Woo's Woo in Christianity

[Oldfarmhouse]

One of the problems for those who adhere to Christian doctrine (any doctrine, really) is the existence of people who were at one time strong believers in the faith and then at some point abandoned it. The reason that this is a difficult issue for the believers is that former members often provide detailed coherent descriptions of how they came to question, doubt, and eventually reject the doctrine.

Almost invariably the reasons for leaving differ between ex-members and current members. Former Christians often describe a process of investigation into the claims made by the group and ended up with very unimpressive answers. Ex-Christians discuss education and how the increase in knowledge and exposure to different cultures and ideas renders the theology useless to accurately describe the world.

On the other side Christians give very different reasons that people leave the faith. Invariably members of the faith will blame the person who left the church and never admit to the possibility theat the doctrine is inadequate. I will say that there are exceptions -- if they dont blame the person who left then its that crafty devil who led them astray.

For discussion -- why do you think Christians become ex-Christians?

[Yahu]

One reason is probably that they were never intellectually grounded in the first place.

Nonsense. To suggest that only stupid people become Christian is frankly insulting. Personally, I am highly intelligent and well educated. I hold an engineering degree on top of attending two bible colleges as well as having been a computer tech in the military.

The more you dig into biblical studies, the more layers of meaning that are revealed. If you take it back to the original paleo-hebrew word pictures, there is a surprising amount of additional insight revealed. A dozen lifetimes wouldn't be enough to study scripture even for the highly intelligent.

[Slopeshoulder]

For 30 years I have seen engineers disproportionately represented in biblicist versions christianity, often presenting themsleves as some sort of voice of intelligent credibility. I have no idea why. (Well, I have some theories.)
But what AquinasD was saying, and I agree, is that few Christains, not even the self-congratulatory bible reading engineers, are deeply and solidly grounded in philosophy and theology and the history thereof. That seems to make a difference. Otherwise people come in and out for shallow reasons, and their religious discernment and discourse is as low as everything else in pop culture - more interesting as sociology than as theology (just like this forum). So it' about more than raw intelligence, more than cleverness. It has to do be being learned and wise about religion, something I personally have never encountered in the many engineer-fundamentalists I have met, indeed quite the opposite in my own experience (I have some theories).
When did the bible become the whole of christianity or what one is supposed to study anyway? I'd say that studying it in absence of a solid grounding in hardcore philosophy and theology, as well as several other fields, does more harm than good. Which is why the best religious studies departments and seminaries require studies in all related fields.
But I agree that biblical studies is a fascinating field with endless possibilities.

[AquinasD]

Nonsense. To suggest that only stupid people become Christian is frankly insulting.

I was suggesting no such thing. Lacking an intellectual grounds does not mean one is stupid, it just means one isn't cognizant of the issues relevant to their beliefs, which an otherwise smart person might well be. I only suggested that there may be some who, having never obtained an intellectual grounding, find other popular philosophies more powerful that are atheistic.

If anything, I'm pointing out that it requires a certain amount of intelligence and intellectual application to maintain a robust Christian faith that we find important and substantial.

[Yahu]

Nonsense. To suggest that only stupid people become Christian is frankly insulting.

I was suggesting no such thing. Lacking an intellectual grounds does not mean one is stupid, it just means one isn't cognizant of the issues relevant to their beliefs, which an otherwise smart person might well be. I only suggested that there may be some who, having never obtained an intellectual grounding, find other popular philosophies more powerful that are atheistic.

If anything, I'm pointing out that it requires a certain amount of intelligence and intellectual application to maintain a robust Christian faith that we find important and substantial.

Ah, my mistake.

[Yahu]

For 30 years I have seen engineers disproportionately represented in biblicist versions christianity, often presenting themsleves as some sort of voice of intelligent credibility. I have no idea why. (Well, I have some theories.)
But what AquinasD was saying, and I agree, is that few Christains, not even the self-congratulatory bible reading engineers, are deeply and solidly grounded in philosophy and theology and the history thereof. That seems to make a difference. Otherwise people come in and out for shallow reasons, and their religious discernment and discourse is as low as everything else in pop culture - more interesting as sociology than as theology (just like this forum). So it' about more than raw intelligence, more than cleverness. It has to do be being learned and wise about religion, something I personally have never encountered in the many engineer-fundamentalists I have met, indeed quite the opposite in my own experience (I have some theories).
When did the bible become the whole of christianity or what one is supposed to study anyway? I'd say that studying it in absence of a solid grounding in hardcore philosophy and theology, as well as several other fields, does more harm than good. Which is why the best religious studies departments and seminaries require studies in all related fields.
But I agree that biblical studies is a fascinating field with endless possibilities.

I don't limit myself to purely biblical study. Ancient religious texts from many civilizations fall into my studies. You have to know what the biblical prophets were battling against and understand the view points of the authors as well as the references of the day.

For example, Eliphaz, Job's so-called friend, was a pagan sun god worshiper. He took some of his doctrine straight out of Babylonian sun god worship. It is easy to see in the Code of Hammurabi. Eliphaz even declares that his god traverses the sky and can't see through dark clouds. His god is the sun god that is attacking Job so he tries to get Job to bow down to Satan to stop the attacks. The english translations mistranslate many different words as God that should be god or gods. Job even uses a different word (Elohyim) for God while Eliphaz uses 'elowahh' or the pagan 'el' or 'the destroyer'.

Personally I study the ancient pagan doctrines and how they corrupted the religion of Israel and carried over into fundamental Christianity. Most fundamentalists would be horrified to have me lumped in with them.

There is also so much information hidden in scripture just in the place and people name meanings. Just looking up the city name meanings of the Canaanite cities is an interesting study and gives a lot of insight into the nature of their paganism.

[Goat]

For 30 years I have seen engineers disproportionately represented in biblicist versions christianity, often presenting themsleves as some sort of voice of intelligent credibility. I have no idea why. (Well, I have some theories.)
But what AquinasD was saying, and I agree, is that few Christains, not even the self-congratulatory bible reading engineers, are deeply and solidly grounded in philosophy and theology and the history thereof. That seems to make a difference. Otherwise people come in and out for shallow reasons, and their religious discernment and discourse is as low as everything else in pop culture - more interesting as sociology than as theology (just like this forum). So it' about more than raw intelligence, more than cleverness. It has to do be being learned and wise about religion, something I personally have never encountered in the many engineer-fundamentalists I have met, indeed quite the opposite in my own experience (I have some theories).
When did the bible become the whole of christianity or what one is supposed to study anyway? I'd say that studying it in absence of a solid grounding in hardcore philosophy and theology, as well as several other fields, does more harm than good. Which is why the best religious studies departments and seminaries require studies in all related fields.
But I agree that biblical studies is a fascinating field with endless possibilities.

Just because someone has put a whole bunch of metaphysical concepts in place of the typical religious dogma does not mean it is any more rational. While it might come up with some interesting concepts, but .. well.. I don't see the need to have those concepts intertwined with the concept of an all powerful creator. Dealing with a more sophisticated set of concepts doesn't make it any less 'woo'
More of the scholars will realize it's symbolic rather than literal, but that doesn't mean it isn't more 'true'.


And when it comes to the hardcore philosophy and theology, just what percentage of Christians are into that anyway? The vast majority of the rank and file Christians are not into the more esoteric ideas.

[EduChris]

...The vast majority of the rank and file...are not into the more esoteric ideas.

Just eliminate the word "Christian" from your sentence and your claim becomes universally valid (as opposed to unnecessarily prejudiced and derogatory). After all, the vast majority of non-Christians are not "into the more esoteric ideas" either.

[Haven]

Just eliminate the word "Christian" from your sentence and your claim becomes universally valid (as opposed to unnecessarily prejudiced and derogatory). After all, the vast majority of non-Christians are not "into the more esoteric ideas" either.

This is true, especially of those who would consider themselves "not religious" or "nominally" Christian / Jewish / Muslim / Etc. However, in my experience, those who actually label themselves "atheist" or "ignostic" seem to have a better handle on scientific, philosophical, and theological concepts than the average believer or nonbeliever.

[EduChris]

...those who actually label themselves "atheist" or "ignostic" seem to have a better handle on...philosophical...and theological concepts than the average believer or nonbeliever.

What is your evidence for this statement? On this forum, the average non-theist has little to no understanding of, or appreciation for, philosophical or theological concepts. There are a few notable exceptions of course, but you have made a sweeping claim that seems to involve more than just a few exceptional individuals.

[AquinasD]

This is true, especially of those who would consider themselves "not religious" or "nominally" Christian / Jewish / Muslim / Etc. However, in my experience, those who actually label themselves "atheist" or "ignostic" seem to have a better handle on scientific, philosophical, and theological concepts than the average believer or nonbeliever.

I would doubt this. There are some atheists who clearly have an understanding of the relevant scientific, philosophical, and theological issues, but most atheists are woefully misinformed when it comes to, say, philosophy of science. Now there might be an explanation, as certain inconsistencies have been documented on the economic beliefs between conservatives and liberals (they both tend to be ignorant precisely where you'd expect them to find some inconsistency with their beliefs).

So while Christians might be ignorant about certain historical inaccuracies here and there (where the historicity is supposed to matter, especially the NT), atheists tend to be ignorant about the limits and scopes of science (which explains their sometimes claim that "You need empirical evidence to prove everything!").

I don't think the atheist or Christian is more susceptible in any general way by virtue of being what they are; it is rather what they are more susceptible to.