Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[ProfessorDavey]

How often do you need to be informed that mere attendance at a religious institution doesn't make you a christian.

What I said was that he was brought up in the christian tradition - a different matter. And parents who choose to send their kids to sunday school (most don't now and most didn't back when AM was a kid), and also to other christian organisations, who in AM's case seemed actually to require christian instruction at Sunday School are bringing up their children in the christian tradition.

Would you claim that parents who send their kids to madrassa classes at the local mosque and to islamic youth groups are somehow bringing their children up in a secular manner, rather than within an islamic tradition and likely bringing them up as muslims.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's not what is being claimed. The claim is that Anchorman was brought up "within a Christian tradition". It is likely that Anchoreman's upbringing has informed his decision to believe in the Christian god rather than anybody else's.

Absolutely correct - and had he been brought up within an islamic tradition, attending madrassa classes and islamic youth groups I suspect that he would believe in the islamic god rather than anybody else's.

[jeremyp]

I think that is correct.

I too am not particularly interested in challenging the veracity of Jesus as a historical character, largely because it doesn't seem to be a particularly useful discussion as christianity is largely about faith rather than truth in a factual sense.

That said when people make the kind of claim that Anchorman does it should be challenged. The very notion that it is possible to make a perfectly credible argument that Jesus never actually existed as claimed (in a factual sense) in the bible shows how little evidence there is for him. Effectively the evidence for Jesus as a historical figure comes pretty well entirely from the bible, and other early christian documents - but this is, in a historical sense, really weak evidence, because:

1. It is not comtemporary - as JP points out Paul hardly discusses Jesus as a historical figure and the gospels (which do) are from decades after the event, and the earliest extant versions, centuries later.

2. It is partial - written by people with an agenda and with a clear incentive to 'big up' the notion of Jesus as a historical character, in support of their evangelising remit.

3. The reports lack independence - it would appear that what we have in the gospels links back to a tiny number of source materials.

4. It isn't corroborated - we have no independent corroboration from another non-christian source (see below).

5. There is no archeological evidence to back up the claims in the gospels.

So for the historical evidence to be strong we'd expect (in addition to archeological evidence), independent (ideal from the 'other side') corroboratory evidence and reports. But there aren't any. The nearest we have are a couple of tiny sections in documents also written decades after the event, most of which are about the presence of early christians (not really in doubt) rather than the presence of a historical Jesus. There is also strong evidence in these documents of doctoring - in other words later christian interpolation, so there is doubt over whether even the tiny sections are actually in the original versions of Tacitus and Josephus.

On another thread I googled some criteria for evaluating ancient documents and tried applying them to Mark's gospel. I quote my full post below. I didn't try the same exercise with any of the other gospels, but I believe the results would be similar. It would be interesting to apply these criteria to Paul's letters, but, in respect of Jesus' life there isn't much in Paul's letters we could apply them to.

Let's be clear about evaluating historical sources. Here's one list I found on the interwebs. There are others, but they mostly seem quite similar:

1. Was the source created at the same time of the event it describes? If not, who made the record, when, and why?

2. Who furnished the information? Was the informant in a position to give correct facts? Was the informant a participant in the original event? Was the informant using secondhand information? Would the informant have benefited from giving incorrect or incomplete answers?

3. Is the information in the record such as names, dates, places, events, and relationships logical? Does it make sense in the context of time, place, and the people being researched?

4. Does more than one reliable source give the same information?

5. What other evidence supports the information in the source?

6. Does the source contain discrepancies? Were these errors of the creator of the document or the informant?

7. Have you found any reliable evidence that contradicts or conflicts with what you already know?

8. Is the source an original or a copy? If it’s a copy, can you get a version closer to the original?

9. Does the document have characteristics that may affect is readability? Consider smears, tears, missing words, faded ink, hard-to-read handwriting, too dark microfilm, and bad reproduction.

So let's apply these to Mark's gospel

1. GMark is not contemporary. We don't know who wrote it and it was probably written three or four decades later and it was written as a theological document.

2. We don't know who wrote Mark and we don't know who gave him the information so we can't really answer any of these questions, except that they were probably using at least second hand information.

3. Mark has no dates. It does mention some people and places known to exist but it does make errors of fact in geography.

4. We don't know of any reliable sources concerning the life of Jesus, except maybe Paul and he is silent on almost every aspect of Jesus' life, plus Mark may be partly dependent on Paul.

5. Other than the other gospels which are almost certainly not independent sources, I know of no other evidence concerning the life of Jesus.

6. Yes. We don't know where they originated.

7. There's good evidence that miracles don't happen.

8. We do not have the original. This is true of all ancient documents but that doesn't mean we can discount the point, it means that it is a problem for all ancient documents.

9. Not applicable because we don't have the original.

Mark strikes out on every single criterion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not what is being claimed. The claim is that Anchorman was brought up "within a Christian tradition". It is likely that Anchoreman's upbringing has informed his decision to believe in the Christian god rather than anybody else's.

How does that work?

[ProfessorDavey]

How does that work?

If you are brought up in a traditional that culturally and societally believes in a particular god and does not culturally and societally believe in other gods then it is likely that if you believe in god and consider that you've experienced god then the god you believe in will be the one aligned with the culture you are brought up in.

And there is overwhelming evidence that this is the case - except in very rare circumstances people either believe in the god/religion aligned to their upbringing or they don't believe in god/religion. It is extremely rare for someone to reject a religious upbringing in one tradition and align themselves with a completely different religion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you are brought up in a traditional that culturally and societally believes in a particular god and does not culturally and societally believe in other gods then it is like that if you believe in god and consider that you've experienced god then the god you believe in will be the one aligned with the culture you are brought up in.

I think I asked how that works rather than you merely repeating the statistics. Can you say it is cause or correlation? Secondly, How is that true of world religions with Global distribution?

What you say could be true of nominal religion too and that makes your analysis quite murky given that religious adherence can rise and fall in terms of mere decades.

How would it invalidate God or Christianity anyway?

Given your own experience of a god free upbringing why do you not admit to that being cultural or your own belief set might be culturally influenced?

[ProfessorDavey]

I think I asked how that works rather than you merely repeating the statistics. Can you say it is cause or correlation?

How does it work - well if you give me the child at seven, I'll give you the adult ... It is hardly rocket science.

Secondly, How is that true of world religions with Global distribution?

Yes

What you say could be true of nominal religion too and that makes your analysis quite murky given that religious adherence can rise and fall in terms of mere decades.

What on earth do you mean, and actually the notion that religious adherence goes up and down over decades is simply wrong - trends in religious adherence tend to be much longer range than that, specifically because they are so tied up with upbringing and therefore range over several generations. So in the UK adherence has been on the decline for nigh on a century, first a fairly gently decline and over the past 50 years rather more rapid - again you'd predict this on the basis of generational transmission.

How would it invalidate God or Christianity anyway?

It doesn't - I was merely challenging AM's claim of not having been brought up within the christian tradition - which is clearly nonsense given that he mentions attending both Sunday Schools the Boys' Brigades (both achingly christian tradition organisations).

Given your own experience of a god free upbringing why do you not admit to that being cultural or your own belief set might be culturally influenced?

I didn't have a god free upbringing - I doubt anyone brought up in the 60s and 70s had a god free upbringing given that the default position with society and schools was that god exists and that that god is the christian one. My upbringing was certainly not very actively religious, although I also briefly was sent to Sunday school and had grandparents who were churchgoers. So although it was pretty 'religion-light' it had far more religion/god in it than atheism - indeed I don't think I really recognised that atheism was a thing until I was probably in my teens and I certainly don't think I'd ever met someone in my upbringing who overtly (or even covertly) described themselves as atheist, although I now recognise that plenty of people I knew at the time were actually atheist.

[Outrider]

Since I believe Thor is an expression of religiosity, I think he is but a vague caricature and an unskilled stab at the abrahamic God and our understanding through Christ. His outstanding warrior nature is obviously a narrow view of divinity by people obsessed with warfare.

I appreciate you've admitted to a lack of in-depth knowledge around this, and I'm not pretending to be in any way an expert, but I wasn't given to understand that the Norse people who were the proponents of this mythology were any more or less 'obsessed with warfare' than anyone else of their era. Thor, whilst depicted as a warrior god so far as I'm aware, was just one of the Norse pantheon which included gods and goddesses linked to weather, farming, alcohol, family, hunting... all the significant activities of the believers world-view, just like the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Japanese etc. and not dissimilar to the array of 'patron saints' in Christianity.

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

I have encountered God through Christ. It is obvious that , like me you know little about Thor but unlike me you are a philosophical empiricist. No inconsistency the abrahamic God is more comprehensively cosmic and philosophically fundamental than a nordic war God who rather than being the ground of all being is just the CEO of a band of superheroes.

Leprechauns are tiny irishmen if you can believe that.

The tribal Yahweh - who evolved into the Christian god - was excessively warlike. In fact, the text says so "Yahweh is a man of war".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How does it work - well if you give me the child at seven, I'll give you the adult ... It is hardly rocket science.

I thought that was the jesuits not the church of Scotland.

Yes
What on earth do you mean, and actually the notion that religious adherence goes up and down over decades is simply wrong - trends in religious adherence tend to be much longer range than that, specifically because they are so tied up with upbringing and therefore range over several generations. So in the UK adherence has been on the decline for nigh on a century, first a fairly gently decline and over the past 50 years rather more rapid - again you'd predict this on the basis of generational transmission.

All you are saying is that christian culture makes cultural christians which is fine because even Dawkins describes himself as much. Cultural religion is synonomous with nominal religion rather than conviction
What I want to know is how does what you propose, work, How does this invalidate God, How you do not see your commitment to Philosophical empiricism as culturally imparted?

And Dawkins and the Humanists believe that Britain is merely nominally Christian as well, hence there effort to get the census to measure actual belief instead of social and cultural affiliation

I didn't have a god free upbringing - I doubt anyone brought up in the 60s and 70s had a god free upbringing given that the default position with society and schools was that god exists and that that god is the christian one. My upbringing was certainly not very actively religious, although I also briefly was sent to Sunday school and had grandparents who were churchgoers. So although it was pretty 'religion-light' it had far more religion/god in it than atheism - indeed I don't think I really recognised that atheism was a thing until I was probably in my teens and I certainly don't think I'd ever met someone in my upbringing who overtly (or even covertly) described themselves as atheist, although I now recognise that plenty of people I knew at the time were actually atheist.

Religion lite, as you say, has been the condition of this culture for decades hence the census campaign. I see no reason not to believe Anchorman when he relates his experience of christianity light trather than your quirky madrass theory of sunday school attendance in the sixties.

[ProfessorDavey]

I see no reason not to believe Anchorman when he relates his experience of christianity light trather than your quirky madrass theory of sunday school attendance in the sixties.

So you accept that AM's upbringing was in the christian tradition then, in other words accepting my view rather than his rather bizarre implication that an upbringing that involved sunday school and Boys' Brigade somehow had nothing to do with christianity, indeed organised christianity.

[ProfessorDavey]

All you are saying is that christian culture makes cultural christians which is fine because even Dawkins describes himself as much.

That isn't what I am saying, although it is indeed true.

What I am saying is that active, rather than culturally, religious people almost always adhere to the religion and believe in the god of their upbringing. Show me an active christian and (except in very rare cases) I will show you someone brought up to be christian. Show me an active muslim and (except in very rare cases) I will show you someone brought up to be muslim. Show me an active hindu and (except in very rare cases) I will show you someone brought up to be hindu.

[ProfessorDavey]

... sunday school attendance in the sixties.

What are you not believing Vlad - that less than a quarter of kids in 1960 attended Sunday School and that is a snapshot of a declining attendance from the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries that continues through to today. That is demonstrated by evidence, it isn't a matter or belief.

So my point is that someone claiming that going to Sunday school was just the norm when they were brought up in the 50s or 60s or 70s and therefore didn't reflect any kind of specific choice by parents in terms of christian upbringing is either misguided or misinformed. Most kids did not go to sunday school back then, and indeed if your perception was that most, if not nearly all, did that would reflect an upbringing out of step with the norm and likely a decision by parents to embed themselves in a particularly christian cultural upbringing for their child, involving not just their child but also making sure that their friends, community etc were likewise christians.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you accept that AM's upbringing was in the christian tradition then, in other words accepting my view rather than his rather bizarre implication that an upbringing that involved sunday school and Boys' Brigade somehow had nothing to do with christianity, indeed organised Christianity.

I think it was no more a christian upbringing than yours or mine and had the same activities been provided, as mine were by the urban district council rather than the BB's he would have attended those. The appeal to being brought up in a 'tradition' is tenuous but somehow you manage to cast Christians who choose Christ as they get more mature as brainwashed sleeper agents a la 'The manchurian candidate'. The reality is that in a globalised society you are going to be exposed to competing beliefs but chiefly secularism and that was true in the sixties and seventies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That isn't what I am saying, although it is indeed true.

What I am saying is that active, rather than culturally, religious people almost always adhere to the religion and believe in the god of their upbringing. Show me an active christian and (except in very rare cases) I will show you someone brought up to be christian. Show me an active muslim and (except in very rare cases) I will show you someone brought up to be muslim. Show me an active hindu and (except in very rare cases) I will show you someone brought up to be hindu.

Cultural and nominal christians can be active in the church in fact at one point it was necessary to get into a much sought after place in a church school.

I still don't see why you aren't including secularism and secular humanism in your analysis of cultural weltbild since that is the predominant one in this country. So I will do it for you. Atheists, agnostics, non religious follow their upbringing in accordance with the theory proposed by Professor Davey.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not what is being claimed. The claim is that Anchorman was brought up "within a Christian tradition". It is likely that Anchoreman's upbringing has informed his decision to believe in the Christian god rather than anybody else's.

And I think he is saying he has encountered Christ which I would suggest is a different process from the one you are suggesting, namely some kind of cultural osmosis.

[Anchorman]

And I think he is saying he has encountered Christ which I would suggest is a different process from the one you are suggesting, namely some kind of cultural osmosis.

Yep.
No bells or whistles, no rallies or waking up during the church services I never attended, none of it.
Simply a revelation of Chrisdt in my life in my bedroom which, though I resisted and tried very, very hard to ignore, I couldn't.
I wouldn't say I was as reluctant a convert as C.S. Lewis, but it was a close run thing.

[jeremyp]

And I think he is saying he has encountered Christ which I would suggest is a different process from the one you are suggesting, namely some kind of cultural osmosis.

Isn't it strange that people brought up in a Christian tradition overwhelmingly encounter Christ rather than some other deity, but people brought up in other traditions e.g. Islam or Hinduism etc overwhelmingly encounter the deities of their tradition?

Actually, it's not strange: of course you encounter the god that you are familiar with.

Anchorman encountered Christ rather than, say Allah, because Christianity is the religion with which he was familiar.

[jeremyp]

Yep.
No bells or whistles, no rallies or waking up during the church services I never attended, none of it.

You went to Sunday School and you were in the Boys Brigade. Please don't insult our intelligence by pretending Christianity was nothing more to you than Islam.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Isn't it strange that people brought up in a Christian tradition overwhelmingly encounter Christ rather than some other deity, but people brought up in other traditions e.g. Islam or Hinduism etc overwhelmingly encounter the deities of their tradition?

Actually, it's not strange: of course you encounter the god that you are familiar with.

Anchorman encountered Christ rather than, say Allah, because Christianity is the religion with which he was familiar.

I'm not sure whether a personal relationship with Allah is a thing in Islam. Also there are people brought up in the so called christian tradition who opt for Islam. Although having said that the tradition people are brought up in and have been is more a kind of secular agnosticism and scientism and that means one could question whether your beliefs aren't merely cultural. Cultural hinduism probably equally risks producing cultural hindus.

[jeremyp]

I'm not sure whether a personal relationship with Allah is a thing in Islam.

A personal relationship with Christ is also not a thing, at least, not a real one. If it were, Christians wouldn't be so obsessed with the Bible because they could talk to Jesus direct and have him answer back. They wouldn't need preachers and priests to tell them what Jesus thinks.

Also there are people brought up in the so called christian tradition who opt for Islam.

True, but not many.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A personal relationship with Christ is also not a thing, at least, not a real one. If it were, Christians wouldn't be so obsessed with the Bible because they could talk to Jesus direct and have him answer back. They wouldn't need preachers and priests to tell them what Jesus thinks.
True, but not many.

I think you are only talking about the reformed wing of the church regarding biblical obsession. The rest of the church accepts in various measures the personal relationship, the ongoing transformative relationship with the holy spirit.

In Islam the place of christ or Christ analogy is the Koran as I understand it as the embodied word of God....I think we probably need Gabriella for a better understanding. Biblically all christians belong to the priesthood of all believers. Priesty priests are full timers.

Hinduism is a culture based around philosophies. I think it's been said that Hinduism was philosophy which found a narrative whereas christianity is a narrative which found philosophy.

[jeremyp]

I think you are only talking about the reformed wing of the church regarding biblical obsession. The rest of the church accepts in various measures the personal relationship, the ongoing transformative relationship with the holy spirit.

Does Jesus talk to you? What does he say? How does he say it? Is he a voice in your head? How do you know it's actually Jesus and not Loki trying to trick you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Does Jesus talk to you? What does he say? How does he say it? Is he a voice in your head? How do you know it's actually Jesus and not Loki trying to trick you?

Not voices, a sense of presence, a sense of distance, thoughts, phrases which come to mind, new insights and understandings, new illumination of a formerly closed off biblical passages, a hunger for the bible, a sense of mental and spiritual integration in Christian fellowship and after sacraments. That sort of thing.

How does Loki trying to trick me negate the existence of Christ? Why isn't it Christ, Jeremy?

[Anchorman]

You went to Sunday School and you were in the Boys Brigade. Please don't insult our intelligence by pretending Christianity was nothing more to you than Islam.

   

Speking as siomeone  who not only grew up in the BB, but was a BB officer for twenty four years, to say that the ethos was Christian is stretching it a bit.
Yes, we tried to convey the Object..."The Advancement of Christ's Kingdom among Boys.....etc", but if you think there was some form of holy osmosis goin g on, forget it.
Indoctrination was simply not on the agenda; I taught the faith side in the Company for twenty years, and you can guarantee that!
If I left a Boy asking questions, then that's fine with me.
My purpose was to pen minds, not close them.