No, Im sorry. I didn't even realize it was a common objection and was just putting it out there. — ENOAH

No need to be sorry, some clever people have put forward this argument over the years. And it shows up on this site every now and then.

Some still accept it has value.

I've usually held that the Golden Rule isn’t about everyone liking the same things; it’s about considering the other person’s preferences and needs. It asks us to use empathy and respect for other's perspectives and preferences, rather than imposing your own tastes.

While I'm in agreement, I’m not sure it’s a principle I follow. For me, morality doesn’t require codifications or prescriptive rules like this.

Yes, that’s the response I have often given to this common objection.

Prayer might be seen as the soul’s living communion with God, while meditation is a reflective or preparatory exercise that may incline one to prayer, yet is not itself the act of addressing the divine. I suspect many sometimes confuse the two, meditating when they think they are praying, and praying when they think they are merely meditating. That said, I think they are related but much of this will flow from the definitions you hold.

One might ask this: how many who presume to pray are truly opening themselves to God, and how many are merely rehearsing their own desires, making nothing more than a crass shopping list of wants?

Again, I'm interested in looking at things from the perspective of a (prospective) insider, and specifically, "What would it be like and what would it take to become a practitioner and to obtain the promised results?"

You seem to be interested in some objective, external analysis of the situation and people. It's not clear why. — baker

I’m interested in the same thing. I don’t think it’s correct for you to suggest that because I disagree, I’m interested in a wrong aspect of this discussion, or in some ‘objective’ and erroneous analysis. We’re just having a conversation, and what I said would apply to both an insider and an outsider. I simply resisted the idea you put forward that my argument would not be understood by an insider. But let's move on since this is a minor part of the overall discussion.

A seeker has to know the history and the formal power that the leaders have in the religion he's approaching, even if there are at first unpalatable aspects to this.

Whether a given pope had doubts or not, in history he could make whatever decision he wanted, which shows the abuse of power is inherent in the authority, not the doubting.
Were the Inquisition and the Crusades an abuse of power, or a mere use of power? What if the popes in the past did what they did because they were "further along than you"? — baker

The point I made was that it would be okay for a pope to have doubts, and that this would not make him a bad pope. You took us to stake burning for reasons that are still unclear to me. You introduced the notion of an abuse of power, but to my knowledge the discussion was not about this. It was about whether a follower of a religion, or a pope, can have doubts about their faith and still be a productive member of that faith. I say yes. You seem to say no. I have heard no good reason why.

The more common form of punishment is to slowly push the doubting person out of the group, without this ever being made explicit and instead made to look like the person's own choice and fault. — baker

Yes, this happens especially in fundamentalist groups. But so what? Humans often shun people they disagree with or do not understand. This seems to occur when there is dogma and a kind of certainty that brooks no diversity. It would be nice, wouldn’t it, to expect religious followers or theists more specifically to behave in superior ways to the rest of the community, but they don’t. It seems we can’t expect people in a religion to behave differently from people in a family, a sporting club, or a corporate management group. Does this tell us that religions are just ordinary beliefs in fancy dress, or does it say we strive imperfectly to reach God?

For example, if you're poor and female and new to the religion, you'll be considered as something of a spiritual retard and treated like this (at least metaphorically, but possibly physically, too). And this is by people you are supposed to depend on for your spiritual guidance. So what do you do? Do you accept that they are "further along than you" and that you need to accept their treatment (however abusive you find it)? — baker

This may well be the case if the religion is misogynist, classist, and elitist. In such cases, it seems we have a religion where more followers need to doubt those doctrines and work to reform beliefs. This is, of course, how religions around the world have modified some of the practices such as those you describe above and have become, often owing to secular influences, more inclusive and generous. I’m not aware of a religion that doesn’t acquire its attitudes and behaviors from mainstream secular life, it’s just that some source those beliefs from earlier times, or from more radical or conservative values.

To an outsider, this makes sense. To an insider or a prospective insider, it doesn't. — baker

That sounds like a kind of argument from authority. The authority in this instance is the insider, whose world the outsider could not possibly understand. I'm not convinced.

Really? And you don't mind submitting to such a doubting pope? You don't mind if such a pope, being the Grand Inquisitor, orders people like you (including you) to be burnt at the stakes for heresy? — baker

How did we suddenly arrive at stake burning? Whether a given pope had doubts or not, in history he could make whatever decision he wanted, which shows the abuse of power is inherent in the authority, not the doubting. Of course, no pope has ordered this in centuries, nor could one today. So I’m not sure what this point is doing here.

What I want is to put yourself in the shoes of a seeker, an outsider even, or at most a beginner, who shows up in a religious organization and witnesses there are double standards: those higher up in the hierarchy don't have to act in line with the tenets of the religious organization, but those lower in the hierarchy do, and are punished if they don't. Now what do you make of it? — baker

Well, this doesn’t really address the issue of whether holding doubts within a belief system is good or bad. What you describe just seems to be common human behavior. But what do you mean by a 'double standard'? Are you referencing a hypocrisy, or a bifurcated belief system with different practices for each stream? An elitist stream and an ordinary or folk stream?

Who is punished for not holding a particular belief today, except by faiths with narrow, intolerant, and fundamentalist belief systems? Apostates are hanged in some Islamic countries. Do we consider this an authentic expression of God’s will? Perhaps some robust doubt might be reasonable here.

As an aside, isn't it the case that in hierarchies there is often a large gulf between the top and lower levels in terms of belief? Sometimes this is simply a question of education and sophistication. Beliefs about the nature of God, built from classical theism and held by an educated Jesuit, will be completely different from the God beliefs built from the theistic personalism of a common believer.

My posts are not about how leaders should act, but about how a seeker can understand the actions of those leaders when they preach one thing and expect it from the lowly others, but they themselves don't adhere to what they preach. — baker

I'm sure there are a range of interpretations possible. For one thing, a leader may say, "I don’t need to do this because I am further along than you, but you do."

And finally, humans themselves. What should they do? What should they do? Even in everyday life, machines already do our laundry, robot vacuums, and so on. And tomorrow, will a specially trained robot entertain and educate our children? Provide attention to our wives? What will remain for us? — Astorre

Are we anywhere near this yet? If you want household chores properly done, you hire someone to do them or do them yourself. Robot vacuums are pretty shit, and who actually uses machines for most of these tasks?

But if machines and AI replace humans, this could be a great thing. Many, perhaps most, jobs are shit. Imagine lawyers being replaced by AI, this could democratise access to the law.

We seem addicted to catastrophic visions of the future. It passes as common sense that everything is getting worse and that the future will be apocalyptic. But so far, in my lifetime (in the West), things have been better every decade in terms of technology and available free time. Many of us currently seem to be hypervigilant, spotting impending disasters everywhere: environmental, political, technological. Every cloud seems to have a grimy lining.

If ordinary people don't participate in politics, what is the chance really for democracy to work? — ssu

Yes. One of the most powerful tools of the status quo and certain corporate interests is the idea that all is hopeless, all parties are the same. If people give up, nothing can change.

This is exactly what the 'you must completely adhere to the teachings or you are going to get nowhere' folks in the thread, and the usual mindset I see when I have asked similar questions elsewhere in the past, are like imo. Fundamental uncritical faith or you are not practising at all. — unimportant

I think there are many people in religion and politics for whom rigid categories and binary thinking make sense. It’s how they see the world. For them, it’s all or nothing; you’re either for me or against me, that kind of thing. They tend to think in absolutes, with little room for nuance or ambiguity.

Also didn't he become enlightened by refuting all the myriad systems he tried before and looking for his own way? — unimportant

Yes, I think that’s right, and that’s why I labelled him a doubter earlier. From what little I know, he seems to have doubted (perhaps eschewed is a better term) rigid categories, established authorities, hierarchies, rituals, and inherited structures. But when someone establishes a new system, it is generally predicated on rejecting the "sacred truths" of other systems.

How far would he have gotten if he followed these 'total faith in one school or nothing' folks? There would be no Buddhism. — unimportant

I have a minor knowledge of the history or development of Buddhism, but that's an interesting line of inquiry. Religions tend to have a scattered period of formation followed by ossification and rigidity. I have a mild curiosity about Buddhism, but it’s been many years since I read about it. To me, in my culture it often seems to be the religion some Westerners embrace when they fail to find Christianity satisfying and simultaneously find themselves unable to be secular humanists. It’s been the counterculture faith.:razz:

Really? You believe than an honorable person will take on positions of power in a religious organization whose tenets they doubt? — baker

Of course. But you overstate this. They might take issue with some or several things, not all things. I would have serious concerns with someone who is 100% accepting of any philosophy or religion.

You like a pope who doubts God exists, for example? — baker

You pick an unlikely one. But a Pope who doubts aspects of doctrine and practice is natural.

And that said, a Pope who doubts particular accounts of God (theistic personalism or a vengeful God) yes, absolutely.

This matter doesn't seem to be an either/or situation.

An honorable person will simply not take on positions of power in a religious organization whose tenets they doubt. — baker

That’s obviously your strong opinion. But I don’t think doubt is the same thing as dishonesty or bad faith. Nor do I think it can be shown that certainty is a prerequisite for integrity. Many religious traditions have been shaped by doubters, dissenters, and people who challenged prevailing beliefs. You may prefer to divide the world into exceptional figures who doubt and challenge, like Jesus or the Buddha, and everyone else who should kneel in deference, but that strikes me more as the posture of an arch-conservative, rather than a fact. I don't know where you are coming from in this maybe you can say soem more.

I don’t see how hiding their doubts would indicate a greater seriousness. If they’re serious about preserving the religion then yeah, I suppose hiding one’s doubts about it could show a serious effort to towards the conservation of it. For a serious spiritual seeker, on the other hand, questioning and doubt may come with the territory. — praxis

I’m essentially with you on this. A lack of doubt is a red flag for me. People without doubt tend toward fundamentalism or zealotry. Certainty, and deference to power, are seductive for certain people: acolytes and followers, most notably. Certainty is also the perfect mindset if you wish to practice a little mass murder.

I think it’s pretty much the same with all religions: they promise salvation but only deliver limitations. — praxis

Or they promise limitations and deliver salvation. Depends on your point of view. :wink:

The only earphones I’ve ever owned are the little ones that sit inside your ear, like suppositories.

I don't know exactly how Allison would respond to this. I suspect he would say something like "I think my interpretation is better grounded than alternatives, and I am prepared to defend that claim even if it is ultimately not coercively demonstrable by appeal to neutral, public criteria." — Esse Quam Videri

Hmm, almost anyone can make that point and then go on to assert virtually anything about a given matter with impunity.

There are few things more tedious than debates about the meaning of Bible verses, so I apologise for even raising Mark, which interestingly never presents us with a resurrected Christ.

With the resurrection, God vindicates the executed one. The system that killed him is exposed and violence is judged, not justified. Seen in this light the meaning of the resurrection becomes: "liberation is costly because the world violently resists it — and God sides with the one who bears that cost". That is not blood-fetishism, but moral realism. — Esse Quam Videri

I’m not convinced by this account, but it’s nicely argued. Perhaps it's a bit too small to fully explain the significance of the crucifixion, or why an omnipotent God would find it necessary to undergo such a ritual to make a point about violence that seems largely lost on the religion inspired by the story; particularly given the extreme brutality the Church has employed over the centuries in imposing its vision.

But I’ll include this in my list of potential interpretations and, in time, perhaps further material will emerge that will make sense of this story. Maybe we need a competition for the best interpretation of the story. Apologies to we should probably stop here.

I think such matters boil down to intersubjective agreement. This is never unanimous, there are always dissenters, and the mores or systems we have, whether informal codes of conduct or formal laws, were built up over time. Some are now obsolete, some are too weak, and some are simply silly. The question is whether we think people would behave respectfully towards each other without the law.

Some might consider them related. :wink:

Yes, as I said earlier, the resurrection is subject to as many critical interpretations as Moby Dick. I suppose that suggests the matter isn’t really about uncovering “truth”, but about an aesthetic response to a narrative, shaped by time, culture and whatever values you hold.

Nicely worded. Thanks. The issue with these sorts of interpretations is that they remind me of differing readings of Moby Dick or any great novel.

The New Testament sometimes uses sacrificial imagery, but that imagery is metaphorical, drawn from Jewish covenantal language and morally reworked, not mechanically applied. When early Christians say Jesus “gave himself,” the emphasis is on self-giving, not divine requirement. A key shift happens here: God is not the one demanding blood; humans are the ones shedding it. That’s the inversion many later atonement theories obscure.

If the story ended on Friday the cross would simply be another example of justified brutality: suffering would be ennobled and violence would win.

But the resurrection functions as a reversal of meaning: the executed one is vindicated, the judgment of history is overturned, the logic that “might makes right” is exposed as false. — Esse Quam Videri

Well, we know what Nietzsche thought of this framing: that it valorised suffering and weakness and distorted life. Not that I’m a fan of his work.

Earlier you used the term reductive to critique my comments (and this isn’t intended as any kind of attack, just a friendly word game), but couldn’t it be said that this formulation is also reductive, in that it ignores the contours of the text and reduces the story to ethical symbolism?

Plenty of other versus to draw from, but when I read key passages like Mark 10:45:

“For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." I feel ritual sacrifice is central to the story.

Anyway, don't want to distract from the thread's main purpose. Perhaps we need a separate thread on the philosophical meaning of the crucifixion, which I'm sure will range from the prosaic to the exotic.

Where do we find morality? I know there are laws.

Again, I would say that this is probably overly reductionistic and perhaps even a bit uncharitable. — Esse Quam Videri

Well, I did point out that there were “innumerable” other interpretations so not necessarily.

The crucifixion (and the resurrection) were seen primarily as a symbolic condemnation of violence, not a sacralization of it. — Esse Quam Videri

Really? How so? One only has to look as the Christian tradition of self-flagellation, not to mention conservative Catholic, Mel Gibson’s The Passion to see how central suffering and bloody sacrifice are to notions of atonement for many believers. Suffering seems to be a path to redemption. I’m not saying that’s all there is, I’m asking how else can this be understood without resorting to idiosyncratic and poetic interpretations? What was the point of the crucifixion story, it seems incoherent?

In the Baptist tradition I grew up in, Jesus had to die to save us. His death leads to forgiveness and reconciliation. How so, I don’t think we were ever taught.

I'm guessing that Allison would concede that his affinity for Christianity is rooted in his cultural background. — Esse Quam Videri

That said, he also seems to think that the Christian tradition captures something unique that helps him to make sense of the world in a way not replicated by other traditions, and that the resurrection plays a role in that. — Esse Quam Videri

I think the second quote is an articulation of the first. It would make sense for the religion of one's cultural background to capture something the others don’t. Not that the reverse isn’t sometimes true for some people.

I’d be curious about the resurrection’s importance.

I have never understood the resurrection story, or, as some put it: God sacrificed Himself to Himself to save us from Himself because of a rule He made Himself.

That may be a bit glib, but the blood sacrifice element never made sense to me. The fact Jesus could walk away from it just demonstrated how little was sacrificed, he was omnipotent to begin with. No doubt there are innumerable theological exegeses to offer to redeem (sorry) this account.

Oh dear... go well, Wayfarer, we'll miss you. :up::up:

There are no rational grounds for believing this to be true. Religion, in general, deals with this successfully and easily overcomes i — Astorre

I think many belief systems cheerfully overcome facts: that’s a function of belief systems, whether religious or not. I think this applies to football teams and schools of literary criticism just as much as it does to Christianity.

My own answer is to aim for balance and try to be aware of what is happening inside. I also think (and this is also a personal choice) that one's emotions don't matter much to others, so keep them in check. :wink: I do think reason has a role and is important to try to weed out what is simple prejudice and habit from what is useful.

How does this impact Christianity in light of the OP? Do we have sufficient reason to think that Jesus was God and died for our sins? Personally, my conclusion is no. But I have never thought that an old book asserting something is, in itself, a reliable tool in the first place, regardless of what can be proven historically.

Allison would likely reject he NOMA label. — Esse Quam Videri

I'm sure he would, it just seemed to be a similar formulation with history standing in for science.

I often wonder, in such cases, why Christianity rather than Hinduism, Islam or Buddhism. When read deeply, they too offer vast contemplative opportunities. But it seems to be that Hindu children tend to see visions of Krishna in the woods, while Christian children see Mary by the river.

This is probably an unconscious response to your honesty. — Astorre

Thank you. I'm not honest so much as limited in scope.

By calling atheism "anti-religion," I'm declaring that it is the same construct for understanding the world as religiosity. The only difference is that a religious person (religious, not a sincere believer) constructs their understanding of the world by allowing for the presence of God, whereas an atheist constructs their understanding of the world by consciously excluding God. — Astorre

Again, that may apply to some forms of atheism, but it is not a sufficiently consistent line of thought.

What you may be thinking of is secular humanism, which is a more developed system and often presents itself as an alternative to religion.

Why have you drawn attention to yourself? I — Astorre

I hope I draw attention to others. I enjoy hearing what other people believe and why. That, to me, is the unique appeal of this forum: engaging with those beliefs. I’m not particularly attached to my own views; they are what they are largely because I have not found other beliefs to hold.

As for me personally, neither is surprising, since I construct my understanding of the world based on feelings. — Astorre

I tend to think that those who derive satisfaction from rationality or whatever else, do so because it ultimately appeals to them emotionally. Most of our beliefs are likely arrived at because they align with our feelings, with rational explanations often supplied afterward as ad hoc justifications.

With regards to (3) specifically he seems to say that belief in the resurrection is more akin to committing to a total vision of reality or interpreting history through a larger horizon. He often frames belief as a reasonable risk in light of the moral vision of Jesus, the coherence of Christian hope and the way the resurrection belief "fits" into a total viewpoint, etc. — Esse Quam Videri

Forgive my quick response. Sounds like Allison holds to a variation of the Non-Overlapping Magisteria between history and faith. I think there are a lot of games people can play to preserve a belief in a system. I met a Christian once who said Christ was a myth but he “believed” Christianity anyway because he liked the contemplative aspects of the faith and the hymns. Perhaps not much different to the Marxist who thinks history proves Marx wrong but the hope for a classless society and workers paradise keeps him committed to the Movement.


When someone talks of Jesus’ moral vision like this, of hope, etc, it does seem likely that they were raised and socialised in a Christian culture and ultimately captured by one version of that vision.

Why doesn't an atheist miss a single thread about Christianity? — Astorre

I’m interested in all religion; always have been. It's an easy subject to engage with given its ubiquity around the planet and it's influence on geopolitics. But I'm interested in a lot of subjects.

At the same time, I'd like to ask you personally: do you think atheism differs from indifference? — Astorre

It depends on the atheist. A common mistake some people make is to treat atheism as a worldview. It isn’t, it’s simply a claim about one’s position on gods. I know atheists who believe in the occult, ghosts, and other paranormal phenomena. So atheism isn’t necessarily connected to skepticism. Some atheists are conservative and some are progressive, so there's that too.

An atheist always needs to be convinced of atheism, whereas someone who is indifferent doesn't. — Astorre

Again depends. I think for many atheists it isn’t really a conviction. A conviction of what, exactly? For many, atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god. Contemporary atheists are more likely to say they don’t believe in gods rather than claim that there are no gods. Generally this is called an agnostic atheist since atheism goes to belief not knowledge. Of course some philosophers take issue with this formulation. That said, how can one be “convinced” of a lack of belief? You either believe or you don’t. What you may be is "unconvinced" that there are gods. I think it's well understood that there are hard atheists and soft atheists and atheists who are without any philosophical interest.

Yes, fair point.

You've moved to a teleological account. Teleology explains what counts as flourishing. It does not explain why flourishing is obligatory. — Banno

Yes, that seems fair. I guess the more observant among us would probably say: surely no one would willingly go against God if they had certain knowledge or faith?

In addition, one cannot act otherwise than in accord with the structure of reality. Both kicking the pup and feeding it are possible; Either is "in accordance with the structure of reality itself". "Acting in accordance with the structure of reality itself" tells us nothing about which to choose. — Banno

That made me laugh. I'll need to think about it.

A real founder doesn’t make miracle reports automatically credible. So, I’m not relying on “Jesus wasn’t real.” I’m asking whether the testimony for a bodily resurrection is strong enough even if we assume some historical origin. — Sam26

Absolutely and it's clear that this is your argument. No problem there.

On the Gospels, the anonymity and the gap in time matter here, not because “anonymous” means “false,” but because it complicates firsthand character, traceability, and corroboration — Sam26

Yes. For me, it has always been a question of whether we have good reason to accept these stories and my answer has always been no. Setting history aside, there are many contemporary accounts of Indian gurus healing the sick or performing miracles. But does that mean people are actually healing the sick or performing miracles? No.

And yes, the “Legend” option is relevant. It’s one of the ordinary alternatives that testimony has to be able to resist if it’s going to rise above conviction. Legends don’t require fraud. They require time, transmission, interpretive pressure, and communities that preserve meaning even when details shift. — Sam26

Yes I think this is well phrased.

I think it is useful to identify that religious stories are not necessarily generated by malevolent people seeking to manipulate others and lie abotu truth claims. Intersubjective communities build stories and traditions over time.

Even granting a stable core, “Jesus died, the followers proclaimed he was raised, and there were claims of appearances,” the consistency question turns on what happens when we ask for recoverable particulars. — Sam26

I know this is a different strand, but I don’t understand how the resurrection is supposed to be useful in the first place. Let’s assume it is true. Why would an immortal god enact a primitive blood sacrifice and ruin a weekend just to free people from rules he himself created? Why not simply appear and set people straight? It seems unnecessarily convoluted: if the goal is to guide or save humanity, there are far clearer ways to communicate or intervene. The story reads less like a practical solution and more like a patchwork of old religious myths woven into a narrative.

But the result is to remove any normative value from what is good, and to make it a mere fact - the will of god. The account fails to explain normativity. — Banno

Now, I’m no Thomist, but if goodness flows from God’s very nature, then, I suspect, normativity isn’t removed because acting rightly is acting in accordance with the structure of reality itself. Moral “oughts” are binding, not because God commands them, but because they reflect the very nature of goodness. But we could easily get lost in the metaphysical weeds here, and as an atheist, I feel somewhat silly trying to articulate this position.

Forgive my meandering response. From what I read, that all seems fair and seems to come down to “a book says a thing”. I wonder though, even if there were a couple of witnesses would this resolve the matter? How would we establish, centuries later, if a given witness is truthful or mistaken?

As I said on a different thread, isn’t it generally understood that, resurrection aside, there are no eyewitness accounts of whoever it was who inspired the Jesus story? Was it one person or more than one? Or are the mythicists right in saying it is all fictional? I am inclined to think there may have been some historical origin to the story. But it's accepted that Muhammad was a real historical person, and that does not mean he literally cut the moon in two or rode a flying horse.

The Gospels were written many years after the events they describe by anonymous authors and survive only as copies of translations of earlier copies. The names attached to them were applied later by church tradition. I was taught this, not by atheists, but by Christian lecturers, who were not fundamentalists.

You know the old C. S. Lewis “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord” argument? many have found it interesting that he left out a fourth option: Legend.

Yep. It's a common Christian response to the Euthyphro.

Why ought we adopt that game? — Banno

Well, if for classical theism this is how God is understood then some of the traditional arguments put forward by atheists fall short.

A theist might say that god as goodness itself functions as a brute fact. You and I might consider this unconvincing. No doubt there is a vast library of scholarship affirming this concept.

all morality comes from our evolution
— Questioner

which passes for popular wisdom in today's culture. — Wayfarer

There’s probably a more charitable way to look at this: if we read it as suggesting that the origins of moral behavior may be found in our evolving together as a social species: strength through cooperation, empathy and love.

Even if we had before us is the undoubted word of god, it does not follow that we ought do as he says.

It remains open for us to do as the book says, or not. — Banno

Can I check something with you?

Whether we ‘ought’ to obey God could be held to depend on the language game we are playing. The original claim assumes a game in which God is just an agent issuing commands, so obedience is an open quesion. But if we adopt the Christian language game in which God is the embodiment of goodness, then ‘obeying God’ is synonymous with acting morally. In this framework, to refuse God’s commands would be to act against goodness itself. The supposed gap between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ vanishes: the very definitions we use make obedience obligatory by definition.

Thoughts on this?

That we have evolved in a certain way tells us nothing about how we ought behave. Even supposing we are disposed to act in a certain way by evolution, it does not follow that we ought act in that way. It remains open that we ought act in a way contrary to evolution.

The second is the more general point that while we can find out how things are by looking around at the world, we can't use that method to find out how things ought to be. More generally, while science tells us how things are, it cannot tell us how things ought be. — Banno

Interesting this hasn't come up.

Can we say the same about God?

Even if we could demonstrate that God exists, it does not follow that we ought to act in any particular way. Is God moral? If we judge by the Bible, that God often behaves monstrously. If we rely on abstract philosophical reasoning, God can be made into almost anything; a benevolent source of all consciousness, or something more ambiguous.

Unless we assume that God will punish or reward us for following divine instructions; a kind of autocrat there is no clear reason to act according to God’s will. In short, the mere fact that God exists does not tell us what we ought to do.

Thoughts?

:up: :up:

I'm currently writing a book Why Christianity Fails using this epistemic model. Specifically, I analyze the testimonial evidence for the resurrection and demonstrate the weakness of the evidence. — Sam26

A digression, perhaps and forgive my tone which is not intended to be strident. Are there not innumerable contributions on variations of this matter already, from Bart Ehrman to Richard Carrier?

Does Christianity fail if the Jesus story can’t be demonstrated? And what does “fail” mean here?

We already know that there’s no eyewitness testimony from the time of Jesus, let alone for a resurrection. The Gospels were written years later by anonymous authors and survive only as copies of translations of earlier copies. We also know that Jews didn’t think much of the preacher's claims. Do we need more on this? I sometimes wonder if debunking the evidence in detail just makes some people take the story more seriously.

Whence this idea that there is a clear demarcation line between online and real life? — baker

I think this is understood. I have also learned this from some people I know and how different they are on line compared to real life. Anonymity promotes a different way of relating for many people. Some might even try on a persona. And I imagine some people are more reasonable on line than they are in life. I'm not arguing that this is true for everyone.

But my original point didn’t rely on this. The observation is that on line we don’t really know who we are talking to, or where they are coming from. And it's clearly easier to pretend on line than it is in real time face-to-face.

Or do you think that people somehow miraculously totally change the way they talk to people when the conversation is face to face?
That online, they, for example, jump to conclusions, but IRL, they dont?? — baker

Some people, yes, but it is not miraculous. If people are not responsible or identifiable for what they say, they may behave differently; they may be disinhibited. I also believe that online behaviour can promote aggressive discussion and tribalism, which might reduce a person’s capacity to be reasonable and to accept different views.