has wishes for humanity, and a
code of right and wrong, that drives people to do things like oppose
abortion and stem cell research, deny rights to women and gays, burn
“witches,” throw acid in the faces of schoolgirls, and torture Catholics
with guilt about masturbation and divorce.
The vast majority of believers don’t even read
theology, and are barely aware of the arguments for God made by
Sophisticated Theologians™. So is it our duty as atheists to refute
those arcane theological arguments, or to prevent instead the harm done
by religion? To me, the latter course is preferable. Still it’s both fun
and intellectually profitable to read and refute the arguments of
theologians, for it’s only there that one can truly see intelligence so
blatantly coopted and corrupted to prove what one has decided beforehand
must be true. Theology is the only academic discipline where people get
paid not to investigate their beliefs, but to rationalize them.
Certainly it’s more useful for atheists to point out to
“average” believers the lack of evidence for their faith—and that is
precisely what Dawkins did in The God Delusion—but it’s more fun to chase the tails of obscurantists like Alvin Plantinga and John Haught.
theology, and are barely aware of the arguments for God made by
Sophisticated Theologians™. So is it our duty as atheists to refute
those arcane theological arguments, or to prevent instead the harm done
by religion? To me, the latter course is preferable. Still it’s both fun
and intellectually profitable to read and refute the arguments of
theologians, for it’s only there that one can truly see intelligence so
blatantly coopted and corrupted to prove what one has decided beforehand
must be true. Theology is the only academic discipline where people get
paid not to investigate their beliefs, but to rationalize them.
Certainly it’s more useful for atheists to point out to
“average” believers the lack of evidence for their faith—and that is
precisely what Dawkins did in The God Delusion—but it’s more fun to chase the tails of obscurantists like Alvin Plantinga and John Haught.
And
now, apparently, their ranks include David Bentley Hart, who has
written a new book that’s being touted as the most Sophisticated and
Irrefutable Evidence for God Ever. The book is The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, and although I haven’t yet read it (believe me, I will, and have ordered it), I posted a critique of Damon Linker’s blurb for the book that appeared in The Week magazine.
now, apparently, their ranks include David Bentley Hart, who has
written a new book that’s being touted as the most Sophisticated and
Irrefutable Evidence for God Ever. The book is The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, and although I haven’t yet read it (believe me, I will, and have ordered it), I posted a critique of Damon Linker’s blurb for the book that appeared in The Week magazine.
Another encomium has just arrived for Hart’s book, this time from Oliver Burkeman, who writes at the Guardian that The Experience of God is “The one theology book all atheists really should read.”
I’m not sure whether Burkeman is an atheist, but his piece comes across
as pure faitheism: “you atheists won’t make any headway until you come
to grips with the arguments for God made by people like Hart.” For Hart
has presented the Best Case for God, and until we’ve refuted it we lack
all credibility.
I’m not sure whether Burkeman is an atheist, but his piece comes across
as pure faitheism: “you atheists won’t make any headway until you come
to grips with the arguments for God made by people like Hart.” For Hart
has presented the Best Case for God, and until we’ve refuted it we lack
all credibility.
As Burkeman argues:
Yet prominent atheists display an almost aggressive lack of curiosity when it comes to the facts about belief. In The God Delusion,
Richard Dawkins expertly demolishes what he calls ‘the God hypothesis’,
but devotes only a few sketchy anecdotes to establishing that this God
hypothesis is the one that has defined religious belief through history,
or defines it around the world today. AC Grayling insists that atheists
are excused the bother of actually reading theology – where they might
catch up on debates among believers about what they believe – because
atheism “rejects the premise” of theology. And when The Atlantic ran a piece last year entitled Study theology, even if you don’t believe in God, Jerry Coyne, the atheist blogosphere’s Victor Meldrew, called it “the world’s worst advice.” And on and on it goes.
I had to look up Victor Meldrew,
who turns out to be a BBC sitcom character known for being a
curmudgeon—though he had every right (like me) to be curmudgeonly. And
does Burkeman realize that I spent several years reading theology before
I decided that it was a mind-numbing and largely worthless exercise?
It’s not like I haven’t heard their Best Arguments. And when you master
one, theologians suddenly decide that there’s an even better Best Argument. The process is never ending.
who turns out to be a BBC sitcom character known for being a
curmudgeon—though he had every right (like me) to be curmudgeonly. And
does Burkeman realize that I spent several years reading theology before
I decided that it was a mind-numbing and largely worthless exercise?
It’s not like I haven’t heard their Best Arguments. And when you master
one, theologians suddenly decide that there’s an even better Best Argument. The process is never ending.
But on to our failures, as seen by Burkeman:
My
modest New Year’s wish for 2014, then, is that atheists who care about
honest argument – and about maybe actually getting somewhere in these
otherwise mind-numbingly circular debates – might consider reading just one book by a theologian, David Bentley Hart’s The Experience of God,
published recently by Yale University Press. Not because I think
they’ll be completely convinced by it. (I’m not, and I’m certainly not
convinced by Hart’s other publicly expressed views, which tend towards the implacably socially conservative.)
They should read it because Hart marshals powerful historical evidence
and philosophical argument to suggest that atheists – if they want to
attack the opposition’s strongest case – badly need to up their game.
But what exactly does he mean by “the opposition’s strongest case”? I can think of three ways to construe that:
1. The case that provides the strongest evidence for God’s existence. This
is the way scientists would settle an argument about existence claims:
by adducing data. This category’s best argument for God used to be the
Argument from Design, since there was no plausible alternative to God’s
creation of the marvelous “designoid” features of plants and animals.
But Darwin put paid to that one in 1859. Theologians now rely on
arguments involving the fine-tuning of the universe or the supposed
“innate morality” of human beings, but we have good secular explanations
for these.
is the way scientists would settle an argument about existence claims:
by adducing data. This category’s best argument for God used to be the
Argument from Design, since there was no plausible alternative to God’s
creation of the marvelous “designoid” features of plants and animals.
But Darwin put paid to that one in 1859. Theologians now rely on
arguments involving the fine-tuning of the universe or the supposed
“innate morality” of human beings, but we have good secular explanations
for these.
2. The philosophical argument that is most tricky, or hardest to refute: in other words, the argument for God that has the greatest degree of sophistry. This used to include the Ontological Arguments,
which briefly stymied even Bertrand Russell. But we soon realized that
“existence is not a quality,” and that, in fact, claims about an
entity’s existence can be settled only by observation or testing, not by
logic.
which briefly stymied even Bertrand Russell. But we soon realized that
“existence is not a quality,” and that, in fact, claims about an
entity’s existence can be settled only by observation or testing, not by
logic.
3. The argument that is irrefutable because it’s untestable. Given
that arguments in the first two categories are now untenable, people
like Hart have proposed conceptions of God that are so nebulous that we
can’t figure out what they mean. And because they are not only obscure
but don’t say anything tangible about the how God interacts with the
cosmos, they can’t be refuted. To any rationalist or scientist, this
automatically rules them out of rational consideration, for if an
observation comports with everything, and can’t be disproven, it is
totally useless as an explanation for anything. I might as well say that
there’s an invisible teddy bear who sustains the universe, and without
my Ineffable Teddy there would be no cosmos. But nobody can see that
Bear, for he is the Ursine Ground of Being: ineffable and undetectable
even though his Bearness permeates and supports everything. Without that
Bear, the universe could not function, much less exist.
that arguments in the first two categories are now untenable, people
like Hart have proposed conceptions of God that are so nebulous that we
can’t figure out what they mean. And because they are not only obscure
but don’t say anything tangible about the how God interacts with the
cosmos, they can’t be refuted. To any rationalist or scientist, this
automatically rules them out of rational consideration, for if an
observation comports with everything, and can’t be disproven, it is
totally useless as an explanation for anything. I might as well say that
there’s an invisible teddy bear who sustains the universe, and without
my Ineffable Teddy there would be no cosmos. But nobody can see that
Bear, for he is the Ursine Ground of Being: ineffable and undetectable
even though his Bearness permeates and supports everything. Without that
Bear, the universe could not function, much less exist.
And
this, in fact, is what Hart has apparently done in his new book.
Burkeman summarizes Hart’s Irrefutable God by quoting Linker’s
characterization of it:
this, in fact, is what Hart has apparently done in his new book.
Burkeman summarizes Hart’s Irrefutable God by quoting Linker’s
characterization of it:
… according to the
classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the
unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from
the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t
even say that God “exists” in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or
electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent
thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it,
giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything
existing at all.
Reread that paragraph,
particularly the last line, and then see if you can explain it to one of
your friends. Not only is it meaningless (I’ll read Hart’s book to see
if I can suss out any meaning), but it’s also untestable. And there is not an iota of evidence for such a God, so on what ground should we believe it?
Hart claims that this is the conception of God that has prevailed
throughout most of history, but I seriously doubt that. Aquinas, Luther,
Augustine: none of those people saw God in such a way. And it’s
certainly not the view that prevails now, as you can easily see by
Googling a few polls. I can make up yet another God with just as much
supporting evidence as Hart’s: assume that God is a deistic God who has
always been there but has done nothing. He didn’t even create
the universe: he let that happen according to the laws of physics, from
which universes can arise via fluctuations in a quantum vacuum. My God
is just sitting there, watching over us all, but only for his amusement.
He’s undetectable, ineffable, indolent, and easily bored.
particularly the last line, and then see if you can explain it to one of
your friends. Not only is it meaningless (I’ll read Hart’s book to see
if I can suss out any meaning), but it’s also untestable. And there is not an iota of evidence for such a God, so on what ground should we believe it?
Hart claims that this is the conception of God that has prevailed
throughout most of history, but I seriously doubt that. Aquinas, Luther,
Augustine: none of those people saw God in such a way. And it’s
certainly not the view that prevails now, as you can easily see by
Googling a few polls. I can make up yet another God with just as much
supporting evidence as Hart’s: assume that God is a deistic God who has
always been there but has done nothing. He didn’t even create
the universe: he let that happen according to the laws of physics, from
which universes can arise via fluctuations in a quantum vacuum. My God
is just sitting there, watching over us all, but only for his amusement.
He’s undetectable, ineffable, indolent, and easily bored.
I
claim that this Coyneian God is just as valid as Hart’s God, for
neither can be tested, and thus there’s no reason to believe in either.
claim that this Coyneian God is just as valid as Hart’s God, for
neither can be tested, and thus there’s no reason to believe in either.
As
Burkeman notes, Hart has removed God from the class of entities that
exist and transformed Him into merely an Idea: a philosophical concept
that can be subject only to philosophical arguments:
Burkeman notes, Hart has removed God from the class of entities that
exist and transformed Him into merely an Idea: a philosophical concept
that can be subject only to philosophical arguments:
God,
in short, isn’t one very impressive thing among many things that might
or might not exist; “not just some especially resplendent object among
all the objects illuminated by the light of being,” as Hart puts it.
Rather, God is “the light of being itself”, the answer to the question
of why there’s existence to begin with.. . . Since I
can hear atheist eyeballs rolling backwards in their sockets with scorn,
it’s worth saying again: the point isn’t that Hart’s right. It’s that
he’s making a case that’s usually never addressed by atheists at all. If
you think this God-as-the-condition-of-existence argument is rubbish,
you need to say why. And unlike for the superhero version, scientific
evidence won’t clinch the deal. The question isn’t a scientific one,
about which things exist. It’s a philosophical one, about what existence
is and on what it depends.
Hart’s god,
therefore, is immune to refutation. Whether God “is” now depends, as
Bill Clinton anticipated, on what your definition of “is” is.
therefore, is immune to refutation. Whether God “is” now depends, as
Bill Clinton anticipated, on what your definition of “is” is.
But
this is all a stupendous confidence game. Not only is Hart wrong in
claiming that his conception of God is the one embraced most
consistently through “the history of monotheism,” but, as everyone
should know, how widely something is accepted is no evidence for its
validity. For the vast majority of modern history, women were viewed as
intellectually inferior beings. But that is simply a
culturally-conditioned belief that supports no argument for female
inferiority. Likewise, just because some Sophisticated Theologians™
agreed on God as a Sustainer of the Universe and Ground of All Being
does not make it so. Why on earth does that argument have any force at
all?
this is all a stupendous confidence game. Not only is Hart wrong in
claiming that his conception of God is the one embraced most
consistently through “the history of monotheism,” but, as everyone
should know, how widely something is accepted is no evidence for its
validity. For the vast majority of modern history, women were viewed as
intellectually inferior beings. But that is simply a
culturally-conditioned belief that supports no argument for female
inferiority. Likewise, just because some Sophisticated Theologians™
agreed on God as a Sustainer of the Universe and Ground of All Being
does not make it so. Why on earth does that argument have any force at
all?
Burkeman (and Hart) note that one way to dismiss
Hart’s argument that only a minority of believers accept the
Ground-of-Being God is “to prove the point with survey data about what
people believe.” Well, I just did that above, and could adduce much more
data of the same sort. Western monotheists usually believe in a
personal and anthropomorphic God—one who has humanlike emotions, cares
about us, and wants us to behave in certain ways. So Hart’s argument
fails in the only way it can be tested. But we’re supposed to dismiss it
on another ground—a dismissal that’s impossible since Hart has made his
concept irrefutable:
Hart’s argument that only a minority of believers accept the
Ground-of-Being God is “to prove the point with survey data about what
people believe.” Well, I just did that above, and could adduce much more
data of the same sort. Western monotheists usually believe in a
personal and anthropomorphic God—one who has humanlike emotions, cares
about us, and wants us to behave in certain ways. So Hart’s argument
fails in the only way it can be tested. But we’re supposed to dismiss it
on another ground—a dismissal that’s impossible since Hart has made his
concept irrefutable:
But second, even if
you could show that most believers believe in a superhero God, would
that mean it’s the only kind with which atheists need engage? If a
committed creationist wrote a book called The Evolution Delusion, but
only attacked the general public’s understanding of evolution, we’d
naturally dismiss them as disingenuous. We’d demand, instead, that they
seek out what the best and most acclaimed minds in the field had
concluded about evolution, then try dismantling that. Which is also why atheists should read Hart’s book: to deny themselves the lazy option of sticking to easy targets.
As
I’ve pointed out before, these situations are not comparable. The
arguments for evolution are based on evidence, not philosophy, and can
be comprehended by the average person: one who, for example, read my
book Why Evolution is True. Hart’s arguments are simply made-up
stuff, and even though he’s smart and uses big words, there is no more
evidence for his God than there is for the anthropomorphic Gods of Alvin
Plantinga, Pat Robertson, and Rick Warren.
I’ve pointed out before, these situations are not comparable. The
arguments for evolution are based on evidence, not philosophy, and can
be comprehended by the average person: one who, for example, read my
book Why Evolution is True. Hart’s arguments are simply made-up
stuff, and even though he’s smart and uses big words, there is no more
evidence for his God than there is for the anthropomorphic Gods of Alvin
Plantinga, Pat Robertson, and Rick Warren.
In other
words, the difference in expertise between theologians and “average”
believers is small—not nearly as great as the difference in expertise
between professional evolutionists and science-friendly laypeople. The
difference between theologians and believers is not their differential
acquaintance with the truth about God, but the greater acquaintance of
theologians with the history of theology. People like Hart,
despite their intelligence, have no more handle on the nature of God
than do Joe and Sally in the street. Theologians are, as we all know,
simply confecting things about God, and then selling them using fancy
words and their academic credentials. Let Hart give us one bit of
evidence that he has greater insight into God than, say, Rick Warren,
and then I’ll pay attention to what he has to say. Otherwise, I see Hart
as retreating to the Last Redoubt of the Theologian: the definition of
God as something that is immune to all disproof—and thus subject to Hitchens’ Razor: “what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
words, the difference in expertise between theologians and “average”
believers is small—not nearly as great as the difference in expertise
between professional evolutionists and science-friendly laypeople. The
difference between theologians and believers is not their differential
acquaintance with the truth about God, but the greater acquaintance of
theologians with the history of theology. People like Hart,
despite their intelligence, have no more handle on the nature of God
than do Joe and Sally in the street. Theologians are, as we all know,
simply confecting things about God, and then selling them using fancy
words and their academic credentials. Let Hart give us one bit of
evidence that he has greater insight into God than, say, Rick Warren,
and then I’ll pay attention to what he has to say. Otherwise, I see Hart
as retreating to the Last Redoubt of the Theologian: the definition of
God as something that is immune to all disproof—and thus subject to Hitchens’ Razor: “what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
Isaac
Chotiner has pointed out some of these problems in a new piece in these
pages that is also based on Linker’s blurb for Hart: “The case for God’s existence is empowering atheists.”
Chotiner agrees that Hart has simply redefined God in a way that
immunizes Him against disproof, equating God with emotions shared by
many people:
Chotiner has pointed out some of these problems in a new piece in these
pages that is also based on Linker’s blurb for Hart: “The case for God’s existence is empowering atheists.”
Chotiner agrees that Hart has simply redefined God in a way that
immunizes Him against disproof, equating God with emotions shared by
many people:
Linker continues with this:
“In a move sure to enrage atheists, Hart even goes so far as to argue
that faith in this classical notion of God can never be ‘wholly and
coherently rejected’ — and not only because it may very well be
self-contradictory to prove the nonexistence of an absolute,
transcendent ground of existence.”
If this is not tautologous enough for you, try [Linker's] comment:“The
deeper reason why theism can’t be rejected, according to Hart, is that
every pursuit of truth, every attempt to be good, every longing for
beauty presupposes the existence of some idea of truth, goodness, and
beauty from which these particular instances are derived. And these
transcendental ideas unite in the classical concept of God, who
simply is truth, goodness, and beauty. That’s why, although it isn’t
necessary to believe in God in some explicit way in order to be good, it
certainly is the case (in Hart’s words) ‘that to seek the good is
already to believe in God, whether one wishes to do so or not.’”Here
I would turn again to Linker’s comment implying that the “major world
religions” have a view of God similar to the one that Linker lays out
above. If you think this is the case, ask yourself how many major world
religions will consider you a believer in their particular faiths just
because you merely state that you “seek the good,” which I would hope
nearly all of us do.In summary, Linker is unable to
make a case for God that doesn’t define God as such an intrinsic part of
the universe (“truth, goodness, and beauty”) that God exists by
definition. If I were a religious believer, I would likely neither
appreciate the concessions that Linker has made, nor go along with his
account of my beliefs.
Chotiner is
absolutely correct. If you define God as simply the set of our most
admirable aspirations, then of course God exists. But you could also
define God as the set of our most unpalatable aspirations: greed, duplicity, criminality, and so on. And that kind of god could also exist
by definition: as the Ground of All Evil. I claim that, in fact,
there’s just as much evidence for that god as there is for Hart’s “good”
God. The reader might amuse herself by thinking of other kinds of
irrefutable gods.
absolutely correct. If you define God as simply the set of our most
admirable aspirations, then of course God exists. But you could also
define God as the set of our most unpalatable aspirations: greed, duplicity, criminality, and so on. And that kind of god could also exist
by definition: as the Ground of All Evil. I claim that, in fact,
there’s just as much evidence for that god as there is for Hart’s “good”
God. The reader might amuse herself by thinking of other kinds of
irrefutable gods.
So if I had to ask Hart three questions, they would be these:
1.
On what basis do you know that God is a Ground-of-Being God instead of
an anthropomorphic God? (In your answer, you cannot include as evidence
the dubious claim that the former God is the one most people have
accepted throughout history.)
On what basis do you know that God is a Ground-of-Being God instead of
an anthropomorphic God? (In your answer, you cannot include as evidence
the dubious claim that the former God is the one most people have
accepted throughout history.)
2. How do you know that your Ground-of-Being god embodies truth, goodness, and beauty rather than lies, evil, and ugliness?
3. What would convince you that the god you describe doesn’t exist?
Let a theologian, for once, answer the best arguments of atheists: those that involve the question, “How do you know that?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)