Searching for GOD...

[SteveH]

You consider that a god who gets a bear to murder children for mocking a bald man is worthy of worship.

If memory serves, the passage doesn't specifically say that God caused the bear to kill the children, just that the children mocked the man, and then the bear killed them. Correlation is not necessarily causation..

[Nearly Sane]

If memory serves, the passage doesn't specifically say that God caused the bear to kill the children, just that the children mocked the man, and then the bear killed them. Correlation is not necessarily causation..

Elisha is presented as a prophet who asks the 'Lord' to cause bad things to happen to the children, and then the bears appear. The story clearly implies causation, and that it is OK.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

None of us are qualified to know if we're suffering? Really? I might know of the details of a way it could be better, but I don't need that for the point. I need to recognise THAT someone is suffering, and to realise that's not necessary if there's an omnipotent, omniscient deity.

Would an omniscient being know more about our suffering? .....Would a Doctor know more about our diseases?
The Doctor may not FEEL our pain or, if the disease is bad(I’m obviously not using that word in the same sense as you)enough, experience the existential crisis  but certainly she knows more of the whys, the how’s and the when’s. An omniscient being would know if it is necessary, just like Doctors know what surgery is necessary

But why do we have to suffer the pain? Why does it have to be a negative experience, why can it not just be functionally negative. Which is just pain, there is so much more to suffering than merely physical pain.

Pain is homeostatic control. It is the most pronounced warning sense. If sensation had a dial, pain would be the red part of it. It has spurred people to all sorts of action meaning we live in a universe where Good comes from ill and where ill can be prevented. It is hard IMO to suggest what possible universe which works on change, with a biology based on change can possible not have homeostasis based on negative feedback.

If there is more to suffering than the physical aspects then IMO that is spiritual and moral.
The Christian account is that humanity lived for a period without the suffering derived from immorality.
Mankind had unbroken intimate connection with God. Any suffering would be eclipsed by the relationship. One could imagine that access to God’s knowledge and wisdom would reduce suffering. Suffering would have been understood.

Spoiling the intimacy means the loss of all that so I agree there is more to suffering but I would say they are the echoes of the fall

I don't need to, I just need to know that an omnipotent, omniscient deity could either create one that didn't involve suffering, or could intervene on a regular basis to avoid, mitigate, ameliorate, diminish or outright eliminate suffering. On that basis, either your God is evil or mythical.

But that isn’t a unanimous view. If you create a universe where no potential is actualised, have you created at all. It isn’t unanimous either that suffering is all bad or all suffering is bad or unnecessary.
Could I outline the common atheistic held view of suffering in terms of what I find questionable? I’ll try......
Suffering is:
Always bad
Has no value
Is all pervading
Dominant
Total
Victorious in it’s success
Final rather than temporary or with any means provided for
Permanent.

All these positions are questionable.

[Maeght]

If memory serves, the passage doesn't specifically say that God caused the bear to kill the children, just that the children mocked the man, and then the bear killed them. Correlation is not necessarily causation..

It's not about whether it happened or not but that the story is told to suggest that God punished children or youths (depending on you translation) for insulting a prophet whilst people claim that God is good, pure love etc etc.

[Outrider]

The crux of the matter seems to be you think a perfect deity should not have created life in a way that means that any living organism has to go through any pain/ suffering. As there is clearly pain / suffering in the world, that negates the idea of a perfect deity for you.

Pretty much - I'd actually say that the presence of suffering is only inconsistent with a depiction of God that is omniscient, omnipotent AND omnibenevolent, which is the typical Christian viewpoint that I've been exposed to. It's, within cultural variations of what's considered 'benevolent' I think consistent with the Islamic view of Allah, too, but my feeling is that the Jewish tradition doesn't lean in to the omnibenevolent element as much? Either way, it's very definitely been my experience of using it as a counterpoint to Christian evangelism.

Based on my nature/ nurture I can't link "perfection" to "no suffering" because I wonder what I would lose if no suffering was the basis of existence. Now I have experienced life with highs and lows I don't want a life with just highs as pain has also brought benefits as well as costs   - obviously if 'only benefits' was all I ever knew then my nature/ nurture would be different and I wouldn't be 'me' anymore so I would hold a different view.

And I get that, but I have known people for whom life has been consistently (to quote somewhat out of context) nasty and brutish, some of whom haven't had the relative mercy of it being short. There is no learning for them, there is development, there is no strength coming from overcoming adversity; there is pain, there is a stark realisation that it's not going to improve, there's seeing their family try not to let it drag them down, and then there's death, sometimes a painful one.

I pray to a god because it is part of the rituals of my religion and having tried it out, I find it benefits me. I suspect most theists pray for the same reason.

I suspect that's the case, too. The overwhelming majority of religious believers 'internalise' their religious activities; it's a personal thing, it's something they do for themselves or maybe in the company of like-minded people and then they go on their way. If they were all like that, it would be fine. Instead, though, we have that small cluster of aggressive exporters who want to restrict other people with their beliefs - from the various religous terrorists across the world, through to the religious authoritarians trying to instil their belief system in countries' legal systems.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Pretty much - I'd actually say that the presence of suffering is only inconsistent with a depiction of God that is omniscient, omnipotent AND omnibenevolent, which is the typical Christian viewpoint that I've been exposed to. It's, within cultural variations of what's considered 'benevolent' I think consistent with the Islamic view of Allah, too, but my feeling is that the Jewish tradition doesn't lean in to the omnibenevolent element as much? Either way, it's very definitely been my experience of using it as a counterpoint to Christian evangelism.

Depends on your interpretation of 'omnibenevolent' since the Sura Faatiha - the 1st chapter of the Quran - which is recited multiple times per prayer for 5 prayers per day (and on many other occasions too) includes the line "guide us to the straight path, The path of those you bestowed grace upon [e.g. the prophets], Not of those who earned anger upon themselves, nor of those who are astray"

So if 'anger' is part of your definition of 'omnibenevolence' - then ok.

And I get that, but I have known people for whom life has been consistently (to quote somewhat out of context) nasty and brutish, some of whom haven't had the relative mercy of it being short. There is no learning for them, there is development, there is no strength coming from overcoming adversity; there is pain, there is a stark realisation that it's not going to improve, there's seeing their family try not to let it drag them down, and then there's death, sometimes a painful one.

Yes that is true.

I believe the idea is that we learn from other people's experiences, not necessarily just our own. For example, we attend Muslim burials of our friends and loved ones and we are told at the funeral to pray for the deceased specifically on the basis that the funeral is a reminder that we are going to be dead ourselves and to remind ourselves that we will be held accountable for our actions.

I suspect that's the case, too. The overwhelming majority of religious believers 'internalise' their religious activities; it's a personal thing, it's something they do for themselves or maybe in the company of like-minded people and then they go on their way. If they were all like that, it would be fine. Instead, though, we have that small cluster of aggressive exporters who want to restrict other people with their beliefs - from the various religous terrorists across the world, through to the religious authoritarians trying to instil their belief system in countries' legal systems.

O.

Yes humans are complex and varied and you in any community or organisation there are people who try to impose their way of thinking on others - it happens in relation to culture, ethics and morals in all different areas where groups organise themselves e.g politics, social gatherings, companies  - it's not a religion-specific behaviour.

[Alan Burns]

This reflection on today's Gospel reading from bishop Robert Barron seems highly appropriate for this thread:

Friends, today’s Gospel tells of the passion of John the Baptist, and it suggests to me “the Herod principle” that I like to apply to contemporary atheists. The Gospels tell us that Herod Antipas arrested John the Baptist because the prophet had publicly challenged the king. Herod threw John into prison, but then, we are told, the king loved secretly to listen to the prophet, who continued to preach from his cell.

A basic assumption of biblical people is that everyone is hardwired for God. As the Psalmist prayed, “My soul rests in God alone.” My wager is that everyone—and that includes Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins—implicitly wants God, and hence remains permanently fascinated by the things of God.

Though the fierce atheists of today profess that they would like to eliminate religious speech and religious ideas, secretly they love to listen as people speak of God. So I say to Christians and other believers: be ready for a good fight, and get some spiritual weapons in your hands. And I say to the atheists: I’ll keep talking—because I know, despite your protestations, that your hearts are listening.

[Maeght]

This reflection on today's Gospel reading from bishop Robert Barron seems highly appropriate for this thread:

Friends, today’s Gospel tells of the passion of John the Baptist, and it suggests to me “the Herod principle” that I like to apply to contemporary atheists. The Gospels tell us that Herod Antipas arrested John the Baptist because the prophet had publicly challenged the king. Herod threw John into prison, but then, we are told, the king loved secretly to listen to the prophet, who continued to preach from his cell.

A basic assumption of biblical people is that everyone is hardwired for God. As the Psalmist prayed, “My soul rests in God alone.” My wager is that everyone—and that includes Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins—implicitly wants God, and hence remains permanently fascinated by the things of God.

Though the fierce atheists of today profess that they would like to eliminate religious speech and religious ideas, secretly they love to listen as people speak of God. So I say to Christians and other believers: be ready for a good fight, and get some spiritual weapons in your hands. And I say to the atheists: I’ll keep talking—because I know, despite your protestations, that your hearts are listening.

I, like most atheists, don't want to eliminate religious speech or ideas.

[Gordon]

This reflection on today's Gospel reading from bishop Robert Barron seems highly appropriate for this thread:

Friends, today’s Gospel tells of the passion of John the Baptist, and it suggests to me “the Herod principle” that I like to apply to contemporary atheists. The Gospels tell us that Herod Antipas arrested John the Baptist because the prophet had publicly challenged the king. Herod threw John into prison, but then, we are told, the king loved secretly to listen to the prophet, who continued to preach from his cell.

A basic assumption of biblical people is that everyone is hardwired for God. As the Psalmist prayed, “My soul rests in God alone.” My wager is that everyone—and that includes Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins—implicitly wants God, and hence remains permanently fascinated by the things of God.

Though the fierce atheists of today profess that they would like to eliminate religious speech and religious ideas, secretly they love to listen as people speak of God. So I say to Christians and other believers: be ready for a good fight, and get some spiritual weapons in your hands. And I say to the atheists: I’ll keep talking—because I know, despite your protestations, that your hearts are listening.

Seems to me that this Robert Barron is indulging in wishful thinking about atheists: this one cares not a jot for "religious speech and religious ideas", which can easily be ignored, and doesn't want to " eliminate religious speech and religious ideas" but is untroubled if religion withers and dies over time.

If you know him I'd suggest you tell him to shut the fuck up about 'atheists' since he doesn't seem to know what he's talking about - but then his mindset, being a bishop, is probably permanently in fantasy mode. Of course his target audience aren't atheists like me: his target audience are his fellow theists, many of whom are perhaps gullible enough to take his nonsense about  atheists seriously.

[jeremyp]

This reflection on today's Gospel reading from bishop Robert Barron seems highly appropriate for this thread:

Friends, today’s Gospel tells of the passion of John the Baptist, and it suggests to me “the Herod principle” that I like to apply to contemporary atheists. The Gospels tell us that Herod Antipas arrested John the Baptist because the prophet had publicly challenged the king. Herod threw John into prison, but then, we are told, the king loved secretly to listen to the prophet, who continued to preach from his cell.

Why is it that religionists always seem to want to imprison atheists.

Do you secretly listen to what we say even though your elders say you shouldsn't?

A basic assumption of biblical people is that everyone is hardwired for God. As the Psalmist prayed, “My soul rests in God alone.” My wager is that everyone—and that includes Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins—implicitly wants God, and hence remains permanently fascinated by the things of God.

I could believe that human brains are susceptible to religion for various reasons involving survival in prehistoric times, but they clearly aren't hard wired for your god. If they were, there would only be one religion and not thousands.

Though the fierce atheists of today profess that they would like to eliminate religious speech and religious ideas, secretly they love to listen as people speak of God. So I say to Christians and other believers: be ready for a good fight, and get some spiritual weapons in your hands. And I say to the atheists: I’ll keep talking—because I know, despite your protestations, that your hearts are listening.

This is, of course, not true. We don't minding you having your silly religious ideas anymore than we mind children believing in Santa Claus. What we object to is your lot imposing your religious ideas on people who know better, sometimes with violence.

[Spud]

This reflection on today's Gospel reading from bishop Robert Barron seems highly appropriate for this thread:

Friends, today’s Gospel tells of the passion of John the Baptist, and it suggests to me “the Herod principle” that I like to apply to contemporary atheists. The Gospels tell us that Herod Antipas arrested John the Baptist because the prophet had publicly challenged the king. Herod threw John into prison, but then, we are told, the king loved secretly to listen to the prophet, who continued to preach from his cell.

A basic assumption of biblical people is that everyone is hardwired for God. As the Psalmist prayed, “My soul rests in God alone.” My wager is that everyone—and that includes Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins—implicitly wants God, and hence remains permanently fascinated by the things of God.

Though the fierce atheists of today profess that they would like to eliminate religious speech and religious ideas, secretly they love to listen as people speak of God. So I say to Christians and other believers: be ready for a good fight, and get some spiritual weapons in your hands. And I say to the atheists: I’ll keep talking—because I know, despite your protestations, that your hearts are listening.

The problem with Mark's account of the events is that it conflicts with Matthew who says that Herod wanted to kill John - because John told him it was not lawful for him to marry his living brother's wife - but couldn't because the people held John to be a prophet. Mark claims that Herod was sorry, when asked for John's head, because he revered John. But Matthew implies that Herod was only concerned about his reputation. The two accounts are similar in structure, implying that one made use of the other, and since Matthew's account is consistent with what Josephus tells us, we can infer that it was Mark who made use of Matthew, but expanded it, focusing on Herodias, with the effect of diminishing Herod's guilt.
The bishop, in his analogy, therefore, is assuming something that isn't necessarily the case.

[Maeght]

The problem with Mark's account of the events is that it conflicts with Matthew who says that Herod wanted to kill John - because John told him it was not lawful for him to marry his living brother's wife - but couldn't because the people held John to be a prophet. Mark claims that Herod was sorry, when asked for John's head, because he revered John. But Matthew implies that Herod was only concerned about his reputation. The two accounts are similar in structure, implying that one made use of the other, and since Matthew's account is consistent with what Josephus tells us, we can infer that it was Mark who made use of Matthew, but expanded it, focusing on Herodias, with the effect of diminishing Herod's guilt.
The bishop, in his analogy, therefore, is assuming something that isn't necessarily the case.

Not for the first time.

Josephus may have heard ther same story as 'Matthew' whereas 'Mark' heard another story.

[Stranger]

This reflection on today's Gospel reading from bishop Robert Barron seems highly appropriate for this thread:

Friends, today’s Gospel tells of the passion of John the Baptist, and it suggests to me “the Herod principle” that I like to apply to contemporary atheists. The Gospels tell us that Herod Antipas arrested John the Baptist because the prophet had publicly challenged the king. Herod threw John into prison, but then, we are told, the king loved secretly to listen to the prophet, who continued to preach from his cell.

A basic assumption of biblical people is that everyone is hardwired for God. As the Psalmist prayed, “My soul rests in God alone.” My wager is that everyone—and that includes Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins—implicitly wants God, and hence remains permanently fascinated by the things of God.

Though the fierce atheists of today profess that they would like to eliminate religious speech and religious ideas, secretly they love to listen as people speak of God. So I say to Christians and other believers: be ready for a good fight, and get some spiritual weapons in your hands. And I say to the atheists: I’ll keep talking—because I know, despite your protestations, that your hearts are listening.

Well Robert Barron is clearly far removed from reality. He needs to talk to more atheists before telling other people how we think.

I, like most atheists I know, don't want to "eliminate religious speech and religious ideas". People should be free to believe any delusional nonsense they want, as long as they're not actually harming anybody or encouraging others to do so, or trying to impose their irrational nonsense on others.

Neither do I (or other atheists I know) secretly want to listen to superstitious nonsense about people's many and varied versions of 'God'. In fact, I often find it utterly cringe-worthy, embarrassing, and often deeply saddening (as in your own case).

To the extent that humans are 'hardwired' for anything, it's survival, which means simplistic, quick, heuristics-based thinking, that is just about good enough most of the time, rather than careful, logical thought that takes far longer and is harder for us to do (see, for example, Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman). As a direct result of the bias towards survival in the environment we evolved in, we tend to be oversensitive to pattern recognitions and agency detection, simply because false positives were generally harmless, whereas false negatives could get you killed. It didn't really matter if we thought the wind and thunder had agency or if we could see faces in clouds and fire, but if we failed to recognise a predator, or failed to realise it intended to eat us, that was another matter.

So, yes, to a degree we are 'hardwired' for baseless superstitions like 'God'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well Robert Barron is clearly far removed from reality. He needs to talk to more atheists before telling other people how we think.

I, like most atheists I know, don't want to "eliminate religious speech and religious ideas". People should be free to believe any delusional nonsense they want, as long as they're not actually harming anybody or encouraging others to do so, or trying to impose their irrational nonsense on others.

Neither do I (or other atheists I know) secretly want to listen to superstitious nonsense about people's many and varied versions of 'God'. In fact, I often find it utterly cringe-worthy, embarrassing, and often deeply saddening (as in your own case).

To the extent that humans are 'hardwired' for anything, it's survival, which means simplistic, quick, heuristics-based thinking, that is just about good enough most of the time, rather than careful, logical thought that takes far longer and is harder for us to do (see, for example, Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman). As a direct result of the bias towards survival in the environment we evolved in, we tend to be oversensitive to pattern recognitions and agency detection, simply because false positives were generally harmless, whereas false negatives could get you killed. It didn't really matter if we thought the wind and thunder had agency or if we could see faces in clouds and fire, but if we failed to recognise a predator, or failed to realise it intended to eat us, that was another matter.

So, yes, to a degree we are 'hardwired' for baseless superstitions like 'God'.

For the umpteenth time...what is it about the universe which exists infinitely and by definition necessarily?

[Nearly Sane]

For the umpteenth time...what is it about the universe which exists infinitely and by definition necessarily?

Dunno. Not sure the question is valid. And that's for the umpteenth time as well
 Also that was a non sequitur to Stranger's post.

[jeremyp]

Not for the first time.

Josephus may have heard ther same story as 'Matthew' whereas 'Mark' heard another story.

Since Matthew copied Mark (there are many reasons to believe this rather than Spud's way around), we can infer that Mark had one version and perhaps Matthew "corrected" it with Josephus.

Of course, the work of Josephus in which John the Baptist appears is Antiquities of the Jews which was written in 94 CE. If Matthew used it as a source it would make Matthew very late and if Spud is correct that Mark knew Matthew's gospel, it would make Mark even later.

[Stranger]

For the umpteenth time...what is it about the universe which exists infinitely and by definition necessarily?

Nothing to do with what I said, but what is it about your fantasy God that makes it necessary? In what way would it cause a logical problem if it didn't exist or was entirely different?

Dunno where you've got "infinity" from either. Is this a new part of your illogical nonsense?

[jeremyp]

Nothing to do with what I said, but what is it about your fantasy God that makes it necessary? In what way would it cause a logical problem if it didn't exist or was entirely different?

Dunno where you've got "infinity" from either. Is this a new part of your illogical nonsense?

Can I suggest that, since there is a whole thread about infinities, we take this strand of conversation over there.

[Maeght]

Since Matthew copied Mark (there are many reasons to believe this rather than Spud's way around), we can infer that Mark had one version and perhaps Matthew "corrected" it with Josephus.

Of course, the work of Josephus in which John the Baptist appears is Antiquities of the Jews which was written in 94 CE. If Matthew used it as a source it would make Matthew very late and if Spud is correct that Mark knew Matthew's gospel, it would make Mark even later.

Yes, for sure, but I was presenting an alternative explanation taking into account of Spud's view of the chronology.

[Spud]

Since Matthew copied Mark (there are many reasons to believe this rather than Spud's way around), we can infer that Mark had one version and perhaps Matthew "corrected" it with Josephus.

Of course, the work of Josephus in which John the Baptist appears is Antiquities of the Jews which was written in 94 CE. If Matthew used it as a source it would make Matthew very late and if Spud is correct that Mark knew Matthew's gospel, it would make Mark even later.

While Matthew and Josephus are consistent in saying that John had great influence over the people, and that Herod wanted to kill John, they are inconsistent in the reasons they give for Herod going ahead: Josephus says it was in order to prevent a rebellion; Matthew relates it to Herod's oath to his wife's daughter. Plus Matthew doesn't mention Aretas' war with Herod - maybe it hadn't taken place yet? It's unlikely that Matthew knew Josephus' account.
 
If Matthew and perhaps Mark had known and followed Jesus, they could have used first-hand testimony. Matthew tells us that John's disciples told Jesus about John's death, and that Jesus' response was to depart by boat with his disciples to a deserted place. Matthew had also told us that Jesus departed from Judea to Galilee after hearing that John had been put in prison. So the disciples were fully aware of what had happened. Which is consistent with the disciples Matthew and Mark being the authors of the gospels.

Mark doesn't mention the detail given by Matthew about Jesus hearing the reports of what Herod had done to John on these two occasions. This shows that he has put the events in the same order as Matthew but not understood why they are in that order.

[jeremyp]

While Matthew and Josephus are consistent in saying that John had great influence over the people, and that Herod wanted to kill John, they are inconsistent in the reasons they give for Herod going ahead: Josephus says it was in order to prevent a rebellion; Matthew relates it to Herod's oath to his wife's daughter. Plus Matthew doesn't mention Aretas' war with Herod - maybe it hadn't taken place yet? It's unlikely that Matthew knew Josephus' account.

Actually, I agree Matthew probably didn't know Josephus. Luke, on the other hand, probably did.

If Matthew and perhaps Mark had known and followed Jesus

If you are talking about the gospel authors rather than the possibly historical characters, they almost certainly didn't know Jesus.

, they could have used first-hand testimony.

There's no evidence of that and some evidence that they did not.

Matthew tells us that John's disciples told Jesus about John's death, and that Jesus' response was to depart by boat with his disciples to a deserted place. Matthew had also told us that Jesus departed from Judea to Galilee after hearing that John had been put in prison. So the disciples were fully aware of what had happened. Which is consistent with the disciples Matthew and Mark being the authors of the gospels.

Matthew tells us some stuff therefore Matthew knew Jesus? your argument really doesn't work.

Mark doesn't mention the detail given by Matthew about Jesus hearing the reports of what Herod had done to John on these two occasions. This shows that he has put the events in the same order as Matthew but not understood why they are in that order.

So Matthew made some stuff up. Got it.

[Spud]

Actually, I agree Matthew probably didn't know Josephus. Luke, on the other hand, probably did.If you are talking about the gospel authors rather than the possibly historical characters, they almost certainly didn't know Jesus. There's no evidence of that and some evidence that they did not.Matthew tells us some stuff therefore Matthew knew Jesus? your argument really doesn't work. So Matthew made some stuff up. Got it.

My argument is that because Matthew and Mark conflict on certain details, it's difficult to know which of them are historically accurate, and whether Herod really did like to listen to John, which was the basis for what the bishop was saying. The main point of contention is whether Herod feared John, because he knew him to be a good man, or whether he feared the people, because they believed John to be a prophet. Either Herod was convicted by what John said, or he was only concerned about preventing a rebellion among the Jews..
The question for me is which of the following scenarios was the original version of the story:
1. Jesus called the twelve apostles and sent them out. When they returned, Jesus took them by boat to a deserted place to rest.
2. Jesus took the disciples to a deserted place after hearing that Herod had killed John, and was starting to take an interest in Jesus.
The one that is original is the one who wrote first. So then we can know whether Herod was afraid to kill John because of his conscience (as in Mark) or because he didn't want the people rebelling (as in Matthew).
Comparing the wording of Matthew 14:13 with 4:12, and their parallels in Mark, it looks more likely that Mark has reworded Matthew.

Whether Matthew the apostle wrote the Gospel of Matthew we could discuss separately.

[ProfessorDavey]

My argument is that because Matthew and Mark conflict on certain details, it's difficult to know which of them are historically accurate...

You do understand that it is entirely plausible that neither of them are historically accurate.

[jeremyp]

My argument is that because Matthew and Mark conflict on certain details, it's difficult to know which of them are historically accurate, and whether Herod really did like to listen to John, which was the basis for what the bishop was saying.

There's no requirement that one of them must be historically accurate. Both could be wrong.

The main point of contention is whether Herod feared John, because he knew him to be a good man, or whether he feared the people, because they believed John to be a prophet. Either Herod was convicted by what John said, or he was only concerned about preventing a rebellion among the Jews..
The question for me is which of the following scenarios was the original version of the story:
1. Jesus called the twelve apostles and sent them out. When they returned, Jesus took them by boat to a deserted place to rest.
2. Jesus took the disciples to a deserted place after hearing that Herod had killed John, and was starting to take an interest in Jesus.
The one that is original is the one who wrote first. So then we can know whether Herod was afraid to kill John because of his conscience (as in Mark) or because he didn't want the people rebelling (as in Matthew).
Comparing the wording of Matthew 14:13 with 4:12, and their parallels in Mark, it looks more likely that Mark has reworded Matthew.

Bearing in mind that both Mark and Matthew were writing long after the events in question, there's no reason to believe the one who was writing first had the correct story.

Whether Matthew the apostle wrote the Gospel of Matthew we could discuss separately.

Spoiler: he didn't.

[SteveH]

This reflection on today's Gospel reading from bishop Robert Barron seems highly appropriate for this thread:

Friends, today’s Gospel tells of the passion of John the Baptist, and it suggests to me “the Herod principle” that I like to apply to contemporary atheists. The Gospels tell us that Herod Antipas arrested John the Baptist because the prophet had publicly challenged the king. Herod threw John into prison, but then, we are told, the king loved secretly to listen to the prophet, who continued to preach from his cell.

A basic assumption of biblical people is that everyone is hardwired for God. As the Psalmist prayed, “My soul rests in God alone.” My wager is that everyone—and that includes Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins—implicitly wants God, and hence remains permanently fascinated by the things of God.

Though the fierce atheists of today profess that they would like to eliminate religious speech and religious ideas, secretly they love to listen as people speak of God. So I say to Christians and other believers: be ready for a good fight, and get some spiritual weapons in your hands. And I say to the atheists: I’ll keep talking—because I know, despite your protestations, that your hearts are listening.

A lot of formerly-believing non-believers say that abandoning faith gave them a great sense of liberation, so it cuts both ways. Anyway, subjective feelings have nothing to do with objective truth. Even if humans were hard-wired for belief, that could easily be explaned in evolutionary terms.