Subscribe
Last night, I finished reading Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects by Bertrand Russel. Russel was one of those philosophers who I had often heard read about but never read his actual works. Indeed, I have read very little philosophy of that era.
I choose to read this book as part of a challenge. I had an ongoing debate on ReligiousFreaks with MAPK LOTGRE (MAPK L). Eventually, he challenged me to read a Christian apologetics book, Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton. I agreed, if he would reread it with me and we then read Why I Am Not a Christian.
Orthodoxy was a painful read and a very slow process for me. Chesterton’s style involved a lot of metaphor and symbolism that I had trouble fully grasping. Also, he seemed to revel in contradictions. Chapter titles like The Paradoxes of Christianity and statements like “The trouble with the candid friend is that he is not candid” set my teeth on edge. If I am anything, I am rational thus any defense of Christianity which relies on the denial of reason will fail with me, as Orthodoxy did. Ultimately, the book ended up being a long-winded version of the “Christianity feels right” argument, which holds no weight with me.
In contrast, Why I Am Not a Christian was written by a philosopher and mathematician. It’s arguments were well laid out, its terms were clearly defined, and its conclusions were rationally supported. This is much more inline with my style. But since this book is a collection of essays, it lacks the cohesiveness of Orthodoxy. Some essays were directly about religion, others related to the topic only tangentially.
Perhaps the biggest surprise of the book is that the ‘New Atheism’ movement, championed my Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens is not all that new. The exact same criticisms of religion appears in Russel’s book and the New Atheists’ books. The only thing new in the recent books is the inclusion of Evolutionary Theory as an argument against the existence of God. Also, the New Atheism movement seems to be much larger and louder than any in the past.
I am so bringing my copy of Mere Christianity with me Thursday. It may not convince you, but Lewis strikes me at least as a very logical thinker. Of course I’m one of those Christians who relies less on logic than some do.
Mere Christianity is next up on my Christian apologetics list. I want to give the genre another chance out of suspicion that Orthodoxy was just a bad example.
Hello Sid,
I agree that, in “Orthodoxy,†Chesterton displays a penchant for paradox, which also in my opinion is beyond moderation. However, I would like to make it clear that my motive for suggesting the the book, initially, was prompted by a comment that certain natural phenomna were once thought to have a supernatural cause, whereas Orthodoxy exmplifies that such a belief yet applies in a theistic world view. The author likewise points to Jesus’ own teaching of the necessity of a child-like faith. A small child demonstrates faith in parental protection and love, for example, by taking a hand before crossing a busy street; a task which the said child would be highly unlikely to accomplish independently. “Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.†Matthew 18:3 And I further recommend “Mister God, This Is Anna,†for its (in my opinion) remarkbly insightful, intelligent theistic perception from a small child’s-eye view.
Right now, I’m half way through “The Mind Of The Maker,†by Dorothy L. Sayers. I’ve read Rusell’s essay, “Why I Am Not A Christian,†but I’ll comment after I’ve re-read it and then read the rest of the book.
Hello MAPK L,
Child-like faith is simply complete trust in authority without sufficient reason to trust. This is a good thing for children as such trust in their parents helps them survive and thrive until adulthood, at least if the parents aren’t horrible people. This sort of faith has a different name when it is practiced by adults. It’s called naiveté. I’ve always found it convenient that those who preach that ‘faith like a child’ as a desirable trait tend to be authority figures themselves.
As with trust in any person, that trust is only as good as the authority figure(s) being trusted. Consider the child abused by his/her father, for instance. That same hand that the child reaches to to safely cross the street may later be beating the child senseless. Faith like a child in that parent is definitely not a good thing. So at the very least, child-like faith is not a good thing in and of itself.
In the case of Christianity, the authorities are today’s preachers, bishops, cardinals, the Pope, and other Biblical interpreters, as well as history’s translators, copiers, and writers. All of which were humans with biases, agendas, and veritable values and have been used to support military conquests, inquisitions, torture, executions, monarchy, slavery, female subservience, segregation, and hatred of homosexuals. Even if sometimes loving, Christianity has proven to be abusive; thus ‘faith like a child’ in it is a bad thing.
Hello Sid,
A child’s faith, or trust, in a parent to get safely across a busy street, like all faith, comes from personal experience. I suggest that bad parenting is beside the point, as we are really talking, not about faith in falible human beings; Jesus was talking to his own disciples about child-like faith–in himself, their teacher. Child-like faith is necessary, in that he was teaching them about things unknowable by means other than through himself. And bear in mind what he had to say to, and about certain religious leaders of the day.
According to my understanding (as found in the Book of Hebrews, chapter one) true Christianity recognizes Jesus, himself, as the sole authority in the kingdom of heaven and the sole resting place for spiritual faith.
Since one scholar’s credentials potentially carry as much authority as another’s, we must weigh the evidence and choose for ourselves to take the Bible as it stands, or not.
Hey MAPK L,
But we disagree as to whether Jesus was a fallible human or not. I believe him to only be human who has been misrepresented as supposedly perfect in a popular book. I think that the account of Jesus’ life was fictionalized and that the perfection he represents might not exist. Thus child-like faith in Bible-Jesus would be misguided, since it would be faith in something that likely never was real.
I guess my point is that before I can be convinced that child-like faith in Jesus is appropriate, I need to be convinced that 1) Jesus is worthy of that faith and 2) that the Bible accurately represents a comprehensive account of Jesus’ life. It needs to be comprehensive since almost anyone’s life can be made to seem perfect if one only writes about the good parts. Orthodoxy inadequately addressed 1 and 2 and skipped straight to you must have don’t-ask-questions, child-like faith to understand.
Hey Sid,
Can we just say, then that, from a viewpoint of taking the gospel accounts as accurate and reliable as we have them, as far as Jesus and his disciples were concerned, and as far as all Christian belief is concerned, a child-like faith was and is necessary, because his teaching claims to involve things not of this world?
Also, remember that “Orthodoxy†was not intended as an apologetic, but simply as an account of how the author came to his own personal faith. And I don’t think the Bible, itself, teaches that there are any questions we must not ask, but (implicitly) only that what has been
revealed to us is all that is necessary to know.
So if the Gospel accounts are accurate and reliable is child-like faith necessary? Unfortunately, having only read one of the Gospels, I’m ill-equipped to answer that question. I’ll take your word for it.
I noticed the Chesterton mentioned that Orthodoxy was not written as an apologetics book, but that is the way it has been received. If I remember correctly, even the person who wrote the introduction in my version of the book referred to it as ‘a classic in Christian apologetics’. In any case, it really was less of a defense of Christianity as it was an attack on other philosophies of Chesterton’s day.
If the Bible claims that it contains everything is necessary to know, then it has a similar problem, it discourages questions. Why try to ask why the planets move differently than the stars? All you need to know is that the earth is the center of creation. Why ask how the life on this planet came to be? It’s clearly demonstrated in Genesis. Why ask how we can better our lives? Being forgiven in Christ ensures a much better next one! In short, such an attitude is anti-intellectual and retards scientific progress.
Also, claiming one must have child-like faith terminates certain lines of questioning. For example: why do bad things happen to good Christians? You must have faith that God has a plan, and those bad things happen for a reason that we cannot understand. Furthermore, your faith must be like that of a child and except this answer.
I guess a better way to approach this is to ask you what you think it means to have faith like a child.
You know, I sit and read the post and subsequent responses and find myself needing to close the browser and make this go away. I guess I feel that way because I don’t much care for this argument. Why is it that faith needs to be debated? Faith, in itself, is trust in the unseen. No one can ever explain that to me but at the same time I understand it. Paradox? Maybe, but in my head it makes sense. But the bottom line is this, some people believe and others don’t and won’t. So why debate? Sid, will MAPK L’s arguments ever sway you from what you believe? No, they won’t. You cannot let go of rationality and believe in the other-wordly basics of Christianity. I will ask the same of MAPK L. Here I am assuming you are a believer, will Sid’s argument ever change your mind? I would assume no…So why debate? Yes it is fun, yes you can learn things but bottom line a debate in religion ends the same way, no one’s mind is changed.
Maybe I am jaded, maybe I am a hater. I really think it is I don’t know what to believe, or maybe what I want to believe. Sometimes I would love to have faith that there is a greater being watching over us and other times I simply cannot believe it.
So I guess my question to both of you is, why debate? And please don’t answer with something expected, like I learn from these debates. I want to know why Religion, do you expect to change someone’s mind? Do you expect to have your own beliefs altered? Or is this more of a test of your beliefs? I am very interested to know.
Ah, but the goal isn’t really to change one another’s minds. There are many other reasons to debate. The biggest one is to come to a better understanding of the other’s position and thinking. Another is that it is pure enjoyment. I love the art of debate. Another good reason to engage in debate with someone who disagrees with your beliefs is that they can identify weaknesses that I can think about and resolve. Lastly, these debates can sway undecided, but interested readers. It’s unlikely that any will ever read this, but it remains a possibility. I know this isn’t the response you want, but it’s my honest answer.
Another advantage of addressing this here is that in years to come, I can revisit these debates and gage how much my beliefs have changed. It serves as a mile marker for my intellectual development.
Can MAPK L change may mind? It’s unlikely, but possible. Also, I don’t reject that there may be some ‘other-worldly’ things that cannot be fully explained or understood, I am just highly skeptical that Christianity, or any one else, has it all figured out. What I get upset about is when policy is based off the false claim that someone understands this other-worldly essence. Christians claim to know more about the supernatural than is reasonable and then deny certain rights to homosexuals, women, and others based on this.
If you don’t enjoy these sorts of debates, you can always just skip over these posts.
I read your back and forth and honestly, it seemed just a big circle. That is why I find this debate worthless. I am an undecided but no debate can sway me because it seems no one reaches a “middle ground” and that frustrates me. Plus I have to read them because I am a glutton for punishment!
LOL, Then I have plenty of punishment to dish out. I’ve been persuaded by debaters as an interested undecided many times, especially in philosophy. My guess is that even though you’re undecided, you may not be that interested. If you are, perhaps you can suggest a middle ground.
Yeah, sometimes debates can become cyclical. I don’t see that this one has yet. Where do you see that?
I would not defend his harshness (in my opinion also) toward religious and philosophical opponents, but giving Chesterton the benefit of the doubt, a practice I try to maintain for everyone, his manner of criticism may have been more acceptable in his time and in his circles. As his editor, however, I’d have been strongly inclined to advise him to tone down his oppositional approach.
If the gospels accounts, as we have them, are accurate and reliable, then we may say that Jesus, himself, and his disciples believed he was all the New Testament writers declare him and his teaching to be. Child-like faith, therefore being a lesson he taught, would be necessary. I’m only trying to establish the trueness of the proposition here; and not to insist that you take it as certain truth. The Christian claim to know anything about the supernatural is not a claim of exclusive possession, it is a claim of knowledge availabile to everyone.
The standard Christian answer to the question, “why are we here?†is: “To glorify God.†But I think that is the wrong answer. That is just what faithful Christians do—or strive to do.
I perceive the true purpose of our being to be responsible self-expression: formulating and exchanging ideas, initially, to define our individual world-view, and ultimately aiming toward the discovery of universal truth on behalf of the entire human race.
I don’t believe I can change your mind, Sid, or anyone’s but I consider the possibility that you might change your own mind (in part) as a result of these discussions. C.S. Lewis says, in “Surprised By Joy,†that he changed his mind…or that, somehow, his mind was changed, while he sat deep in thought, on a bus journey. But apart from that, as I understand you to say, in a debate forum, we challenge ourselves as well as our opponents.
That the Bible holds all the necessary answers for right living, I would say, is not so much a claim as an assurance. And, like that of Socrates, one of Jesus’ favourite methods of teaching was to encourage questions; to prompt his listeners to ask him many questions. Also, Paul says: “Study to show thyself approved unto God a good workman who needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.†II Timothy 2:15. And (of the Bereans): “These were more noble than those in Thesalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.†Acts 17:11
And it is certainly the nature of children to ask many questions, like “Why do bad things happen to good people?†Christians who have not reasoned-out answers to such questions must resort to pat answers. But some, like C.S. Lewis, Peter Kreeft, Francis Schaeffer and Gregory A. Boyd provide what are held to be intellectually sound answers to many difficult questions about God.
Hey MAPK L,
I noted, but didn’t really object to Chesterton’s harshness. Such a tone is common in philosophy; especially, as you pointed out, for his time and place. In deed, I agreed with some of his criticisms of relative philosophies that were popular at the time. I should state that more often when debating religion because I find that many religionists assume that I am a philosophical relativist. On the contrary, I believe that truth is not relative.
I love it! We are definitely in agreement here! In fact, I agree with much of your most recent comment. I’m reading C.S. Lewis now precisely because I’ve been told he provides thoughtful answers to traditional challenges. The only statement I would challenge is “the Bible holds all the necessary answers for right living”. Because of the frequency of allegory and metaphor, the Bible is highly subject to interpretation. To illustrate, here is a Bible verse that I only learned about yesterday:
Mark 9:24 “And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it were better for him if a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.”
One interpretation is that Jesus is saying that children should be raised as Christians. My interpretation is that Jesus is discouraging questioning of faith, contrary to Acts 17:11. Yet another interpretation is that Jesus said Christians should execute by drowning all who cause any child to question their faith. From a modern Christian perspective, the first interpretation is a good guide for ‘right living’ whereas the last is not.
Hey Sid,
I also feel certain satisfacion when we find ourselve standing firmly on common ground.
But in regard to what you have said about Jesus’ warning in Mark 9:42, I must persist in pointing out how it demonstates his prompting of questions. You have offered two possible interpretations of his intended meaning, and now I submit a third.
As his kingdom, he declares, is not of this world, this warning would not be concerned with judicial laws; drawing a contrast to the previous verse, he uses a child, as an example to emphasize the serious eternal consequences of leading people—those more susceptible to mis-leading especially—away from the inheritance of eternal life which he claims to offer. I think it is not a matter of questions of faith being discouraged; it is rather an earnest warning against false answers to the questions.
That certainly is a valid interpretation. But you must admit that it’s not the only possible interpretation and that the ones I present might also be valid.
I suppose there may be other possible explanations, but given that love and mercy, not fear and oppression, were central to Jesus’ ministry, the explanation I’ve offered seems to me to heavily out-weigh any others.
I’m still ploughing through “The Mind of the Maker,“ while also reading through “Mere Christianity,†but I will get to Russell’s essays as soon as I can.
What of the violence Jesus showed to the money changers in the temple? Is not that action inline with a more menacing interpretation of the verse? Also, there is no shortage of violence promotion in the Old Testament. I’m not saying that your interpretation is wrong. In fact, I prefer yours. My point was to give one example of a Biblical verse that is subject to interpretations, some good, some bad. This makes the Bible unreliable as a life guide since one doesn’t know which verses he or she is interpreting correctly.
It’s good to know that you do prefer the explanation I’ve presented above. As for the other question, I hope you’ll find my answer at least satisfactory. Jesus’ reaction to the money changers in the temple is a matter I’ve puzzled over, myself, and so your bringing it up does pose something of a challenge, which I will do my best to answer.
When the questionableness of it first occurred to me, I thought that, in order to accept Jesus for who and what the New Testament claims him to be, I had to start with the premise that, throughout his life, he must necessarily have done no wrong; to never have given way to temptation—-not in my judgement, but in the sight of God, His Heavenly Father; and that I must not hastily renounce my faith in him, based on this one (or even a few) persistently puzzling questions.
In our efforts to discover whether or not he was God-as-man, we should assess the descriptions of the particular event in light of all that the gospels tell us about him. It may well be that one would have to be there, as an eye-witness, and even to question him, in order to comprehend how, in this instance, manifested anger (an inherent human and divine emotion) against desecrating the “house of prayer†(see Mark 11:17) was not excessive and so would fall in line with God’s benevolence and his justice.
Greetings Sid,
If Jesus were to respond to Bertrand Russell’s essay, “Why I Am Not A Christian,†I suspect that he would certainly acknowledge Russell’s first and second proposed requirements for the professing Christian: a belief in God and a belief in the immortality of the soul. I do not think that Jesus would insist on being thought of as the best and wisest of men, but I believe he would quite adamantly insist on a belief in hell; outer darkness, or call it what you will. And what Russell makes no mention of as a Christian requirement, Jesus taught first and fore-most: a need for acknowledging personal guilt of rebellion against God, and therefore a need by all of repentence for forgiveness. He also taught that acting in love (in which he includes the rendering of mercy-tempered justice)toward our fellow human beings is consummate evidence of Christian faithfulness.
In terms of understanding Judeo-Christian theology, it seems to me hardly a question worthy of even average adult intellect to ask: “If God made me, then who made God?†I think the primary significance of the biblical account of creation (wheather one chooses to take it literally or not) is that it points to the original man and woman, thus providing a specific and legitimate basis for placing high value on the individual human life; each one of us being made in the image of God. Our first parents were made perfect, it says, and we can become so in the sight of God, if we will, by his promise.
I have found it quite enlightening reading Bertrand Russell’s assessment of Christianity in conjunction with that of C.S. Lewis. Where “Mere Christianity†more than adequtely, I think, explains the beliefs which all Christians do agree on, Russell mostly points out all the disagreements between organized Christian goups. Why Rusell was not a Christian, I perceive, is simply that he held no true comprehension of the teachings of Jesus, because he looked to a fallen, collective human capacity for goodness carried out in the name of God, as the hallmark and substance of Christianity.
I look forward to hearing your comments.
Hello MAPK L,
Part of the Christian God is that He is all-good and all-wise. They also believe that Jesus was God in the form of a man. Thus, Jesus was all-good and all-wise. Since no others are all-good and all-wise, this would make Jesus the best and wisest of all men, from the Christian perspective. Perhaps Jesus’s humility would prevent him from admitting that, but it is a universal belief of Christians, at least as far as I know.
Also, there are and have been many Christians who do not believe in Hell. One example is the Universalists Church (now part of the Unitarian Church), who believe that Jesus redeemed everyone’s sins, whether they accept it or not. This doctrine of ‘universal salvation’ is what originally made it a separate denomination. Since everyone is redeemed, there is no need for a belief in Hell.
Anyway, Russell chose these criteria for a reason. He wanted to make sure he included everyone who called themselves Christian. He didn’t claim that all Christians believe Jesus was God because not all of them believed that. Some simply believed him to be the greatest moral leader and teacher (thus best and wisest). He didn’t require a belief in Hell, because not all Christians accept that, etc. He honestly tried to distill Christianity down to its core, shared beliefs.
True, but Russel was not a theologian, but a philosopher. As such, his ideas are not restricted by any creed as would any Judeo-Christian theologists. “Who/What made God?” is a legitimate philosophical question, if not a theological one.
I’m currently on part 2 of Mere Christianity, which started off well, but began to fall apart recently. I’ll blog on it when I finish it (and maybe End of Faith).
Hello Sid, Mark, and Santini (and anyone I may have missed). I stumbled onto this website somehow and started reading this blog. I feel humbled and certainly not up to the level of education and intelligence that you have achieved, however, I find this debate extremely interesting. I will say up front, that I am a professing Christian – which I am sure you would have realized in a short time anyway! I hope you will entertain my input, however simple it may be.
First of all, Sid, I think that it is no accident that this debate is taking place. I have not read the books mentioned, but have learned much just reading all of the comments listed above.
Child Like Faith: Sid, let me state that I am in agreement with your comment that “trust is only as good as the authority being trusted”. Ah, very true in the earthly sense, but belief in God is different, in that it takes a heart (like that of a child) not cluttered and by teachings, thoughts, pain, and suffering of this world to come to a belief and faith in God. We quickly become jaded, faded, discouraged, and disillusoned. It is a fact that the percentage of people who accept faith in God as an adult decreases dramatically. It is hard to retain or tap into that innocence. Think about it, a child’s mind is molded and shaped from day one. If you have children I am sure you can clearly see that. I believe that what we take into our mind has a great deal to do with what we do or do not believe.
Accuracy of the Gospels: The books that you are reading and discussing are all well and good, but what about reading the Bible as it is truly the book in question here. Sid, at some point, take time to read the Bible, specifically the Gospels and also Romans. I believe that Romans is a logically written book. It is also rather hard to understand (for me anyway). Historically, remember that Paul was the author and he started out hating christians and everything they stood for. He was relentless and dedicated his life to running them down and destroying completely any trace of the christian faith. You are obviously extremely intelligent and well read with a strong desire to increase your knowledge base and to test your intellectual level. In your persuit of truth and knowledge it would make sense to include this reading.
Mark, I do take to task your comment on 10/16 that Jesus is the sole authority in the kingdom of heaven. I disagree, case in point, Jesus sits at the right hand of God in heaven. God created everything including his only Son. They both in authority – but then again they are 3 in 1. That’s a different discussion.
I have enjoyed reading the blog and hope to continue. I am behind and can only absorb so much at a time.
Hi everyone. Sid, This blog is… well um… you know how I feel, but I do like the debate part. I am considering adding my 2 cents worth now and then, however, I feel rather out of my league.
Hello Sid, Mic A, and all,
First, let me say it’s always good to have a new voice in these discussions.
As for your comments, Mic, of Jesus, it says, in Hebrews 1:2, He is appointed heir of all things, which may not necessarily mean sole authority, but in Matthew 28:18, Christ, himself, declares:”All authority is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth.”
As you noted, Sid, in your edition of “Orthodoxy,†the writer of the preface (in fairness to the author, I would say errantly) describes the book as a work in apologetics; Chesterton, himself, we recall, expressly stated that he did not offer it as such. Likewise, I would say Bertrand Russell, at times even recklessly, misinterprets the words of Jesus.
Although I credit Russell for composing and authorizing a well-written, mentally engaging collection of essays, he and his readers might have been better-served had he examined the original source, ie., the New Testament, with at least less-evident scepticism, in regard to the intended meanings and ramifications of the sayings of Jesus, referred to in the sections, “Defects in Christ’s Teaching,” and “The Moral Problem.”
Because even Jesus’ own disciples often found it necessary to ask him about the meanings of his statements, it seems hasty for us to presume his intended meanings, at the very least, without the benefit of consulting one or more biblical scholars before drawing any hard and fast conclusions. The Schofield Reference Bible, for example, describes in a note how the transfiguration is a “miniature,†or symbol, of the kingdom realized. As this explanation satisfies no less than the editorial committee at The Oxford University Press, I can see no dogmatic basis for assuming that Jesus didn’t know what he was talking about (see Mark 9:1).
Jesus was condemned to death by crucifixion for blasphemy, because mosaic teaching, to which of course he wholly subscribed, held that God alone had authority to forgive the sins of others. And he personally claimed the power to forgive all sins. For that reason, to start with, Christians in what may be called the narrower sense believe him to be God-incarnate. The gospels clearly indicate that he believed, and claimed it of himself.
It is well-known that Jesus talked even more about the danger of Hell than he did about Heaven. I certainly believe his atonement made salvation available to all, but I can see no purpose for his many warnings of Hell, if universal salvation had already been set in order. And I fail to see how a belief (as Russell puts it) in something–however dreadful–to be true, can have any bearing on ones moral character or humaneness.
“Who or what made God?†as a philosophical question may be deemed legitimate, by first establishing that God requires a maker. By definition, it seems to me a contradiction in terms.
Mic A,
There is one further point I would like to add in regard to to your post.
I’ve noticed that you said: “God created everything, including his only Son.” It is held by both Catholic and Protestant teaching that Jesus is begotten of the Father, not created. In Book four of “Mere Christianity,” C.S. Lewis presents a short, but comprhensive section explaining the meaning of it.
Hello Mic A and Becky (gee, who could that be?),
I’m glad you’re enjoying the discussion and everyone is welcome. Don’t sell yourselves short. Anyone can contribute meaningfully to these discussions. Please feel welcome to comment anytime something interests you.
Mic A,
I’m afraid what you describe in that statement sounds an awful lot like naïveté. It also takes a mind not cluttered by teachings, thoughts, etc. to be taken in by a conman. Sometimes, I think the religious say that belief in God takes “faith like a child” to give them an excuse for not thinking too deeply about God’s existence and God’s nature.
I’m fairly sure that you are correct. But doesn’t this fact simply support the idea that religion is not rational? If one must be a naive, emotional child to accept religion and not a experienced, rational adult, then it stands to reason that what is being taught is not based on reason.
As Becky can attest to, I was raised to believe Christianity. But as I gained experience and sharpened my critical thinking skills, I discovered that my innocence had been taken advantage of (not maliciously, mind you) to convince me of untrue things.
I’m going to, once I find a better version then the KJV. I’d prefer a translation to a transliteration (I’ve heard the NIV would suite me more). I have read one of the Gospels, John and I am sorry to report that it sounded more like fiction than biography or history. Romans would present more of a problem for me, however. Based on what I know about Paul’s writings, no one did more to skew and misrepresent the teachings of Jesus than Paul. If the Gospels are true than Paul has been Satan’s most effective tool to date. But I’ll read it nonetheless.
Hello MAPK L,
Misinterprets or simply interprets differently? I am certain that Russell interprets some of them differently, but so do differing denominations of Christianity.
All philosophers (the good ones anyway) approach as much as possible with skepticism. The reason this is so is because every assumption a philosopher makes will be the subject of criticism from other philosophers. Scientists do the same, actually, and for the same reasons.
How is it, then, that God failed to teach in such a way that was clear to all? He is all-powerful, after all. Such linguistic ambiguity is a hallmark of man, not God. This would suggest that Jesus was human and not divine. I agree with you on one point, however. Jesus’s words and all of the Bible is highly metaphorical and thus prone to multiple, equally valid interpretations. We’ve discussed some of that already. Indeed, I would like to couple my Biblical reading with that of a biblical scholar or two. Though I’ll choose one with a background in history and not theology so as to reduce the amount of bias in the analysis.
That’s an easy one. If one believes God to represent the ultimate in moral goodness, and if God sees fit to eternally torture non-Christians (or non-Muslims or non-Jews, depending on which culture you were born into), then the obvious conclusion is that it is morally right to harm non-believers. Thus one can use the existence of Hell to justify Crusades, Inquisitions, denial of human rights, and so forth, so long as the target of such harm is ‘sinful’ in some sense. God wants non believers punished. Why else would he have created Hell? Christians strive to be Christ-like, thus God-like, thus torture-non-believers-like… thus immoral and inhumane.
In addition to Why I Am Not A Christian, I have, very recently, also read a short biography of Bertrand Russell, focusing on his great accomplishments in mathematics, and Bertrand Russell Speaks His Mind, a series of interviews, conducted, for the BBC, in 1960, in which Lord Russell presents himself as a very likable figure, and who seems to thoroughly enjoy his social status and renown. I would not deny him, or anyone, freedom to express any personal views. But in his arguments (to borrow one of his own chapter titles, which he, likewise borrowed from Hamlet) I notice a “Seems Madam? Nay It is†message peppered throughout his writing. Regarding other topic headings, It would seem much more generous to say Queries….rather than Defects in Christ’s Teaching, and, Christ And Morality, for example, rather than The Moral Problem.
I agree that what you and I were taught as children about the cruelness of Hell could not be quite right, if God is truly and wholly Good. But I think one is more able to come to truth by approaching even the worst of all propositions as positively as possible, rather than negatively. Therefore, I can say, as I’ve mentioned to you before, that I now believe Hell to be not a physical place, nor anything created by God. Nor do I think it in itself can be punishment; since punishment by its nature must end. Just as entrance into Heaven is is not itself a reward, but a free gift, I perceive Hell to be none other than the inevitable consequence of one’s own rejection of the gift: undeseved eternal life with God. I cannot explain why existence in the state of Hell must be eternal, upon departing this life. I’m not even one hundred per-cent decided in my own mind that it is. I would very much prefer to hope that he meant otherwise.
Although what heavenly rewards await is not revealed, we are told there are degrees of reward awaiting us there, according to good works done during our earthly life. So, I belive, must there be degrees of punishment in Hell, justly measured out, deserved, non-eternal, not cruel, somehow spiritually-purifying punishments, resulting from one’s earthly mis-deeds.
I think Jesus taught clearly to those who sincerely sought his counsel, even when he spoke in metaphors. Take Nicodemus, for example. Nicodemus went out of his way to visit Jesus, asked questions in earnest, and went away a devout follower. And sometimes, Jesus spoke very plainly: “This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom he hath sent.†John 6:29. You may say that it is not altogether a straight-forward answer, but it would only require one or two simple questions, the answer of which, within its context, would seem very obvious.
Indeed, ‘Queries’ rather than ‘Defects’ (etc.) would be a more neutral term. But Russel’s interpretation would make some aspects ‘defective’. What I’d like to know is why is one interpretation more legitimate than another? What criteria are we to use to decide which is more ‘correct’ between two differing interpretations. Again we return to the problem of God not clearly stating all His thoughts:
Yet different people who sincerely seek his counsel can come away with differing interpretation. Again, I’d point out the doctrinal difference between denominations, all of which has sincere and knowledgeable adherents. Even if God sometimes speaks plainly, that is not always the case. So I ask again, why did God fail to speak/write so that, consistently, all could understand clearly?
Your ideas on Hell are interesting and somewhat similar to that held by most Mormons. Ask one about it sometimes, it is quite interesting. I’ve heard some speak of Hell as simply separation of God, which, by it’s very nature, causes suffering. Is that what you are suggesting?
In any event, if Hell is an eternal state (if not place), and is contingent one what we do in this life, I’d still consider it unjust, regardless of the level of suffering involved. A just God would not give us partial, unclear information and expect us to make an eternally irrevocable decision based on it. He would give us complete and clear information. Instead, we have several, incompatible religions, all of which are very new considering the millions of years people have been on earth, each of which is highly subject to interpretation, all of which describe God differently, and all of which have different methods of being ‘with’ God o ‘one with’ God.
No, if God is just, if there is an afterlife, and if we have all the information in the afterlife, a just God would provide a method for joining Him/Her/It.
Do you remember my comment in our discussion of “Orthodoxy,†about algebra being a pattern for logic? If we start with a complex problem, and then by reducing it to the simplest terms, we get the only right answer. And we know there is only one right answer in algebra. We can confirm our answer to an algebraic problem in two ways, I think: by the word of a mathematician, or by repeating the formula often enough to ensure its accuracy. In preparation for a math test, I would recommend doing both, and in the given order. Before having confirmed it, however, it is nevertheless reasonable to hold to an answer that appears correct.
But since the human power of reason cannot be so precisely formulated as a mathematical system, I think our strongest tool in discerning truth about existence is in the training our minds to learn the right questions to ask, how to ask them in the most efective way, for the benfit of reference, who to ask and perhaps sometimes even in what order to arrange the questions. I believe the power of human reason is a God-given one, made available to us, in order to discover all that is good: love, hope, beauty, honour and so on, rather than simply having everything dished out to us on a plate, as if we were infants.
I believe that because invisible powers around us, both good and evil ones, influence our thoughts and actions somehow (not directly), we all choose the wrong answers sometimes, and some of us get more wrong ones than others, depending perhaps in part, on one’s circumstances, but far more often, I believe on one’s thoughtfulness and self-honesty in asking the questions. As both Bertand Russell and C.S. Lewis have pointed out, only one of the world’s religions could be true, at least where they are in disagreement. In that respect we may say that in theology, there can be only one right answer; that is, there cannot be one whole truth and another whole truth about God. As you will see, Lewis also suggests that some may be saved by Christ, although they do not know him.
One thing I virtually never hear Christians discuss, and very likely it never occurs to very many, is that, if God is Love, as the Bible says, then it follows that he must love everyone, including those in Hell, and even including the devil and his fallen angels. Love itself sustains, and God sustains all of his creation, visible and invisible. Therefore, I think he must have a tremendously greater plan than he reveals to us, and probably greater than we could possibly ever comprehend. It seems almost beyond thought, conventionally, and even doctrinally forbidding to contemplate a hope of the devil one day being reconciled to God in, say, a brazillian years. Truth is truth, independent of what even very wise men fully understand. I believe the Bible is a code for life, to prepare us for eternity. And I think we’ll all be in for lots of astounding surprises (though not necessarily the above mentioned) during all that time.
Well, I think separation from God—especially being eternal would certainly mean suffering. But what I’m really getting at is that in Hell, there is only
justice–with no mercy, meaning everyone receives exactly what is deserved; no more, no less.
Some years ago, I did become involved in lengthy, weekly discussions with two sets of Mormon missionaries over a period of about six months, who’s purpose it was to instruct me in their set of lessons. It turned out to be a series of very interesting debates, not unlike this one. According to one of them, Hell is going to be better than the life we know now, here on Earth. Although I have no conscious tendency toward their formal doctrines, I think the experience may have contributed to an awakened objectivity to the religious doctrines with which I had been instilled from very early childhood. As for my thoughts on Hell, an essay on “Eternal Punishment,†written by Lewis Carroll, is what first set my mind in motion on the subject, but my own thoughts are not quite the same as his.
“Even if God sometimes speaks plainly, that is not always the case. So I ask again, why did God fail to speak/write so that, consistently, all could understand clearly?â€
I believe the Bible is God’s self-revelation to the individual, not just to the scholar, the translator, transliterator or leaders of religious organisations. I recommend using all or any versions/interpretations that satisfy your personal enquiry—or none if it means nothing to you. But try again later.I think everyone, child and adult alike, has the capacity to understand sufficiently what may not be any more fully understood by us now than it is, (we, being in a lower, and indeed, a fallen world) regarding things unseen. But it would be nonsense to suggest that God would purposely bar us from knowledge we need in order to know him, when he created human beings for that very purpose. It’s the devil who wants to keep us from God. I would say it is not God’s failure, but our own if we don’t find him. And the Bible says God did provide us a method for joining with him, through Christ’s sacrificial atonement for sin, the free gift, which is yours to receive or reject.
Hello MAPK L,
Forgive me for being pedantic, but I simply must make a correction to one of your statements: “we know there is only one right answer in algebra.” Actually, an algebraic equation can have none, one, any number, or infinite number of answers. Here are a few examples:
x – 1 = x has no answers
x – 1 = 0 has one answer
x^2 – 1 = 0 has two answers
(x – 1)(x – 2)(x – 3) has three answers
10x – 5 = -5(1 – 2x) has an infinite number of answers
Please don’t get me wrong. I understand the point you were making, but as a mathematician, I just can’t let a mistake such as that slip by.
I agree. I’d call that philosophy, which I practice regularly.
Again, we find ourselves in agreement, though we may differ on what we understand ‘God-given’ to mean (I avoid the term due to its ambiguity). That is why I describe myself as a Deist.
Here, I disagree with them. No religion being correct is a distinct possibility. Indeed, I find it likely that every religion has some things incorrect.
You go on to take a very interesting (dare I say, unorthodox) view of eternity. You suggest that God may have a plan for eventual universal salvation and what he has chosen to reveal to us (for reasons unknown to us) is how to best prepare in this life for eternity hereafter. One thing we both definitely agree on is that we have no where near all the information and we are making our best guesses based on what we think we know. What I argue is that Christians claim far too much based on our limit knowledge, some of which is, to be generous, a challenge to reason.
What about the millions of humans that lived before the Bible existed? Also, blaming misunderstandings of the Bible on Satan only begs the question. Why did God fail to thwart Satan’s campaign of misinformation? Lastly, which interpretation and which denomination fully used their “capacity to understand”? How do you know? Just to leave you with some questions to ponder.
Hello Sid,
I’m feeling a degree mental exhaustion from some of your challenging questions, but I think I’ve pretty much covered them all.
I guess I should say, excuse my ignorance. You have proven that I am no mathematician, but am I mistaken in hinking there are certain types of problems in algebra which reduce to only one right answer? It’s been fiften years or more since I’ve studied it. Anyway, I’m glad to know you follow, and acknowledge my point.
It’s a wonder to think that I described philosophy without even realizing it. Maybe it was past my bedtime.
I was/am hopeful that the Monism-dualism debate might provide a workable understanding of the term God–or god—acceptable from all positions. It seems to me, thus far, that any attempts at it have failed to receive everyone’s approval, and have more or less led us in circles.
For clarity, I think my comment requires re-phrasing. I think what Russell and Lewis agree on is that if any one religion were shown to be true, it would logically disprove all others, in as much as they disagree with that one.
It seems prudent to me, in certain contexts, to approach such terms as forever, never, always, eternal, eternity, everlasting, not with suspicion, but with care and some measure of caution, even for those who of us believe God to be the speaker. We read in Deuteronomy 4:40: “that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God, giveth thee, forever.“ It seems to me that a number of possible meanings could apply here, to the term, “forever.â€
Although the following is not what I actually think, it may help to put certain popular religious dogmatism concerning matters such as etenal punishment, and even eternal life, into perspective. Suppose that all the theologians mis-read the word eternal, and that from before the beginning of creation, God intended the word to mean: as much of eternity as our finite minds can fathom, or simply: as long as he intends to sustain what has been created, and then there would be nothing again, except his triune self; no Heaven, no Earth, no Hell. How might one presume to hold him to account, if our final chapter were, from day one, already written? But this is not to suggest that I would never take these terms literally. While, by my own finite understanding, I would contemplate a prayerful hope of eventual release from Hell for every creature, I would not be so bold as to argue a case for it.
I would, on the other hand, be more than a little surprised to learn of consistently unanimous agreement among scholars involved in any given translation of the Bible, or any ancient manuscript. In such groups, ultimately, I suppose, decisions must be based on numbers and/or degree of expertise. I believe you know that I don’t presume to have all the answers, but those I have satisfy me in mind and in heart. I take no membership in any denomination because I believe the “invisible church†to be the essential true body of Christians. Because I think we as individuals have the capacity for sufficient truh about God, I would say no particular denominational group can claim that they alone possess all the right answers. Anyway, it sems to me that “collective knowledge…â€or “collecive understanding†is fundamentally artificial. That is why different denominations—and so many of them–exist. It seems ironic to think that the initial purpose of doctrinal creeds was to bring unity and peace. I can see no wrong in joining a denomination which may happen to suit ones doctrinal emphases, however, provided they are borne out in moderation and humility.
Regarding how God deals with those to whom the Bible was (or is) not available: Although Paul states in Romans 10:17, that “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,†I believe it should be understood that faith can also come by other means. Hebrews 11:4 says: “By faith, Abel…obtained witness that he was righteous.†Job 19:25 says: “For I know that my redeemer lives and that he shall stand at the latter days upon the earth….†Psalm 97:6 tells us: “The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory.†And Romans 2:15 (of the Gentiles) says,:â€Who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness….†In short, according to the Bible, everyone is accountable.
I believe that everything good points to God, and the more we can fine-tune our thinking to that concept, the more clearly and readily we see the evidence of it. Practicing optimism, ie., learning to see goodness in all things (including the Bible) and especially in trial and tribulation: natural disasters, war zones, terminal illness, seems to bring people, metaphorically speaking, right up close to God. God reveals himself, in various ways to people, through the wonder and magnificent beauty of all that exists in the universe. It is evident that people can and do encounter God without looking in the Bible, but I think reading the Bible, if you will, is like putting on glasses for a sharper image of God. I would like to suggest that, what inexhaustive knowledge
avails us regarding truth about God may be called our best hope. Sound (ie., reasoned) conviction, if I may say so, not guessing, is what will see us through in the end, to certain truth.
Why God has not yet thwarted Satan seems too large a question for me to try to answer here, and, I think, not fully available to us. But we are told that his campaign will be entirely thwarted on the day when justice (to the unrepentent) will have been served in full. “Letters To A Skeptic,†by Gregory A Boyd addressses this question, in my opinion, quite satisfactorily.
Hey there, MAPK L,
It seems we may have hit a natural place to conclude, or at least take a break from, our discussion. Perhaps we can pick it up again when I post about Mere Christianity. It has been very enjoyable. I greatly appreciate your thoughtful participation. If you do have any more thoughts in the mean time, don’t hesitate to comment here.
Take care.
Hey Sid,
Your suggestion sounds fine to me. I’ll be very interested to hear your further impression of Lewis.
While I have found no confirmation of this, some time ago, a close friend of mine assured me that, at the end of his life, through talks with Malcolm Muggeridge, Bertrand Russell came to a profession of Christian faith, and took membership in the Anglican Church. I’ll inform you of any information I find confirming or refuting it. I really would like to know the source, and truth of it.