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?

[Haven]

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.

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 was speaking only from my personal experience (I know many atheists, Christians, and generic "nominals"), and was not intending to make a sweeping general claim, which is why I qualified my statement with "in my experience."

[Yahu]

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.

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 was speaking only from my personal experience (I know many atheists, Christians, and generic "nominals"), and was not intending to make a sweeping general claim, which is why I qualified my statement with "in my experience."

In my experience once you have had personal experience with the reality of Yah, nothing can change your mind regardless of your intellectual knowledge.

For example, get a coven sent to prison on treason charges and see if you don't believe in spiritual forces. Been there, done that. Few people would believe my personal experiences.

[EduChris]

...I was speaking only from my personal experience...and was not intending to make a sweeping general claim...

You list yourself as an "atheist" who (presumably) is qualified to make such judgements, and so you must deem that you have a better grasp of such principles than the average theist. Maybe this is what you were really trying to say.

Perhaps you are right about yourself--but so what? What is the point of being better than "average" on any topic if the "average" amounts to almost nothing in terms of intellectual substance? When we deal with questions of, say, mathematics, do we solicit answers from the proverbial person on the street? Or do we go to those who have solid academic credentials in the matter at hand?

[Goat]

...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.

That is entirely true. But that does not make the esoteric concept of ANY religion any less full of fluff.

Now, many of those esoteric ideas can be presented totally disassociated from a deity, or religion in general, and STILL be 'woo'.

[EduChris]

...that does not make the esoteric concept of ANY religion any less full of fluff...

Or any more full of fluff. The knife cuts both ways.

Theism is simply one metaphysically possibility that is adopted by many (indeed most) people for various reasons. Everyone has their own "take" on metaphysics; none of us can provide "evidence" for our metaphysical views, and none of us can live normal lives without conscious (or more usually unconscious) dependence on prior metaphysical assumptions.

[McCulloch]

What is the point of being better than "average" on any topic if the "average" amounts to almost nothing in terms of intellectual substance? When we deal with questions of, say, mathematics, do we solicit answers from the proverbial person on the street? Or do we go to those who have solid academic credentials in the matter at hand?

Any mathematician with solid academic credentials can reasonably well address the question of how do we know what we know about mathematics. Similarly, this can be done in the fields of the sciences, engineering and history. In the case of history, the question is often framed in context of what degree of confidence we can have regarding this or that. However, in the field of theology, ultimately is comes down to faith. Those with academic credentials from progressive or liberal schools can look down their noses at the others for having a simplistic non-nuanced view of religion, where those with academic credentials from the more literal minded schools condemn the eggheads for perverting the simple gospel message. Who is to say who is right?

[EduChris]

...Who is to say who is right?

Who is to say whether our particular corner of the universe consists of three spatial dimensions, or only two?

There are profound disagreements in all scholarly disciplines--even in the softer disciplines of pyschology, philosophy, sociology, econcomics, art, music, literature, etc.

[Goat]

...Who is to say who is right?

Who is to say whether our particular corner of the universe consists of three spatial dimensions, or only two?

What can be verified? At the current time, we can verify 3 apparent spatial dimensions, with some theorists postulating up to 11 (currently without any evidence).

Can you show that the data we have for 3 dimensions is incorrect?

There are profound disagreements in all scholarly disciplines--even in the softer disciplines of pyschology, philosophy, sociology, econcomics, art, music, literature, etc.

The word 'profound' is so vague. care to quantify it?

[EduChris]

...At the current time, we can verify 3 apparent spatial dimensions...

See this article

...The word 'profound' is so vague. care to quantify it?

For any human endeavor, we necessarily start with basic assumptions which cannot be proven. For any human endeavor, almost any and every possible "starting assumption" has been adopted or will be adopted, and we cannot even in principle know which (if any) of our starting assumptions correspond to objective reality (whatever it might be). The human condition is such that all of what passes for "knowledge" is really just a convenient label for "what seems to work given certain conditions and assumptions."

[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.

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.

I think that's all great. A good and noble pursuit. Comparative no less. You are the exception that proves the rule. Biblical studies is not my area of interest or expertise, so I can't comment on the specifics, but I enjoyed my classes in it very very much.