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.

[Zzyzx]

.

As long as non-Christians insist that they know what Christians believe better than Christian do a “facile caricatures of religious belief� is all that will ever be debated.

It would be foolish to claim to know more about what another person believes than the person himself.

However, there is more to knowing about Christianity than mere personal belief. The religion has a history, has literature, has tens of thousands of different sects and even more individual variations.

“Facile caricatures of religious belief� appears to apply to understanding of Christianity displayed by many who debate here as Christians -- if facile is defined as: "appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial."

[Divine Insight]

I don't think you quite understand my position, so let me clarify. I don't see myself as a Moderator or referee here, simply because I am not.

I didn't mean to suggest that you did. I was simply referencing your own proclaimed "goal" of trying to fill in "missing information" for people in general.

I do see myself as a resource person. I have a Ph.D. in theology and that gives me the advantage of having a broader information base to draw upon than do many other members. That's not being conceited, that's just being honest. My goal is to bring into the discussion resource materials and additional information, if I can, that others may have overlooked and that would enrich their knowledge base.

That's fine and dandy. But first I would like to point out that a Ph.D. simply means that you have been recognized by an institution of higher learning to have fulfilled their requirements to obtain such a certification. This in no way suggests that you actually have a "broader information based" from which to draw. A person who has studied religions as nothing more than a personal interest could have just as much information, possibly even more. And they might not even have a college degree in any subject at all. Maybe they simply had no need to seek an official certification, or couldn't afford it.

For example, you raised the important issue of what kind of a God. Now, I'm not going to address that question in this post, as I feel that is off the OP. However, if I were in a discussion on what kind of God, I would want to point out that while many assume there is only one model of God in Christianity, in point of fact there are two a present. I would describe what is called the "classical" or traditional model of God and then how contemporary, "neo-classical" theists, such as myself, have seen fit to revise the model and why.

Only two? I must confess that I'm surprised there are only two. It seems to me that I've heard arguments for many different "kinds" of God related to the Bible from many different theists from different denominations. I would be interested to know what your education has taught you in this regard. Also, are all theological seminaries in agreement on this point? I would also find it difficult to believe that all theological seminaries or colleges agree on much of anything.

If the OP were on evidence for God, then I would want to share what I know about the classical arguments for the existence of God and then how these arguments have been revised by contemporary theologians and philosophers. My immediate concern would not be whether I am winning over followers. My immediate concern is how well others know the available material.

It could be interesting to hear how many different arguments you make for the existence of a God. I've heard quite many myself, but I've found none that I've heard to be compelling. I do have one of my own that I feel is the most compelling of all. However, my argument for the existence of a "God" would point to Eastern Mysticism, not the Abrahamic type of Authoritarian Godhead that exists separate from us.

When I see blanket claims being made about theists doing this or that, my initial concern is to address the stereotyping that may be involved here. Not all theists think or act alike.

I wouldn't think a Ph.D. should be required to realize this. In fact, the same is true of non-theists as well. I will agree that there are a lot of people who make a lot of unwarranted assumptions on both sides of the theist/atheist debates. In fact, I even hate to put it in terms of "theists versus atheists", because I don't even argue that there there is no God. To the contrary, I'm totally open to the possibility of the existence of a God. What I argue against is the idea that any God could exist "as described" by the Hebrew Bible, or Christian Bible.

In fact, I can't help but wonder if you have been required to explain many of the self-contradictory claims made within the Bible in order to obtain your Ph.D. in theology? I would think that you should have been required to address all of those difficult issues. Therefore, if you were to ever debate with me on the Bible you should be able to answer all my questions (at least in terms of having thought about the specific issues I bring up)

There are many issues, but one that might be interesting to discuss with you would be the story of the Canaanites.

For example, fundamentalists have tried to pass anti-evolution bans in 26 states. However, right-wing fundamentalists do not represent the whole of contemporary Christianity. Liberal Christians, such as myself, find such legislation abhorrent.

I don't debate what modern day religious fanatics might be trying to do on a political level unless then want to debate how their agenda relates directly to some specific Biblical scripture.

I don't believe there is any mention of "evolution" in the Bible at all. So why Christian fundamentalists would want to pass "anti-evolution bans" is beyond me.

Are they even aware that Evolution Theory doesn't even state anywhere that there is no God or Creator? So it's not like Evolution Theory is renouncing their "God".

To the contrary they appear to be upset with Evolution Theory because THEY THINK that if Evolution Theory is TRUE, then their religion must be false.

So they seem to have created their own fear-based revolt against the science of evolution that has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything written in the Bible.

In fact, where does the Bible proclaim that God didn't use evolution to create his creatures? It doesn't. So religious fundamentalists who are trying to pass legislation to ban Evolution are nothing more than religious zealots who have no theological basis for their political activism. And they obviously don't even understand Evolution Theory, because there is nothing in Evolution Theory that actually states, "There is no God".

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 30 by Zzyzx]

OK, thanks for the info. I checked it out. I really don't know this participant at all, never recall reading any of his posts. I also don't know anything about his background. So his identity is still a question mark with me.

[Zzyzx]

.

I really don't know this participant at all, never recall reading any of his posts. I also don't know anything about his background. So his identity is still a question mark with me.

Here are a few references that give some indication of attitudes and problems.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 695#803695
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 157#804157
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 312#814312
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 734#823734
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 845#827845
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 450#829450
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 829#829829
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 969#829969
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 139#830139

Is there any doubt that the person had difficulty debating honorably in compliance with Forum Rules?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 32 by Divine Insight]

Generally, it is the case that those who have had the advantage of a higher education in a certain field do have a richer knowledge base than laity. Granted, there can be exceptions. Einstein was a terrible student. Edison had only a couple months of schooling. However, these kinds of persons are few and far between. In our modern-day world, the amount of information available and the complexity of our knowledge base makes some real degree of education, if not higher education, in a particular field essential to get anywhere. This is especially true in fields such as theology, philosophy, biblical studies, etc., as they represent the highly developed intellectual side and tradition of the Judeo-Christian religion.

Despite the fact there are great diversities between various Christian groups, there are also uniformities. One is the doctrine of God and, unfortunately, there are many misconceptions here. One is that the traditional model or picture of God as he is in his own nature came right from the pages of Scripture. In point of fact, the traditional picture of God, classical theism, came largely from the influx of Hellenic metaphysics and standards of perfection, which enshrined the immune and the immutable. Only in recent years, since the 1940's, and major philosophers such as Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne, have theologians begun to challenge the notion of divine immutability. I would be happy to discuss this with you in more detail, but that belongs in another post. I am simply pointing out here that the doctrine of God remained uniform for centuries, and that it was not as biblically based as one might think, as Scripture liberally attributes both change and also emotion to God, which was verboten in classical theism. And when such biblical passages were brought to light, classical theism argued these were mere figures of speech that had nothing to do with the actual reality of God, which was, according to the imported tenets of Hellenic metaphysics, assumed to be wholly simple, without body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, wholly independent of creation, etc. All of this is well documented and very much a part of the contemporary scene in theology. Unfortunately, very little has trickled down into the laity.

I would be happy to discuss biblical studies with you. I initially thought of doing my doctorate in biblical studies. However, that belongs in another post. To answer your question, yes, I am very much aware of teh contradictions in Scripture, a favorite topic of mine.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 34 by Zzyzx]

Thanks again. I'll try and check them out.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 34 by Zzyzx]

And what is the point of this post? The poster was originally quoted without attribution in the OP, but you've posted something identifying him along with your action as a moderator chastising him (and thus identifying him). Kudos. Personally, I think your moderation in that instance was heavy-handed if not biased.

So, is citing your own action without debate or did you bring it up because remarking upon it is against the rules?

Was the point in citing all of those incidents; a precautionary tale that we all can learn from? Because if that's the case, I think it's ambiguous (i.e I am not edified). None of those incidents seemed all that earth-shattering to me.

Is this a personal dispute or an open question where is dissent allowed and/or respected?

take care,
TFV

[Divine Insight]

Generally, it is the case that those who have had the advantage of a higher education in a certain field do have a richer knowledge base than laity. Granted, there can be exceptions.

Exceptions are quite common. I've met many people thoughout my life who have Ph.D.s in various different fields yet don't seem to have a very good grasp of what they are supposed to have learned. I seriously question the efficiency of our educational institutions that issue these degrees.

Einstein was a terrible student. Edison had only a couple months of schooling. However, these kinds of persons are few and far between.

And now you have just referred to extreme exceptions of people who not only had little formal education but who excelled far above huge numbers of people who have had formal educations.

In our modern-day world, the amount of information available and the complexity of our knowledge base makes some real degree of education, if not higher education, in a particular field essential to get anywhere. This is especially true in fields such as theology, philosophy, biblical studies, etc., as they represent the highly developed intellectual side and tradition of the Judeo-Christian religion.

Typically the reason a degree is required to "get anywhere" is because without a degree a person typically won't even be considered for a position no matter how smart or knowledgeable they might be.

And you'll have to forgive me if I don't place much credence in your claim that this is especially true in theology, philosophy and biblical studies, unless once again, you are talking about obtaining careers in the field.

Despite the fact there are great diversities between various Christian groups, there are also uniformities. One is the doctrine of God and, unfortunately, there are many misconceptions here. One is that the traditional model or picture of God as he is in his own nature came right from the pages of Scripture. In point of fact, the traditional picture of God, classical theism, came largely from the influx of Hellenic metaphysics and standards of perfection, which enshrined the immune and the immutable. Only in recent years, since the 1940's, and major philosophers such as Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne, have theologians begun to challenge the notion of divine immutability. I would be happy to discuss this with you in more detail, but that belongs in another post. I am simply pointing out here that the doctrine of God remained uniform for centuries, and that it was not as biblically based as one might think, as Scripture liberally attributes both change and also emotion to God, which was verboten in classical theism. And when such biblical passages were brought to light, classical theism argued these were mere figures of speech that had nothing to do with the actual reality of God, which was, according to the imported tenets of Hellenic metaphysics, assumed to be wholly simple, without body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, wholly independent of creation, etc. All of this is well documented and very much a part of the contemporary scene in theology. Unfortunately, very little has trickled down into the laity.

I realize that you are not going to give my views on this much credence, however, my position on theology is the following:

Theologians accept as a given premise that their God must exist. I realize that they also consider arguments for why their God must exist, however, the fact remains that if they come to the conclusion that the God most likely doesn't exist then they typically cease to be "theologians" and move on to another topic of study or line of work. This is pretty much guaranteed to be true because we never hear about "Atheistic Theologians" having serious debates with the "Theistic Theologians". Once a person concludes that the theology makes no sense they are typically no longer considered to be a "Theologian".

So the study of theology itself is a highly self-biased study. In fact, I often suggest that if a person cannot be an "Atheistic Theologian" then the subject is indeed meaningless. In other words, it becomes an academic study where a conclusion that there is no God is unacceptable. And therefore it can never be said to be a study that seeks "Truth".

I would be happy to discuss biblical studies with you. I initially thought of doing my doctorate in biblical studies. However, that belongs in another post. To answer your question, yes, I am very much aware of the contradictions in Scripture, a favorite topic of mine.

The contradictions I'm talking about require that entire stories be totally false. The story of the Canaanite being just one of them.

It would seem to me that if you are aware of the same contradictions in the Bible that I'm aware of you could never continue to believe that it's a coherent story about any God.

By the way, did your theological studies include a comprehensive study of other world religions? And if so, how could you not see that various other forms of Eastern Mysticism are far more reasonable then Hebrew Mythology in terms of potentially describing a possibly supernatural "Creator"?

What truly surprises me is how anyone could study world religions and not come out of that experience with at least recognizing that if any of them are true it's most likely some form of Eastern Mysticism. That just makes so much more sense than the jealous authoritarian wrathful anthropomorphic Hebrew God don't you think?

Also, doesn't it bother you that an omniscient omnipotent God would have ever commanded mere moral men to judge each other and stone sinners to death? Why should an omnipotent omniscient God ever ask men to do his dirty work for him? Especially when mortal men aren't even equipped with omniscience to know whether the people they are stoning to death truly deserve it or not?

To be honest with you HH, I can't understand how any theist could make it through the first five books of the Bible and keep reading like as if the stories might still have some sort of merit.

I'm just saying.

[Divine Insight]

In our modern-day world, the amount of information available and the complexity of our knowledge base makes some real degree of education, if not higher education, in a particular field essential to get anywhere. This is especially true in fields such as theology, philosophy, biblical studies, etc., as they represent the highly developed intellectual side and tradition of the Judeo-Christian religion.

By the way, are you aware that pure philosophy has already been demonstrated to be unable to lead us to truth?

I wonder whether the philosophy departments in colleges are even willing to own up to this historically proven fact.

[Zzyzx]

.

And what is the point of this post?

The post was clearly a direct response to Hoghead.

The poster was originally quoted without attribution in the OP, but you've posted something identifying him

The statement is public information at http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 832#834832

along with your action as a moderator chastising him (and thus identifying him).

Correction: Moderator Warnings were made by

Otseng – Theist Site owner / Administrator 3 (one of which was a final warning)
Wootah – Theist Moderator 2
Elijah John – Theist moderator 1
Once Convinced – Non-Theist Moderator 2
Zzyzx – Non-Theist Administrator 1

Kudos. Personally, I think your moderation in that instance was heavy-handed if not biased.

Notice first that there were nine warnings over a short period of time (far more than required for Probation, Suspension or Banishment. Six of those from Theist Moderators, half of which were from Otseng. Three were from Non-Theists, ONE of which was from me. Where is the bias or 'heavy-handedness'?

Notice that complaints about moderating are to be taken up via PM and NOT in threads. See Forum Rule 15. Appeals, challenges, or any response to comments/warnings made by moderators should not be made in public. The proper channel is to send a PM to a moderator and to discuss it directly and in private.

So, is citing your own action without debate or did you bring it up because remarking upon it is against the rules?

My post addressed a matter raised by HH

Was the point in citing all of those incidents; a precautionary tale that we all can learn from?

No. However, it does demonstrate that the person was given multiple opportunities to mend his ways. Receiving a Warning every few days is strong indication that little or no respect is being shown for Forum Rules.

When a person who refuses to abide by Forum Rules says “The debates have turned into debating facile caricatures of religious belief� as a parting shot, their opinion is suspect and may be influenced by lack of success debating honorably.

Because if that's the case, I think it's ambiguous (i.e I am not edified). None of those incidents seemed all that earth-shattering to me.

Perhaps that should be taken up with Otseng (via PM) since he issued more Warnings than anyone else.

Is this a personal dispute

Is post #37 an attempt to instigate a personal dispute or to air personal opinions about a member or administrator?

or an open question where is dissent allowed and/or respected?

Notice that the OP question is: “Do you feel that the above description is an honest assessment of the debates in Christianity and Apologetics?�

I, for one, disagree.