Faith vs blind faith

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Again I don't think Lewis is basing the trilemma on a "one liner" or "one off".

Nor was the Grenfell story based on a "one liner" or "one off" – lots of people said they saw it, and they meant it too.   

Are you wanting us to dismiss all reporting.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm merely explaining that reportage is often wrong even these days and I provided an example of that. If you choose not to think that the biblical reportage could be wrong even with all the more extenuating circumstances than those of Grenfell that's up to you, but it's quite a leap.   

History whatever will record a claim of catching a baby falling from a block of flats.......and it is the claims we are discussing here.

Eh? The Grenfell story was falsified because someone had the intent and means to check it. Neither applies to the religious stories you choose to think are "more probable" than not. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are correct - Lewis isn't basing his trilemma on anything we know actually Jesus said or claimed - he is basing it on that others writing decades later claimed he said. That is weaker still. And don't forget that the third-party claims about what Jesus said have further been through the prism, selection, alteration and translation of centuries of the church. We are a million miles away from having any certainty as to what Jesus actually said or claimed. Yet that is the basis of the trilemma - that Jesus must be mad, bad or god on the basis that he claimed to be. We do not know and indeed I'd argue now we cannot know whether he ever made such a claim.

Indeed. And I am saying that only Jesus claiming what he is supposed to explains the community extant at the writing of the first epistles within living memory.

[ProfessorDavey]

Vlad,

Nor was the Grenfell story based on a "one liner" or "one off" – lots of people said they saw it, and they meant it too.   

I'm doing no such thing. I'm merely explaining that reportage is often wrong even these days and I provided an example of that. If you choose not to think that the biblical reportage could be wrong even with all the more extenuating circumstances than those of Grenfell that's up to you, but it's quite a leap.   

Eh? The Grenfell story was falsified because someone had the intent and means to check it. Neither applies to the religious stories you choose to think are "more probable" than not.

And the Grenfell 'myth' arose in hours linked to people who were actually there at the time and saw the events. There is a direct link between the reports and the actual event - yet it was still wrong.

For the Jesus claims there is no such direct link between the reports and the actual events. The earliest reports of claims we have are decades after the events and/or from people who were not themselves witnesses nor were likely to have strong links with a significant body of people who were witnesses, as they were largely writing in places far removed from Palestine.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nor was the Grenfell story based on a "one liner" or "one off" – lots of people said they saw it, and they meant it too.   

I'm doing no such thing. I'm merely explaining that reportage is often wrong even these days and I provided an example of that. If you choose not to think that the biblical reportage could be wrong even with all the more extenuating circumstances than those of Grenfell that's up to you, but it's quite a leap.   

Eh? The Grenfell story was falsified because someone had the intent and means to check it. Neither applies to the religious stories you choose to think are "more probable" than not.

You seem to be confusing claims of the supernatural with a supernatural event.
Davey and yourself have moved onto whether the claims were made.

A claim that a baby survived a fall was made and refuted. We see no successful refutation in the case of Jesus or the claimed claims.
What we have though at two to three decades documentation alluding to a community based on the claims of NT literature. If Jesus never made those claims twenty or thirty years later what explanation do you have for that community?

[SusanDoris]

Gabriella #616

Thank you for your interesting reply. I have no other comment to make except to say that if you knew beforehand that it was you managing your life without any God influencing it, it is puzzling to understand why you can then put the God - which I presume you knew was imaginary - into it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Indeed. And I am saying that only Jesus claiming what he is supposed to explains the community extant at the writing of the first epistles within living memory.

Then you’re wrong to do so. All that would be necessary would be for people to have said that he said it, and for both they and he to have been believed. As there were many such back in the day, both claims and claims about claims were a commonplace.

You seem to be confusing claims of the supernatural with a supernatural event.

Wrong again. Whether the story concerned a natural or a supposed supernatural event is irrelevant to the point that reportage can be, and often is, wrong even when it’s sincerely done.

Davey and yourself have moved onto whether the claims were made.

A claim that a baby survived a fall was made and refuted. We see no successful refutation in the case of Jesus or the claimed claims.

But that could be because an intrepid investigator put in the hard yards, checked the official records, did the physics etc and the story checked out, or it could be that no refutation was attempted. The “successful refutation” now though is that the nature of the story is so shot through with improbables and unknowables that verification and falsification are impossible. Any belief that it must be true nonetheless could only therefore be a matter of personal faith.   

What we have though at two to three decades documentation alluding to a community based on the claims of NT literature. If Jesus never made those claims twenty or thirty years later what explanation do you have for that community?

The same explanation as for the many other communities that sprang up around any number of itinerant mystics, soothsayers, street conjurors etc. All that’s necessary is for people to believe the claims (or the claims of claims) and no more, a commonplace at the time when magic answers were so often accepted as true in the absence of better answers.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Then you’re wrong to do so. All that would be necessary would be for people to have said that he said it, and for both they and he to have been believed. As there were many such back in the day, both claims and claims about claims were a commonplace.

Wrong again. Whether the story concerned a natural or a supposed supernatural event is irrelevant to the point that reportage can be, and often is, wrong even when it’s sincerely done.

But that could be because an intrepid investigator put in the hard yards, checked the official records, did the physics etc and the story checked out, or it could be that no refutation was attempted. The “successful refutation” now though is that the nature of the story is so shot through with improbables and unknowables that verification and falsification are impossible. Any belief that it must be true nonetheless could only therefore be a matter of personal faith.   

The same explanation as for the many other communities that sprang up around any number of itinerant mystics, soothsayers, street conjurors etc. All that’s necessary is for people to believe the claims (or the claims of claims) and no more, a commonplace at the time when magic answers were so often accepted as true in the absence of better answers.   

I think your comparison between the Grenfall tragedy and the three year ministry of Jesus is the Michaelangelo of bad analogy.
In terms of itinerant mystics, soothsayers, Street conjurors, lets have the information otherwise it just comes over as low sneering demeaning abuse designed to steer us way from him being some kind of threat to the political status quo.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think your comparison between the Grenfall tragedy and the three year ministry of Jesus is the Michaelangelo of bad analogy.

Presumably because you’ve never understood what the term “analogy” means. I was merely showing that sincerely done reportage can be wrong nonetheless.

In terms of itinerant mystics, soothsayers, Street conjurors, lets have the information otherwise it just comes over as low sneering demeaning abuse designed to steer us way from him being some kind of threat to the political status quo.

What information? That many sects sprang up around such figures? That’s easy to do, even in recent times (cargo cults, George Jones, David Koresh etc) let alone in more credulous ones. So what though?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Presumably because you’ve never understood what the term “analogy” means. I was merely showing that sincerely done reportage can be wrong nonetheless.

What information? That many sects sprang up around such figures? That’s easy to do, even in recent times (cargo cults, George Jones, David Koresh etc). So what though?

But we are talking about 1st century Mystics, soothsayer and street conjurors so we need the evidence and how it is relevant to whether Jesus made the claims or if their mention is a red herring.........Another thing.........who is George Jones?

[ProfessorDavey]

If Jesus never made those claims twenty or thirty years later what explanation do you have for that community?

If Bogart never said 'play it again, Sam' what explanation do you have for an extensive community twenty or thirty years later that think he did.

During that timeframe there was even a play and a film linked to Bogart with that (non)quote as its title.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But we are talking about 1st century Mystics, soothsayer and street conjurors so we need the evidence and how it is relevant to whether Jesus made the claims or if their mention is a red herring

Don’t be daft. I was merely explaining that cults will spring up all over the shop provided the objects of veneration are charismatic enough. That doesn’t require anything they say (or are reported to have said) actually to be true though.

Here’s Wiki on the phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
   

.........Another thing.........who is George Jones?

He’s the American country & western singer you get when you forget to check that the person you actually meant to reference was Jim Jones 

[ProfessorDavey]

Indeed. And I am saying that only Jesus claiming what he is supposed to explains the community extant at the writing of the first epistles within living memory.

No it doesn't - all it suggests is that someone, and perhaps someone with influence, claimed he did.

I'm sure you will correct me if I am wrong - but isn't the earliest written report claiming Jesus as son of god from Paul - and that is linked to his vision rather than any direct claim from Jesus when alive that he was the son of god for the obvious reason that Paul never met Jesus. And even that is some 20 years (or more) after any supposed claims would have been made during Jesus' lifetime. The suggestions that Jesus himself actually claimed in his lifetime to be son of god are decades later still and somewhat ambiguous. So plenty of opportunity for a myth to implant itself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If Bogart never said 'play it again, Sam' what explanation do you have for an extensive community twenty or thirty years later that think he did.

During that timeframe there was even a play and a film linked to Bogart with that (non)quote as its title.

Play it againists were the ebionites and Gnostics of their day.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Doesn’t work. What would “correct” even mean if all is interpretation? I don’t have a dog in the fight here, but it seems to me a confused position to think on the one hand that a god’s intentions are written in a book, but on the other that there’s no way to know what they are.   
       
No doubt, but as there as many opinions as there are people to have them what value do these “instructions” have?       

But what method would you use for that “figuring out”, and what relevance would evaluating the outcomes have but for confirmation bias – if you happen to be a nice person, then happy outcomes confirm you’ve got the meaning “right”, and vice versa. 

So again, what use is the Quran if all you have to rely on for guidance is your personal opinion about it?

BHS

It works for various Muslims, even if it doesn't work for you. Much like interpreting law there is a base text and the words are interpreted. It doesn't mean that the meaning can be anything - there is usually broadly agreed consensus on the meaning but you can have dissenting opinions. And it is always possible that individuals can apply a verse to a situation where they would need to make all kinds of assumptions and provisos to make it fit - you can't stop someone from having a punt. The Quran is an inspiring (to Muslims) message but like legal statutes there are no guarantees that the person interpreting the message has understood correctly and often the people who drafted the law are long dead so cannot be consulted on what they meant. The Quran is much less specific or detailed than statutes and like anything made up of sentences in verse for, it requires interpretation . The Quran might not work for you as a source of inspiration and guidance - fair enough.

If you are interested this article may shed some light ( extract quoted below):

https://muslimmatters.org/2011/06/28/saying-“i-don’t-know”-is-half-of-knowledge/

Imam Malik ibn Anas was one of the most respected scholars of fiqh who ever lived. Once a man came to Imam Malik from a very far distance and he asked him 40 questions. Imam Malik only answered four of them and for the rest of the 36 questions he replied, “I don’t know.”

The man was surprised and asked Imam Malik “what should I tell people about these 36 questions for which you said (I don’t know)?” Imam Malik replied that the man should tell the people that Malik says: “I don’t know,” “I don’t know,” “I don’t know.”

Imam Malik said this 3 times....

....I really feel apprehensive when people issue such fatawa without having adequate knowledge about Arabic grammar, the principles of fiqh, usool ul hadeeth, etc. Before issuing any fatwa, or any judgment for that matter, one must know the related principles and modalities. Issues that appear very simple are often times surprisingly grave, especially when we consider the implications of changing them. Let me give an example with the following ayah of the Quran in which Allah (SWT) says:

 “ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَءَاتُواْ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَ وَٱرۡكَعُواْ مَعَ ٱلرَّٲكِعِينَ وَأَقِيمُواْ ”

“And establish prayer, and give the zakaah, and bow down with those who bow down”

  Surah Al-Baqarah: vs. 43

Anyone who has even a basic understanding of Arabic grammar would know that the verb أَقِيمُواْ in the above verse is a fi’l amr, which is used for a command, and whenever such a verb is used it is an obligation to act upon it. From this ayah, the scholars interpret that salaah is obligatory, as the ayah clearly says:

وَأَقِيمُواْ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ

And establish the prayer…

And according to the same ayah, zakaat is also obligatory as the ayah says:

تُواْ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَوَءَا

And give the zakaah…

Furthermore, we learn that salaah with jama’ah is also obligatory as the ayah says:

وَٱرۡكَعُواْ مَعَ ٱلرَّٲكِعِينَ

And bow down with those who bow down

Now a question arises here. Do we interpret from this ayah that it is obligatory to offer sunnah, nawaafil and witr in jama’ah also? Since the ayah itself does not seem to indicate any exception. I doubt that any of us would think that it is mandatory to offer sunnah in jama’ah. So why is there a difference?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella #616

Thank you for your interesting reply. I have no other comment to make except to say that if you knew beforehand that it was you managing your life without any God influencing it, it is puzzling to understand why you can then put the God - which I presume you knew was imaginary - into it.

Following Islamic practice doesn't work for me without putting God into it - I don't get the beneficial effect I am afterwithout putting God into it. Annoying but like I said, the benefits for me outweigh the annoyance. I feel I manage my life better now than I did as an atheist and the sense of direction and structure and the way belief changes my responses in certain situations is part of the reason why I manage my life better.

[Shaker]

I feel I manage my life better now than I did as an atheist

Presumably you were doing it wrong.

Plenty of atheists seem to "manage their lives" perfectly well and capably without feeling a need to believe twaddle in order to do it better.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Presumably you were doing it wrong.

Plenty of atheists seem to "manage their lives" perfectly well and capably without feeling a need to believe twaddle in order to do it better.

Are there ''plenty'' of atheists though?
Also if they are increasing in the UK how come the country is far from managing, in fact quite the opposite?

[ProfessorDavey]

I feel I manage my life better now than I did as an atheist and the sense of direction and structure and the way belief changes my responses in certain situations is part of the reason why I manage my life better.

I think all our situations are individual and in my case the opposite is true.

The reality is that I never really believed in god but throughout childhood and early adulthood I tried to pretend I did as culturally that seemed the right thing to do. But try as I might when I wasn't trying I couldn't believe any of it. And that created difficulties for me, not least because, again culturally, religion seemed so linked to morality and ethics.

At the age of 22 something happened that lead me to recognise and acknowledge that I didn't believe in god. Suddenly everything became clearer and more understandable - everything made sense. It didn't mean that the world was 'good' - far from it, but the reasons why bad things happen didn't require convoluted, dancing on the head of a pin-type arguments that those that believe in a loving god need to engage in.

And with it came a recognition that morality and ethics were about me, not about taking some guide book off a shelf that required belief in something I didn't believe in. For the first time in my life I became really interested in ethics, and that has been a strand of my personal and professional life ever since.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Presumably you were doing it wrong.

I can answer that better when you define "wrong". What I wanted out of life as an atheist changed and being a theist helped get me closer to what I wanted.

As far as I'm concerned I'm just making improvements in my life.

I also think I drive better now than I did when I was younger, but as far as I know I wasn't driving wrong - I got from A to B without accidents or speeding tickets or driving too slowly or being stopped by the police for driving "wrong".

[Shaker]

Are there ''plenty'' of atheists though?

Yes.

Also if they are increasing in the UK how come the country is far from managing, in fact quite the opposite?

Because that's the fault of those who - for want of a far better word - lead the country, i.e. a tiny minority of politicians, not the non-religious majority. We live in a representative democracy where we elect people who, so the principle goes, do our bidding. This noble idea doesn't take into account the deceitfulness, mendacity and incompetence of said representatives.

[ProfessorDavey]

Are there ''plenty'' of atheists though?

What, that are comfortable in their atheism and manage their lives very well on that basis - yes there are.

Also if they are increasing in the UK how come the country is far from managing, in fact quite the opposite?

Not sure you can lay the blame for the current problems in the UK at the door of the atheists. Two of the biggest issue we face are Brexit (can't see how that is an 'atheist' problem) and terrorism perpetrated by religious extremists, which certainly isn't the fault of atheists.

[Shaker]

I can answer that better when you define "wrong".

You introduced the concept of 'better' - 'wrong' is a state not as good as the situation that you claim obtains now. It's not usually a problematic concept.

What I wanted out of life as an atheist changed and being a theist helped get me closer to what I wanted.

Which was what?

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes.Because that's the fault of those who - for want of a far better word - lead the country, i.e. a tiny minority of politicians, not the non-religious majority.

Worth noting that over the past 20 years none of our Prime Ministers have been atheist - three are overtly practicing Christians (Blair, Brown and May) who see their faith as critical to their work. So representative of about 5% of the population. The fourth, Cameron, is probably more representative of the general UK population - brought up CofE, largely non practicing but not an atheist.

[Shaker]

Not sure you can lay the blame for the current problems in the UK at the door of the atheists.

I'm absolutely sure that you can't, though true to form that won't stop Vlad trying it on anyway. It's a matter of surprise to me that he didn't mention secular humanism. He usually does.

[Shaker]

Worth noting that over the past 20 years none of our Prime Ministers have been atheist - three are overtly practicing Christians (Blair, Brown and May) who see faith as critical to their work.

Hm, looks like it. Iraq war, hundreds of thousands dead or maimed, stripping the disabled of benefits ... critical to their work indeed.