The Impasse(able?) Arguments against Christianity

[theophile]

As a Christian apologist, I find I'm always confronted by the same basic arguments. This can be a bit tiring given the fact that I don't usually accept the underlying assumptions of the offender and would rather progress the conversation versus spin on things that I don't uphold and that I don't care to defend.

So the purpose of this thread, as much as I would like it to be more, is:

(1) to see if other apologists feel the same and, more importantly
(2) to start classifying the arguments endlessly raised to see if we can approach the conversation at a higher level and move it forward versus continuing to churn around in the weeds.

So that said, it seems to me that most arguments can be classified into the following four categories:

Metaphysical plausibility: These arguments tend to take as starting point certain traditional assumptions about the nature of God. That God is some kind of super-being out there, and who should therefore be observable just as anything else having existence is. Because no such God-being has ever been witnessed in any objective way, and because our understanding of reality has evolved to a point of not needing God in order to explain it, this (supposedly) basic Christian view and Christianity with it is challenged.

Moral decrepitude: These arguments would take for granted (for the sake of argument) that there is such a God-being despite the lack of evidence. The argument becomes less about the existence of such a God, but why such a God would be worthy of belief given the presence of evil and suffering in the world and certain atrocious events and teachings conveyed by the bible. This is God as tyrant. As authoring or permitting evil. As being unworthy of respect irrespective of existence.

Historical inaccuracy: Here the bible is evaluated against history, and is taken as an historical account that stands or falls depending on how it holds up to the historical record. If there never was a cataclysmic flood, then the flood story - and its teachings - is diminished. If there never was an historical Jesus who was crucified and resurrected, then Jesus' story - and his teachings - are diminished... Perhaps to the point of being fully rejected.

Logical inconsistency: The bible in itself is the focus of this type of argument, which suggests incoherence or self-contradiction of biblical teachings and therefore unacceptability. Examples of such an argument include the fact that the bible has two creation narratives that differ on certain points, or that the bible has different versions of God that seem incompatible. If the bible is itself inconsistent, who cares about any of the above? ...

Those, in short, are the types of arguments that I feel are endlessly raised. Have I missed any, or any arguments that would not fit within one of these higher level categories?

To apologists in particular, what are our responses to these higher level arguments that can at last help us move the conversation forward, and stop us from rehashing the same old debates over and over again? Or are we simply at an impasse? (In which case I truly question the purpose of this forum and what it hopes to achieve...)

Again, my goal in this is not to get sucked into details, but is an honest hope (against hope) to actually move the conversation forward, and put some of these issues behind us.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 18 by benchwarmer]

Sorry, what exactly is 'the Word'. Your definition does not help. In English, a word means a collection of letters that carry a meaning. How in the world can a word DO anything other than convey meaning between users of a language?

It seems all you've done is swap out 'God' and inserted 'the Word'. We are still left wondering what this is and where it is.

You have read the bible, right? You realize this is a pretty important concept? Genesis 1 or first chapter of John is insightful. Just want to connect the dots here.

More to the point, a word can do other things on top of what you say. Words can call us. They can command us. They can inform us. They can correct us. They can convince us...

Words have a certain force, let's call it a soft force, in the world. They cannot cause things in a direct way, like the force of a physical being. But they can... Motivate. Incite. Move us in other ways... (This is one reason it is important to black box God, who is typically tied up with stronger force capable of so much more. That, and focusing on the Word makes it far more incumbent on us to discern and respond., i.e., to take responsibility.)

As to the Word that I am referring to, it is less any particular word and more the word, or collection of words, that calls us in any moment to do what is favorable to life. It is that which calls for creating the conditions for life (e.g., let there be light, let there be dry land, let there be...). It is that which calls for supporting life of every kind.

For example, the good Samaritan. As the first two travelers passed the beaten man, they may have discerned the Word (which was a call to save the man's life), but they chose not to act. The Samaritan heard the call and responded.

Similarly, the Israel's bondage in Egypt. Enslavement and totalitarian rule is not conducive to life, thus the Word called on Moses to set Israel free. To break the bonds of Israel's hard-hearted oppressor.

Sorry, from my perspective you've simply emptied the sandbox of tan beach sand and filled it again with white beach sand. They are both useless in building on top of since they are both undefined 'hand wavy' concepts that have no actual evidence to back them up.

Do you deny that the Word so described exists? That there is not, in every moment of our lives, something we could do to improve the conditions of life for others and ourselves?

Call it 'hand wavy' all you want, but there is something to what I'm saying. It is based on giving the utmost value to life. It requires constant discernment on our parts. It is not necessarily measurable as a sound wave or anything like that, but this doesn't mean it isn't there. That it isn't important. That we don't have a responsibility for it. That it cannot provide a better foundation for the Church...

You speak of discerning this 'Word'. Where is it that I may also discern it? Is it available on amazon? Smile

Yes, it's called the bible. I suggest you pick it up.

[Divine Insight]

My point is that none of this matters or diminishes the teachings of the bible, which are not meant to relay history but are more importantly to show us how to live our lives. They show us what Jesus calls the way, truth, and life. That is their value.

So my question to you on this dissertation is then why I should care what Jesus calls the way, truth, and life?

And especially why should I care about this anymore than I would care about what any other religious sage or philosopher might have claimed?

In fact, why should I think that Jesus' ideas are any better than my own?

Keep in mind that when I read the Bible Jesus is one of the few characters that I can actually identify with. When I read about Jesus, for the most part (at least in terms of moral values) I tend to give Jesus a "Thumbs Up".

In other words, I'm giving Jesus my moral approval. I'm certainly not learning any new moral values from Jesus that I hadn't already obtained from what I consider to be nothing more than mere common sense.

So what's the big deal about Jesus? In terms of moral teachings this could have been stories about me.

I mean seriously.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 16 by Divine Insight]

A "Christian Apologist" who is willing to ignore the supernatural claims of the Bible in favor of just arguing that it offers teachings that favor life isn't going to be very impressive. Why bother with Christianity when there are plenty of teachings that favor life?

It doesn't sound like you're disagreeing with me in all that you say in this post, but you ask a fair question here.

I don't want to ignore the supernatural claims. I want to deal with those along with everything else. But we do need to consider other ways of thinking about God. I do want to rethink God without all of a sudden jumping to what I know is in every atheist's head: some idea of God as Supreme Being. The omnipotent One at the top of the cosmic hierarchy.

Insisting on God as Supreme Being is a restrictive, unfair move that goes against much Christian theology. I'll refer you to Paul Tillich as a fairly influential, modern thinker who breaks this idea (but who is far from the first).

I know you struggle to get past it, but you have to. Maybe then you'll be able to benefit again from the richness of biblical thinking.

Again, you've got to be kidding me.

You say,

"Insisting on God as Supreme Being is a restrictive, unfair move that goes against much Christian theology."

How can you claim that it's an unfair move when the theology itself has this God proclaiming that he is a jealous God and that we shall place no Gods before him?

And then he goes on to interact with man, given man all manner of commandments and directives.

And now you want to CHANGE Christian theology into something else? I suggest that it's way beyond too late for that approach. And I would suggest this to Paul Tillich as well.

As far as I'm concerned you can only bend Christian theology so far before it breaks away from the original scriptures entirely.

I see these approaches to Christianity as nothing more than extreme desperation to ignore the original texts in the hopes that some totally different type of theology could be constructed from the ashes.

You say:

I know you struggle to get past it, but you have to. Maybe then you'll be able to benefit again from the richness of biblical thinking.

To this claim of yours I say, "No Problem".

We can have that discussion quite easily. I will allow that Christianity can be about something other than a jealous anthropomorphic God who gives men commandments, directives, and ultimatums.

Now it's your turn:

Show me where you think the "richness" of the Bible is.

Like I say, you can't very well point to Jesus because at that point you may as well be pointing at me. Jesus offered no "richness" that I didn't already see as pure common sense.

So where are you hoping to find this "richness"?

Can you give me some examples?

Never mind about how I might be thinking about "God". Just show me the "richness" of the Bible.

If you can do that, you will have at least made some progress.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 28 by theophile]

Theophile, your post 28 makes little if any sense to me. I can agree with you to a point about the life lessons one can learn from Frodo, but the Bible teaches more than that, doesn't it?

Among the ways we are to live our lives are certain commandments, one of which is that Jehovah (or whatever name one wishes to use) is the Lord our God, and we shall have none other before him. We are told that Jesus himself is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (not just that he can show us these things, but that he himself is them).
If you don't consider these to be true on a historical level, then teachings such as these lose all value and meaning. If Jesus never said anything about the Way, the Truth and the Life, then of what value is that teaching?

I would emphatically agree that there was never a garden called Eden that was the one-time home of two people named Adam and Eve. I would also emphatically agree that there was never a God-being who said X, Y, Z to whomever at whatever time and place in history.

According to certain Christian thinkers, Jesus is some sort of 'ransom payment' for the sins committed by Adam and Eve. As in, Adam and Eve did exist, were real people, did do something bad and that to make up for it, along comes Jesus. Without the Garden of Eden story being true, what exactly is Jesus supposed to be paying for?

Now of course, you may not think this at all, but at that point, you would be a type of Christian I am unfamiliar with.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 1 by theophile]

First of all, it's regrettable that the apologists you called for haven't as yet shown up to offer suggestions on how to "further the conversation." I would love to hear from them.

You're obviously frustrated at the "arguments endlessly raised" by non-theists and desperately want to "progress the conversation," "move it forward," and "move the conversation forward" (x2).

I would sincerely like to know what you think might move the conversation forward. You must have some ideas of your own.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by theophile]

First of all, it's regrettable that the apologists you called for haven't as yet shown up to offer suggestions on how to "further the conversation." I would love to hear from them.

You're obviously frustrated at the "arguments endlessly raised" by non-theists and desperately want to "progress the conversation," "move it forward," and "move the conversation forward" (x2).

I would sincerely like to know what you think might move the conversation forward. You must have some ideas of your own.

I certainly can't speak for Theophile, but just as an observation it appears to me that Theophile is looking for some way to move the conversation "forward" at least to the point of obtaining some sort of agreement that the Bible is at least "special" in some way.

Again I can only say how this "appears to me", it appears that Theophile is arguing for agreement on potentially one or more of the following points:

1. Without the teachings of Christianity humans would have no clue how to live properly.

2. Recognition or agreement that the Bible contains an extraordinary amount of "richness" that cannot be found in other sources.

3. That because Jesus claimed to be teaching "the way, the truth, and the life" it must then be true that this is what he was teaching.

~~~~~

Like I say, this appears to be what Theophile is hoping to move forward on. Perhaps there is a hope to then move even further into the theology after some acceptance of the above is obtained?

Like I say, I could be mistaken. But this is how it appears to me at this current time.

The problem I see at this point is that I have no reason to accept any of the above. So I can't even climb on board with this much.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 1 by theophile]

First of all, it's regrettable that the apologists you called for haven't as yet shown up to offer suggestions on how to "further the conversation." I would love to hear from them.

You're obviously frustrated at the "arguments endlessly raised" by non-theists and desperately want to "progress the conversation," "move it forward," and "move the conversation forward" (x2).

I would sincerely like to know what you think might move the conversation forward. You must have some ideas of your own.

I certainly can't speak for Theophile, but just as an observation it appears to me that Theophile is looking for some way to move the conversation "forward" at least to the point of obtaining some sort of agreement that the Bible is at least "special" in some way.

Again I can only say how this "appears to me", it appears that Theophile is arguing for agreement on potentially one or more of the following points:

1. Without the teachings of Christianity humans would have no clue how to live properly.

2. Recognition or agreement that the Bible contains an extraordinary amount of "richness" that cannot be found in other sources.

3. That because Jesus claimed to be teaching "the way, the truth, and the life" it must then be true that this is what he was teaching.

~~~~~

Like I say, this appears to be what Theophile is hoping to move forward on. Perhaps there is a hope to then move even further into the theology after some acceptance of the above is obtained?

Like I say, I could be mistaken. But this is how it appears to me at this current time.

The problem I see at this point is that I have no reason to accept any of the above. So I can't even climb on board with this much.

Well taken, but you might have stepped too far in your interpretation of what Theophile meant.

Theophile presents four classifications of arguments he says non-theists use to make their points and he has grown weary of the same old arguments.

To other apologists, he wants to know "what are our responses to these higher level arguments that can at last help us move the conversation forward, and stop us from rehashing the same old debates over and over again?"

I don't know what he is expecting to find, accomplish, or move forward. Is he looking for a way to move non-believers out of their arguments to something he can maybe better control? Does he have any ideas of his own about how to move the arguments to a higher level? What exactly does he mean by "higher level"?

Perhaps he is looking for a shortcut of some kind that will eliminate the details and get to the crux of the matter. If that's the case, I applaud his efforts, but I think it's wishing upon a star.

As I said, I wish other apologists would take part in the discussion as stated in the OP. Giving Theophile the benefit of the doubt maybe he is really on to something and it would be interesting to see where it goes.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 23 by wiploc]

But let's look at a simple Christian proposition, that we should love each other. That the greatest among us are those who serve the lowest among us. Do you need an argument to support and to affirm such a statement? Would you call that a fake gold chain that someone is trying to push on you?

No, that's good stuff. When theists pretend that they own those ideas, that we can't get there except thru theism, then we're dealing with fakes.

I would never prescribe theism as the only way to such ideas. I would, however, propose the bible as the most radical, consistent and sustained attempt to think such an idea through that I've encountered at least.

Your view seems to put good arguments or logic in high esteem. It's a bit of twisted theology if you will (instead of theo-logy as God's-logos it is logos-as-God)...

I went and looked up "logos," but I still don't know what you're saying.

Logos as word -> reason. As logic or argument.

My point was that IF a perfect argument (i.e., logic) for God would compel your belief in God, then you've got yourself in a twisted situation where logic, not God, is your true God. i.e., it is logic, not God, that you truly believe in, and that makes other things (God in this case) believable...

This scenario defeats God, since God can't possibly be God if it takes a perfect argument to compel your belief in God. (God would be subordinated to logos.)

If you proved something, I would believe it. That doesn't feel twisted.

It's more a question of what is it that you truly value. Is logic #1?

I don't see that atheists are less likely to love life, and I assume we're much better at finding the logic of it. So-- according to your argument--we should conclude that atheists are better Christians than Christians, right?

Same question as before. And here I would reiterate: life and love of life is the starting point. Value life above all else. The interesting question is what happens once we think that through fully... What does logic declare?

This, again, is what I think the bible is superior at. It forces us to think this through in the hardest of situations. I don't think any atheist has ever pushed it so far. And most on this site get queasy when it comes to the hard questions.

Like what if it was our enemy who was lying on the side of the rode beaten and dying? Or what if only 1 person on earth was good, and all the rest were bringing things down? The bible faces up to these edge cases, and follows through the life-loving logic. (While atheists argue about how immoral it is to wipe the slate clean and start things anew...)

These are the truly hard questions where our love of life is tested and the bible is willing to push through to the hard answers.

So no, we should not conclude that atheists are better than Christians. At least not in regard to the teachings of source texts.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 37 by amortalman]

I don't know what he is expecting to find, accomplish, or move forward. Is he looking for a way to move non-believers out of their arguments to something he can maybe better control? Does he have any ideas of his own about how to move the arguments to a higher level? What exactly does he mean by "higher level"?

If we can group the numerous arguments against Christianity into higher level categories, and find Christian responses to these, we can simplify the situation, clear the air, and possibly find some space to move the conversation forward. (Ultimately my goal is to break down the barriers, for I see no necessary divide between atheism and theism - secular and religious).

For instance, when it comes to arguments against Christianity of an historical nature, there are many. You can go to the main page of this forum and find them ranging from questioning if Jesus ever existed, if a certain event in his life ever happened, why there is no evidence of a flood, etc., etc., etc......

Instead of handling all these one at a time, can we not respond to the higher level category and stop the bleeding of a thousand cuts?

In this case, my goal would be to detach the bible from history. Which if we can do that without diminishing the value of its teachings, all these thousand little arguments are moot.

[Divine Insight]

I would never prescribe theism as the only way to such ideas. I would, however, propose the bible as the most radical, consistent and sustained attempt to think such an idea through that I've encountered at least.

That's certainly a personal opinion that could be discussed. I've read the Bible and many other religious texts. I have personally found other religious texts to be better at this.

So this would basiccally end no different from disagreeing on our favorite flavor of ice-cream. How in the world could we ever convince the other to change our preference?

This, again, is what I think the bible is superior at. It forces us to think this through in the hardest of situations. I don't think any atheist has ever pushed it so far. And most on this site get queasy when it comes to the hard questions.

And this amounts to nothing more than an insult or degrading innuendo toward atheists implying that they get "queasy" when it comes to the hard questions.

Do you realize that all you have done here is voice an extremely biased and judgemental opinion? Why would you suggest that atheists get "queasy" when face with hard questions? Where is your evidence for this accusation?

(Ultimately my goal is to break down the barriers, for I see no necessary divide between atheism and theism - secular and religious).

If you are sincere about breaking down barriers why would you make derogatory accusations against atheists suggesting that they get "queasy" when faced with hard questions?

For instance, when it comes to arguments against Christianity of an historical nature, there are many. You can go to the main page of this forum and find them ranging from questioning if Jesus ever existed, if a certain event in his life ever happened, why there is no evidence of a flood, etc., etc., etc......

Instead of handling all these one at a time, can we not respond to the higher level category and stop the bleeding of a thousand cuts?

In this case, my goal would be to detach the bible from history. Which if we can do that without diminishing the value of its teachings, all these thousand little arguments are moot.

And exactly what is preventing you from doing this?

Can't you just start a thread to debate the value of the biblical teachings and make it clear in that thread that you aren't interested in discussing historical verification, or any sort of proof of the existence of God, etc.

You could just say that you want to debate solely on the "value" of the Biblical teachings.

In fact, I believe I had already proposed that we could have that debate if you like.

It would then be up to you to show that the teachings of the Bible are "valuable" to the point where normal decent people couldn't have come to similar conclusions on their own.

I mean, after all, if the Bible has nothing to teach that I couldn't figure out for myself, then where is there any "value" in that?

~~~~~

Please note: I'm just trying to help you out here. I would like to see you move FORWARD into a meaningful debate as well. But thus far this thread doesn't seem to be moving forward much at all.