Opinions, arguments, pro et contra, ...? — jorndoe

Is preaching warranted? From a Christian POV (not that I have one of those, you understand), I'm told by some people who do have one, that preaching is not only warranted but mandated on account of the need for "all the Nations" to hear the Good News before the end comes...

Statistically, apparently, there are some 2.2 billion Christians out of total world population of about 7.6 billion - so that means if every Christian took this mandate on board and preached to no more than 3 or 4 others today, the end could very well come tomorrow. I'm not holding my breath!

where is the evidence for that? — Mariner

Some evidence, observations and such (some mentioned prior):

• no reports of Yahweh having informed a group of people of Him and the importance of the Bible, without them already having been informed thereof by other humans; likewise for others (Ahura Mazda, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, Allah)

If memory serves, the Mormons' claim that Jesus visited the Americas has been thrown in the bin a few times over. Otherwise, that might comprise more significant evidence. If Allah (perhaps via Gabriel) had spread "The Word" through the Americas and Australia, then we'd have more significant evidence.

Compare this list (Wikipedia)

Did Yahweh inform you (the preacher) about Him and the importance of the Bible, or did other (fallible) humans?

• having whichever scriptures self-legitimize/authenticate/authorize/certify doesn't quite work (especially not if there already are ultimate authorities originators authors around) ^{e.g. the Great Commission (Bible, Matthew 28:16-20), "Allah says the Quran is the final truth; Allah says so in the Quran."}
• ... the Biblical Yahweh is only known from manmade scriptures
• are scriptures words of Yahweh, or is Yahweh words in scriptures?
• Authorship of the Bible (Wikipedia)
• Ahura Mazda, Yahweh, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, Allah, etc refuses to authenticate and legitimize preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) to the subjects/targets of those preachers
• Ahura Mazda, Yahweh, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, Allah, etc refuses to delegitimize other preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) to the subjects/targets of those preachers
• ... Yahweh has not authorized Christians to speak on His behalf
• there's an obvious disproportionality between the (asserted) importance of messages from universal deities, and their delivery ^{e.g. Muhammad had private sessions with Gabriel in a cave, receiving messages from Allah of the utmost importance for all mankind, to be written down by Muhammad's friends (and your soul is at stake)}
• roughly, anything found in King James Bible that's not in Jefferson's edition has no particular historicity, but are matters of faith (which is fine for what it is) ^{e.g. supernaturally feeding 5000 + 4000 people with a handful of food}
• almighty deities would have no trouble informing humans, whereas humans would have to be told by whichever deity there may be how to approach them (if somehow strangely needed)
• deities neither evident nor necessary, just humans and humans alone
• by the way, fictional characters can't legitimize preachers to the subjects/targets of those preachers

Not going to launch critiques of scriptures here. Suffice it to say, that'd be tedious and lengthy testaments to human creativity.

Is this a question about law? — bert1

Nah, freedom is not the topic (nor on the negotiation table).
Though, I suppose, Heaven's Gate should have received some sort of intervention?

no reports of Yahweh having informed a group of people of Him — jorndoe

Really?

No reports?

This, to my mind, is equivalent to "there are no bugs in my house". Have you bothered to look for them?

Perhaps you mean "no credible reports". Which would open the door to a discussion on standards of credibility. Probably off-topic.

But if you truly mean "no reports", you haven't bothered to look for them. (One of the great places to look for them, curiously enough, is the Bible. But there are others).

As for the larger argument, if someone has something [that he perceives as] good and wishes more people to have that, what is the problem? As long as no one's freedoms are being trampled, that is. (We are not talking about the cartoon version of missionaries).

[One point is that many atheist arguments begin with the presumption that Biblical and other sacred texts are fictitious or purely mythical by default, and that the burden of proof is on the believer to show that they’re not. But then the requirement for what constitutes ‘evidence’ is something like peer-reviewed empirical data.

The "...without them already having been informed thereof by other humans" part is important. Off the top of my head I can't think of any accounts in the Bible of God showing up to talk to someone who was previously completely unaware of his existence. That's the point about Jesus showing up to the Americas being a potential counterpoint, if those accounts held up.

I can't think of any accounts in the Bible of God showing up to talk to someone who was previously completely unaware of his existence. — Pfhorrest

So the Burning Bush doesn't qualify?

Moses was a Hebrew. Yahweh was already their god. The Burning Bush wasn't the first time Moses had ever heard of him.

Surely a direct encounter amounts to something more than 'having heard of'. The point is, the Bible has many descriptive passages of God revealing Himself - hence the term 'revealed truth'. And no, I'm not a Biblical scholar, and can't pull examples out of memory without going and reading up on it, which I'm not inclined to do. But I think the point I'm making stands: that moderns will tend to look for the kind of evidence which can be validated on empirical grounds, which thereby automatically precludes consideration of all such texts. And then, having taken all of such accounts off the table, will demand: 'so where's the evidence'? To which the answer is: 'nowhere, so there's nothing to discuss. Good day.'

My point is just that @jorndoe didn't say there are no accounts, credible or otherwise, of gods ever appearing to people, but that there are no accounts of gods appearing to people who were not already aware of those gods because of being part of a culture where people already believed in them. Gods, it seems, only appear to people who were already aware of them, according to their own holy texts.

I'm not sure what his point was in saying that, but accounts of gods appearing to their preexisting believers isn't a counterexample to it.

there are no accounts of gods appearing to people who were not already aware of those gods — Pfhorrest

There was St Paul on the road to Damascus.

Paul knew of Christianity prior to converting to it, as he had been actively persecuting Christians for their beliefs before adopting them himself.

Whoops. Sorry.

No problem.

Looking back at the OP again, I think @jorndoe's point in bringing this up is that whatever god or gods there might be, they apparently let people carry on having never heard of them (until other humans show up to tell them) when they could, being all powerful, immediately and directly inform everyone of their existence themselves; which then raises doubts about whether they care for people to be informed of their existence in the first place.

Yes I agree the argument undermines the legitimacy of all prophetic revelation.

there are no accounts of gods appearing to people who were not already aware of those gods because of being part of a culture where people already believed in them. — Pfhorrest

There are no accounts of people who were aware of Newton's Laws of Motion before Newton published them.

Jorndoe is holding religious revelation to anthropomorphic standards, i.e. what he would expect from a 'divine being' if such a being adhered to modern liberal democratic standards.

There are no accounts of people who were aware of Newton's Laws of Motion before Newton published them. — Wayfarer

Besides Newton himself. In contrast we don't even have an account in the Bible of the first person who learned of God's existence. It's always treated as obvious to everyone that God exists, and just a question of whether or not to obey and worship him.

But also, we don't expect the laws of physics to even be able to have personal desires and do personal actions like telling people about themselves. We do often expect that of gods, and as you've pointed out, there's lots of accounts of them doing personal things like that, speaking to people, expressing wants (by way of issuing commands, at least), and so on.

It's always treated as obvious to everyone that God exists, and just a question of whether or not to obey and worship him. — Pfhorrest

It's treated as revealed truth.

But also, we don't expect the laws of physics to even be able to have personal desires and do personal actions like telling people about themselves. — Pfhorrest

Nevertheless it is the case that for secular philosophy, 'the laws of physics' are the nearest thing to divine writ.

It's treated as revealed truth. — Wayfarer

In the active religion it is, but in the holy texts of such religion it is not. In the holy texts, everyone just already knows that God exists. Nobody ever has a moment (that I can recall... open to Bible quotes showing otherwise) of suddenly having the existence of God revealed to them by himself.

Abraham heard of God without reading a text. So did Isaac. So did Jacob. Sure, the children heard of God from Abraham, but they also had direct revelations.

The same applies to Noah. Or to Moses. Or to Samson. Or to David. Or to Salomon. Keep moving until the 21st century (i.e. beyond the Old and New Testaments) and you will always find reports (actually lots of them) of direct revelations.

The idea that a direct revelation somehow "does not count" because the recipient had heard about God once before requires a separate argument for it. I have no idea about what would this argument look like; and I'm pretty confident that it would also mean that countries, laws, traditions, habits, etc. etc. would not "count". Leading to an untenable situation.

If I'm understanding @jorndoe's point correctly, it's not about the credibility of reports of direct revelations, it's about how, if you take religions' own accounts from their own holy texts at their word, it seems that the gods therein are perfectly content to let people go about not knowing about them, because those texts never give accounts of someone who didn't know anything about the gods directly finding out about them from the gods themselves.

Jacob and Isaac, as you say, heard about God from Abraham first. All of the other names you list were Hebews who would have been raised in cultures that worshiped him. Abraham sounds more believable since he founded the Abrahamic religions that worship that God, but I'm not remembering Abraham first learning about God's existence, just God giving him some commands and Abraham seeming to already understand who it was talking to him. Can you find me the passage where Abraham first meets God and learns of his existence?

@Pfhorrest, you seem better at reading than some other commentators. (y)

Really? — Mariner

You forgot the rest. And authorship, self-legitimization, disproportionality, ... (Microscope deprecated here.)

(emphasis mine)

One point is that many atheist arguments begin with the presumption¹ that Biblical and other sacred texts are fictitious or purely mythical by default, and that the burden of proof is on the believer to show that they’re not. But then the requirement for what constitutes ‘evidence’ is something like peer-reviewed empirical data². — Wayfarer

1. Check this comment.
2. Preachers aren't just talking about feelings, epic experiences and revelations (and that someone spoke with a burning bush on their own out in the countryside); they claim to be talking about the real world, and matters that supposedly apply to all. The moment they do that they're right back here with us (and Newtons laws).

So the Burning Bush doesn't qualify? — Wayfarer

Again, self-legitimization, disproportionality, ... (Telling tall tales? Won't do.)

To which the answer is: 'nowhere, so there's nothing to discuss. Good day.' — Wayfarer

That's all? Skipping interference in politics and other peoples' lives, I'll just refer to indoctrination (mentioned prior).

There are no accounts of people who were aware of Newton's Laws of Motion before Newton published them. — Wayfarer

Compare this list (Wikipedia)

(I'd comment a bit more, but don't really think it's needed...?)

Jorndoe is holding religious revelation to anthropomorphic standards, i.e. what he would expect from a 'divine being' if such a being adhered to modern liberal democratic standards. — Wayfarer

No, I have no expectations either way (already suggested here).
I'll just ask for authentic legitimacy of preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) the moment they start preaching, be they Shaivists, Catholics, Sunnis or Mormons.

countries, laws, traditions, habits — Mariner

Are any of these words of authoritative absent gods, preached by people claiming to speak authentically and legitimately on their behalf?
(Really don't want to get into things like the awful Israel versus Palestine situation.) :(

Just remembered:

It is a peculiar habit of God's that when he wishes to reveal himself to mankind, he will communicate only with a single person. The rest of mankind must learn the truth from that person and thus purchase their knowledge of the divine at the cost of subordination to another human being, who is eventually replaced by a human institution, so that the divine remains under other people's control. — Patricia Crone

Let me just remind that this stuff isn't just about Yahweh and the Bible.

Preachers aren't just talking about feelings, epic experiences and revelations (and that someone spoke with a burning bush on their own out in the countryside); they claim to be talking about the real world, and matters that supposedly apply to all. — jorndoe

The real world, eh? You think that is something nailed down? You do know about the 4% universe? The 'sliding door reality' of Everett's many worlds?

I'll just ask for authentic legitimacy of preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) the moment they start preaching, be they Shaivists, Catholics, Sunnis or Mormons. — jorndoe

Which is that they should be publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, right? The only sources of authentic knowledge of the real world, right?

Let me see if I can articulate your argument. I think you're saying that if something amounts to valid knowledge, then it must be publicly available. That if claims about holy beings are true, then anyone should be able to validate them or see the evidence for such claims. And furthermore that if such holy beings really did want humans to know them, then they would make themselves clear in ways that we could all understand. Is that about the drift?

You think that is something nailed down? — Wayfarer

Of course not. I readily admit ignorance. Preachers, on the other hand, ...

The only sources of authentic knowledge of the real world, right? — Wayfarer

Or, say, Shiva, Yahweh, Allah, ... Except:

• Ahura Mazda, Yahweh, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, Allah, etc refuses to authenticate and legitimize preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) to the subjects/targets of those preachers
• Ahura Mazda, Yahweh, Shiva, Mahavira, Vishnu, Tonatiuh, Allah, etc refuses to delegitimize other preachers (indoctrinators proselytizers) to the subjects/targets of those preachers — jorndoe

Is that about the drift? — Wayfarer

Nope.

Feel free to assume so, and respond to that, though.

Consider the issue from the perspective of the psychology or the psychodynamics of religion.

What after all are religions setting out to deliver? I mean, science is generally clear about that, because it starts out by defining scope, subject matter, methods, and results. Predictions and equations on the left-hand side, results on the right-hand side.

Religion is nothing like that. In some sense, it's a first-person undertaking, it demands personal, or first-person, assent. So criticizing it for not employing scientific methodology, which is third-person, misses the point.

To try and articulate what religion is about in a general sense, consider this passage from Bill Vallicella's blog which paraphrases Josiah Royce (great 19th c American idealist) as follows.

The religious person perceives our present life, or our natural life, as radically deficient, deficient from the root (radix) up, as fundamentally unsatisfactory; he feels it to be, not a mere condition, but a predicament; it strikes him as vain or empty if taken as an end in itself; he sees himself as homo viator, as a wayfarer (!) or pilgrim treading a via dolorosa through a vale that cannot possibly be a final and fitting resting place; he senses or glimpses from time to time the possibility of a Higher Life; he feels himself in danger of missing out on this Higher Life of true happiness. If this doesn't strike a chord in you, then I suggest you do not have a religious disposition. Some people don't, and it cannot be helped. One cannot discuss religion with them, for it cannot be real to them. It is not, for them, what William James in "The Will to Believe" calls a "living option," let alone a "forced" or "momentous" one.

https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2014/10/josiah-royce-and-the-paradox-of-revelation.html

I relate to that, as it describes my spiritual quest pretty accurately. But then if you've never had that sense, then sure, I see why it all seems meaningless. It's like peering through a soundproof window at an orchestra, and wondering what they all could possibly be doing. ('What are those things they're holding??')

Preachers, on the other hand, ... — jorndoe

I perfectly agree that dogmatic fundamentalism is odious. And they're the kinds of preachers that claim to have 'all the answers'. But there are also religious philosophers who are much more concerned with questions, than with answers. It's a kind of empirical dogma that faith is 'holding to propositions for which there is no evidence'.

Nobody ever has a moment (that I can recall... open to Bible quotes showing otherwise) of suddenly having the existence of God revealed to them by himself. — Pfhorrest

That is probably more damning for the modern man's consciousness than for the ancients. They also did not record any "sudden realization" that water is wet -- though you may be sure they realized it independently, without instruction from teachers.

I wrote a thread in the old PF about how modern man is unequipped to understand what "God's existence" refers to. A thorough reboot of the system is required -- a reboot consisting of shedding preconceptions (not specifically about God, but about the "real world").

A new and perhaps more depressing thread would be about how our schooling methods have a lot of responsibility in this. They make a desert and call it heaven, and then they get surprised at the ever-increasing hikes in suicide rates..

If I may try to paragraph @jorndoe's overall point, as I understand it:

"Hey God(s), if you're up there, a bunch of people keep telling me contradictory things about you, and I don't know which of them to believe. Since you're all-powerful and it'd be super easy for you, would you mind letting me know yourself which if any of them I should listen to? ...hello? Are you there, God? It's me, Jorndoe..."

In other words, the conclusion isn't God(s) don't exist, it's that if they exist they apparently don't care to set the record straight as to who if anyone is speaking on their behalf, and so probably aren't authorizing most if not all of these contradictory proselytizers to speak on their behalf at all. If they even exist.

(Microscope deprecated here.) — jorndoe

If it is unnecessary for the larger argument, just say so.

Are any of these words of authoritative absent gods, preached by people claiming to speak authentically and legitimately on their behalf? — jorndoe

Yep, for the most part.

Ever looked at Supreme Court discussions? If you don't realize that they are "referring to authoritative absent gods, claiming to speak authentically and legitimately on their behalf", then you should explore the notion of "gods" in more detail.