The Facile Caricatures of Religious Belief

[Divine Insight]

The following complaint was filed by a theist as he leaves the forum asking to have his account deleted:

The debates have turned into debating facile caricatures of religious belief.

Just for the sake of clarity:

Facile - def., (especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.

Caricatures - def., a picture, description, or imitation of a person or thing in which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect.

Question for Debate:

Do you feel that the above description is an honest assessment of the debates in Christianity and Apologetics?

If possible please explain why you feel this is or isn't the case.

[Divine Insight]

Those of us who are more knowledgeable in certain areas should share what we know. That's what education is all about. A good debate just isn't about shooting someone else down. It's about sharing information, helping both sides sharpen up.

I totally agree with this. However what I may disagree with is that knowledge can only be obtained by institutions that award degrees. To believe that would itself be a grave mistake.

I don't care for posts attacking institutions of higher learning or trying to invalidate and discredit particular fields of scholarly inquiry. I don't think these kinds of posts contribute anything to the discussion and I find them totally inappropriate.

You've just agreed that sharing knowledge is a good thing. I've made a sound argument about theology being an invalid academic study if theology does not permit the conclusion that a particular theological doctrine is clearly false and cannot have anything to do with any actual God.

After all, how could any field of study claim to be valid if it rules out any particular conclusions? You shouldn't need to hold a Ph.D. in anything to recognize the truth of this. Yet we clearly don't see the field of theology producing very many theologians who have concluded that the theologies in question clearly have no merit. In fact, that conclusion is extremely discouraged to the point if someone studying theology comes to this conclusion it is suggested that they take up another field of study. Either that, or they just turn to another field of study on their own having realized that theology has no rational basis.

This is certainly information worthy of sharing.

And what I have stated about philosophy is clearly true as well. We have absolute proof that pure philosophy cannot lead us to truth. There are clear cases where philosophy was leading us in the wrong direction with absolutely no reason to see where it would have ever discovered its mistake. So it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that philosophy alone cannot lead us to truth. If they aren't actually teaching this truth in philosophy classes then they are in denial of truth.

Face it HH, our educational institutions are businesses and many professors and staff depend upon these businesses to keep going for their livelihood. What motivation would people who have devoted their entire life to the study of philosophy have to agree that the field cannot produce dependable results?

They aren't going to do that. Instead they are going to passionately argue that the study of philosophy has great merit and is a valuable academic study, and so on. And they are going to keep the career livelihood going at the cost of students who are aren't being taught less than the truth.

Colleges should teach people the TRUTH. And the truth is that philosophy cannot lead you to truth and may very likely lead you down a blind alley that is far from truth. And this has been demonstrated and historically proven to be the TRUTH. So why not teach philosophy students the truth so they can make an informed decision?

You wouldn't believe how many students of philosophy I have conversed with on the Internet over the years who are are convinced that pure philosophy is the ONLY method of discovering real truth. Precisely the opposite of actual truth. And some of these people have claimed to have a Ph.D. in philosophy, yet they aren't aware that their field of study has already been demonstrated to be flawed.

I'm just sharing truth with you HH. I'm not trying to belittle you or educational institutions. I'm just pointing out flaws in the system that need to be acknowledged by those who claim to be interested in TRUTH.

I've already given clear examples of how pure philosophy has failed. Who would have ever dreamed up Quantum Mechanics via pure philosophy alone? Even Max Planck who made the original discovery believed that his little 'trick' was just a temporary idea that could eventually be disposed of as more information became known. It actually became a nightmare for him when he realized that his little "trick" can't be made to go away.

By the way, I'm not "attacking" institutions of higher learning. I'm simply suggesting that they need to keep up with modern knowledge.

As I said before, I don't feel comfortable in addressing any of your points, as I feel they are off the OP. There is more than one sub-forum on the inerrancy of Scripture and I would be willing discuss these matter with you there. Why don't you post there?

I'm not sure which sub-forum you are talking about. I don't care much for the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum because the rule there is that the scriptures must be taken as "authoritative". I hold that this is the same mistake that colleges that teach theology make. If we're going to study or discuss theology, doctrines, and dogma with any genuine unbiased honesty it would be silly to demand that they must be taken as being "authoritative" before we even begin to discuss them. That already assumes that there is some authority behind these texts.

I suggest the following when studying theology or the Bible:

Make two columns. One headed "Things I would expect mortal men of the period to believe and write", and the other column headed "Things I would expect came from an infinitely wise and intelligent supreme entity".

Then as you read though these religious texts place the things you read in the column that you feel it most likely belongs in.

When I do that the bulk of the Bible ends up being placed under the column heading "Things I would expect mortal men of the period to believe and write", and very few things end up under the column heading, "Things I would expect came from an infinitely wise and intelligent supreme entity"

As someone who studied theology at an institution of higher learning were you ever even asked to perform this exercise?

When people study theology they seldom study it with an open mind that it could actually be nothing more than the superstitious writings of ancient men.

What can you point to in the Bible that couldn't have been dreamed up by the mind of a mortal man living at that time?

Where is there any indication or evidence of any kind that any of the thoughts written in the Bible originated by a mind that is FAR SUPERIOR to the minds of the men who lived when the Bible was written.

In fact, that's another exercise I suggest. Make two columns again. One marked "Things in the Bible that mortal men could not have possibly known", and the other column marked, "Things that ancient superstitious men could have easily believed or made up on their own".

And then see which column contains the most entries after having gone through the entire Bible.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 50 by Bust Nak]

some of them have very thin skins when it comes to the object of their love.

Moderator Comment

Please do not comment on how thin or thick skin some people have.

Please review the Rules.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

I stand corrected.

I should have worded that better. Allow me to try try again, see if I get it right this time around:

Believers who love their gods are often like secular kinds of "lovers" ... some of them can't tolerate any criticism of the object of their love.

Don't you go talking bad about who they love.... Because it seems like the worst kind of insult. Some lovers are very sensitive, indeed.

I'm reminded of the "Charlie Hebdo" incident, as an example of that kind of phenomenon.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to marco]

Yes, all that is quite true, or course. And that's really not what I am concerned about. My primary concern is that many laity are in an information black hole on key areas in theology and related areas. Of course, this situation isn't unique to theology. it is true of most fields. That's why Sagan and other scholars have pointed out we live in an combustible society where we depend more and more on science, yet know less and less about it. I have pointed out several times that the world of scholarly theological and biblical studies is light years beyond the laity, with different goals, rules, conclusions. In teaching introductory philosophy courses, the first major mistake I learned you can make is to assume that your students know the subject matter. That might sound cynical, but it is true.
At the same time, our information highways and byways are chuck full of all sorts of self-appointed authorities filling up the media with the unqualified judgments of unqualified persons. It is one thing to question authority, it is a wholly other thing to claim that you, with no real training or education in a discipline, are a major authority to be reckoned with and really know the material far better than all these scientists or theologians, etc. And unfortunately, too much of that goes on her and elsewhere.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 51 by Divine Insight]

Alright, from this post and your Post 38, it is apparent that theists do not follow your rules when it comes to interpreting Scripture. But big deal , so what? Why should they? Who says you are in such a position of authority that you call the shots? The average theist worth his or her salt is going to take one look at your rules of engagement, say "Nuts," and walk away. Is that what you want? Your proposal for some sort of skeptic's edition of the Bible is not very original and has long been a part of our colorful Americana. Funny you missed that. Jefferson sat down, went verse-by-verse through the entire KJV, taking a knife and cutting out all passages he thought were extraneous BS, such as those referring to miracles, the Virgin Birth, the Deity of Christ, and pasted the rest together in a volume that reduced the Bible to 48 pages. It was published in the 1890's. It is called the Jefferson Bible and is the unofficial Bible of Congress. It was and still is issued every other year to incoming members of Congress who promptly chuck it in the drawer and forget about it. Didn't work then, won't work now. Any other bright ideas?

Obviously, institutions of higher learning do not share your values, especially when it comes to philosophy and theology. Again, big deal, so what? What puts you in a position of authority to determine what should or should not be taught, what the value of philosophy is, how theology should proceed, what is truth, etc.?

[Divine Insight]

I have pointed out several times that the world of scholarly theological and biblical studies is light years beyond the laity, with different goals, rules, conclusions.

Why is it then that this theological society that is "light years beyond the laity" aren't themselves making their air-tight apologetic case for the Biblical theology?

I believe that Dr. William Lane Craig has a Ph.D. in modern day theology yet in his debates and lectures he does nothing more than regurgitate the standard well-known apologies that are common to lay knowledge. I haven't seen him introduce anything new that I hadn't already heard several decades ago.

[Divine Insight]

Alright, from this post and your Post 38, it is apparent that theists do not follow your rules when it comes to interpreting Scripture. But big deal , so what? Why should they? Who says you are in such a position of authority that you call the shots? The average theist worth his or her salt is going to take one look at your rules of engagement, say "Nuts," and walk away. Is that what you want?

I don't believe that I require anything more than any other well-educated skeptics.

You seem to be acting like I'm something of an anomaly. That's hardly the case.

Your proposal for some sort of skeptic's edition of the Bible is not very original and has long been a part of our colorful Americana. Funny you missed that. Jefferson sat down, went verse-by-verse through the entire KJV, taking a knife and cutting out all passages he thought were extraneous BS, such as those referring to miracles, the Virgin Birth, the Deity of Christ, and pasted the rest together in a volume that reduced the Bible to 48 pages. It was published in the 1890's. It is called the Jefferson Bible and is the unofficial Bible of Congress. It was and still is issued every other year to incoming members of Congress who promptly chuck it in the drawer and forget about it. Didn't work then, won't work now. Any other bright ideas?

Where did I ever say that it would actually WORK?

I simply said that if you claim there are errors in the Bible then please present me with a version of a Bible that you claim is "error free". If you can't do that, then I don't see where you even have anything to debate. You've already conceded my point that the Bible cannot be supported "as written".

So I've already made my point and you've confirmed it.

Obviously, institutions of higher learning do not share your values, especially when it comes to philosophy and theology. Again, big deal, so what? What puts you in a position of authority to determine what should or should not be taught, what the value of philosophy is, how theology should proceed, what is truth, etc.?

I, like Stephen Hawking, presented evidence to back up my position. Pure philosophical pondering without considering actual evidence from nature has already been proven to produce erroneous results.

What more evidence should I need to present?

Truth cannot be found by just daydreaming randomly and calling it "philosophy".

[Elijah John]

Your proposal for some sort of skeptic's edition of the Bible is not very original and has long been a part of our colorful Americana. Funny you missed that. Jefferson sat down, went verse-by-verse through the entire KJV, taking a knife and cutting out all passages he thought were extraneous BS, such as those referring to miracles, the Virgin Birth, the Deity of Christ, and pasted the rest together in a volume that reduced the Bible to 48 pages. It was published in the 1890's. It is called the Jefferson Bible and is the unofficial Bible of Congress. It was and still is issued every other year to incoming members of Congress who promptly chuck it in the drawer and forget about it. Didn't work then, won't work now. Any other bright ideas?

Actually, my copy of Jefferson's "Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" is 110 pages long, not 48. I guess it depends on the publication and the various formats.

And who's to say it won't work now? The Jefferson Bible inspires me, and many Deistic Christians.

Jefferson never intended to ignite a revolution in religion. Thomas Paine, on the other hand, did. The JB was for his personal use, and perhaps family and friends.

But more than quaint Americana, perhaps Jefferson's idea was a prophetic and way ahead of it's time.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 55 by Divine Insight]

In a way, true. And why not? The traditional proofs or arguments certainly have their merit. There is no doubt about that. However, Craig has introduced something new, in that he has raised the point that science now recognizes the universe has a definite beginning. You can try and wiggle out of Craig's argument if you want. Still, the fact remains that he presented a solid case. Also the OP is on process, not Craig, who is probably a classical theist. If you wish to object to Craig, you are welcome to do so. There is a whole sub-forum here devoted exclusively to his argument. I don't recall if you posted there or not. Process would share in Craig's POV, but handles the matter in a much different way. I described that in several extensive posts to the Blastcat, who posted the OP here. I don't recall if you read any of that material or not.

[Divine Insight]

However, Craig has introduced something new, in that he has raised the point that science now recognizes the universe has a definite beginning.

That's hardly new. Besides I once saw Craig debating a scientist where this question came up. I can't remember who the scientist was, but I do remember that he was well-prepared for this apologetic claim about Christianity. The scientist replied by giving a quite long list of all the man-made religions that describe how their gods first created the world. So the idea that the gods created the world are common to just about all religions and certainly not a special feather in the cap of the Hebrew folklore as Craig was trying to make it appear.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 59 by Divine Insight]

The OP 9is on process, not Craig. If you have concerns about Craig, why not post them in the appropriate sub-forum this site has exclusively devoted to his material? Trying the address Craig here makes it too awkward for me to explain process.