The Best Naturalistic Explanation for Christianity

[liamconnor]

I believe I posted something like this before and it got derailed; or rather, the issue was dodged.

A quick scenario: Let us suppose a man who is undecided on the issue of Jesus' resurrection (and for that matter, the existence of God). He wants to know in what direction the historical data points. If he is an honest thinker, does his homework, I believe the "best" naturalistic interpretation of the evidence he will find will include the following:

1) Jesus was crucified and buried in a tomb
2) The body of Jesus was stolen by a non-disciple sometime between Friday evening and Sunday morning; that is, during the Sabbath.
3) Sunday morn the tomb was discovered vacant by women disciples
4) Several days later, a large number of his disciples, individually and collectively suffered hallucinations which were consistent with each other: a) they were bodily and involved the delusion of "touch" b) they left the impression of a commission to preach a specific message which was consistent among them all
5) These disciples believed and preached that their master was raised by God, and that this event was the culmination of God's acts in history.
6) Paul persecuted the Jesus movement. He too suffered from an hallucination from which he believed he had encountered Jesus and received from him a similar vocation.

Are there better naturalistic explanations which have responsibly dealt with the data?

[Divine Insight]

1) Jesus was crucified and buried in a tomb

I don't see where we have any evidence or reason to believe that Jesus was buried in a tomb. Typically when a person is crucified they are considered a disgrace and their body is toss aside as so much garbage.

Who would place Jesus' body in a tomb?

2) The body of Jesus was stolen by a non-disciple sometime between Friday evening and Sunday morning; that is, during the Sabbath.

Why would you suggest that this was done by a "non-disciple"? Where is your evidence for this?

3) Sunday morn the tomb was discovered vacant by women disciples

There are rumors of such things.

4) Several days later, a large number of his disciples, individually and collectively suffered hallucinations which were consistent with each other: a) they were bodily and involved the delusion of "touch" b) they left the impression of a commission to preach a specific message which was consistent among them all

There are rumors of these things. We have absolutely no way to verify that any of those rumors are true.

5) These disciples believed and preached that their master was raised by God, and that this event was the culmination of God's acts in history.


Preaches are well-known for preaching rumors that they merely believe to be true, or that they want their followers to believe to be true. '

Don't forget right in these very gospel rumors they themselves proclaim that the Pharisees predicted that this is precisely what the disciples of Jesus would do. So obviously even in those days people were well away at how people are anxious to lie to create a religion.

Also, have you ever thought about how utterly stupid a God would need to be to have Jesus only appear to his disciples and no one else?

That would only confirm the suspicion that the whole thing is nothing more than made up rumors. Wouldn't a "Real God" have his only begotten Son return and show himself to the Pharisees and the Romans as well?

The fact that it ended up being nothing more than rumors pretty much confirms that this is precisely what it is.

6) Paul persecuted the Jesus movement. He too suffered from an hallucination from which he believed he had encountered Jesus and received from him a similar vocation.

This assumes that a person trusts that what Paul wrote is true.

Are there better naturalistic explanations which have responsibly dealt with the data?

Sure. In fact, IMHO, you have not responsibly dealt with the "data" because you are acting as though the rumors told in the gospels are historical "facts" that need to be dealt with, and therein lies your problem.

Once we realize that the Gospels are far more likely to be superstitious rumors that have been poorly retold and even contain conflicting claims there is no need to support any of the claims they make as though they are "facts".

The fallacy of your position is that you present things to be "facts" when there is absolutely no way that you can know them to be facts. You call this "data" when it isn't data at all. It's nothing more than the contents of rumors.

This would be like you citing stories about Hercules and then demanding that we account for everything in those stories like as if we have no choice but to accept that they really happened.

That's the fallacy of your reasoning right there.

After all, if you're going to claim that we need to account for everything claimed in the Gospels as if it actually happened, then how are we going to account for the claim that God spoke from a cloud proclaiming Jesus to be his son?

If you're going to hold that up as "Historical Data" then that would need to be accepted as "Proof of God" right there.

That should show you right there that we don't need to accept everything in these Gospel rumors to be the "Gospel Truth".

All you are doing is demanding that we accept the Gospels to be the "Gospel Truth" as if it is confirmed history. That's absurd. It's nowhere near confirmed history.

When are you going to realize that the Christian Gospels do not qualify as valid history?

[JoeyKnothead]

I believe I posted something like this before and it got derailed; or rather, the issue was dodged.

A quick scenario: Let us suppose a man who is undecided on the issue of Jesus' resurrection (and for that matter, the existence of God). He wants to know in what direction the historical data points. If he is an honest thinker, does his homework, I believe the "best" naturalistic interpretation of the evidence he will find will include the following:

1) Jesus was crucified and buried in a tomb
2) The body of Jesus was stolen by a non-disciple sometime between Friday evening and Sunday morning; that is, during the Sabbath.
3) Sunday morn the tomb was discovered vacant by women disciples
4) Several days later, a large number of his disciples, individually and collectively suffered hallucinations which were consistent with each other: a) they were bodily and involved the delusion of "touch" b) they left the impression of a commission to preach a specific message which was consistent among them all
5) These disciples believed and preached that their master was raised by God, and that this event was the culmination of God's acts in history.
6) Paul persecuted the Jesus movement. He too suffered from an hallucination from which he believed he had encountered Jesus and received from him a similar vocation.

Are there better naturalistic explanations which have responsibly dealt with the data?

I propose "Folks made 'em up a story, and its been one big aggravation after onother'n since".

Data in support'd be the contradictions, errors and physics / biologically defying claims, and how to this day, some folks need to pull down their britches so's we can know which bathroom it is they need to use, 'cause mixing fabrics, there's scootchin' room on that'n but not a bit of room to scootch on if you need to sit down or stand up to play tinkly winks.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 3 by JoeyKnothead]

I can't tell if you are being humorous. I honestly didn't understand about 90% of what you are writing. If you are being humorous, well, I can't say exactly that I don't appreciate it, since I got a chuckle. But it isn't helpful for discussion.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

DI.

The OP is about a naturalistic explanation for Christianity's origins. We know that Christianity exists today; it came from somewhere. We have data about its origins. The naturalistic explanation I have presented involves widespread hallucination.

Do you think that is a good/plausible explanation or not? If not, what is a better one which does not do violence to the data?

[Divine Insight]

If you want to talk about DATA consider this:

According to these stories the 12 disciples were with Jesus on a daily basis and saw him performing all these miracles. They even saw him "raised from the dead" in a physical body that still had the wounds of his crucifixion. Jesus even invited them to stick their fingers into his wounds to prove that it was him and that he was physical and not just a ghost or hallucination.

However, in spite of all that the "God" in this story still felt it necessarily to speak from a could confirming that Jesus was indeed his Son. Apparently God wasn't convinced that the disciple who were with Jesus in-person on a daily basis would be convinced by that experience alone. So he spoke to them from a cloud.

Now consider this:

This very same God expects us, people who never met Jesus in person, who never say a miracle performed, and who never heard God speak from a cloud, to believe in him lest he'll cast us into eternal damnation for doubting that he exists?

That should tell you right there that this whole religion cannot possibly be true.

Why would this God go through so much trouble to prove himself to the disciples of Jesus, yet expect us to believe on nothing more than undependable hearsay rumors?

Why isn't this God speaking to us from the clouds?

Why isn't Jesus revealing himself to us like he supposedly did to Paul and his disciples?

This DATA should tell you clearly that this religion can be nothing more than a man-man scam. No doubt starting out as superstitious rumors, but then growing to become a full-blown religion.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

DI.

The OP is about a naturalistic explanation for Christianity's origins. We know that Christianity exists today; it came from somewhere. We have data about its origins. The naturalistic explanation I have presented involves widespread hallucination.

Do you think that is a good/plausible explanation or not? If not, what is a better one which does not do violence to the data?

[Divine Insight]

Do you think that is a good/plausible explanation or not? If not, what is a better one which does not do violence to the data?

What "data" are you talking about?

These stories do not constitute reliable "data" of any kind.

You may as well be asking for a reasonable explanation for Islam and how the prophet Muhammad managed to magically write an infallible update of the Bible inspired by Allah, and then flew off on a winged horse to heaven.

And keep in mind that you are not permitted to do "violence" to the data provided to us by the Qur'an.

What you are proposing is actually the "cheapest trick in the book of evangelism".

How do we explain what the Gospels claim if they aren't true?

Well duh? If they aren't true then they don't need any explanation.

It's that simple.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

DI.

The OP is about a naturalistic explanation for Christianity's origins. We know that Christianity exists today; it came from somewhere. We have data about its origins. The naturalistic explanation I have presented involves widespread hallucination.

Do you think that is a good/plausible explanation or not? If not, what is a better one which does not do violence to the data?

The naturalistic explanation I have presented does not require widespread hallucination. All it requires is that there exist religious fanatics who believe in some superstitious rumors.

Just look around you today. Look at how many people preach this religion like as if they where there and actually saw all this stuff happen. They have no clue. All they are doing is preaching rumors they heard with the same conviction.

So obviously this is what humans do. No surprise there.

And like I say, we see this in Islam just as powerfully.

How do you explain the existence of Islam?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to post 3 by JoeyKnothead]

I can't tell if you are being humorous. I honestly didn't understand about 90% of what you are writing. If you are being humorous, well, I can't say exactly that I don't appreciate it, since I got a chuckle. But it isn't helpful for discussion.

Me too,

I can't tell if Christians are just a-greenin' us all this time.

I take objection to your statement...

"But it isn't helpful for discussion."

You're not a moderator, and here you aver or imply I'm in violation of site rules. I should not be held responsible for them that can't understand me, as I note I have a responsibility to ensure my message is at least capable of being understood.

I have all the confidence in the world to think the observer of average intelligence understands precisely and exactly what I was a-gettin' at.

But I'll be glad to explain it to them that don't...

"Folks made 'em up a story" I propose as an explanation to why we have Christianity, and to that thought I add what a mess of aggravation it's been ever since.

Then, anticipating challenges to my notion, i provide data in support of my conclusion in the form of showing just what an aggravating mess its come to when we can mix our demon rayon with our godly cotton, only we need to post us bathroom police, since the gays can get married, but we can still have the guv'ment throw up obstacles to'em enjoyin' 'em a life free from the aggravation their being big ol' gay folks causes me.

When confronting such as, "My god declares you unworthy of equal rights", you can rest assured, I take that serious. Too many good people have had to die or end up crippled for me to ever think Christianity is a laughing matter.

But now the claims? They're a hoot and a holler