Rank Superstition
Did you enjoy the Times article about the study that found – o wonder – that churchgoers are superstitious? Were you dumbfounded, gobsmacked, astonished, staggered, amazed, knocked for a loop – in short, were you surprised? I can’t say I was. What surprises me is that anyone thinks there’s a tension between the two. I know people do think that (there was that hilarious item a few months ago about some cardinal at the Vat complaining about that very thing – about people believing all sorts of bizarro superstitious nonsense) but it still surprises me that they do. It seems to me that they’re not quite thinking things through if they think that. They’re not asking themselves why it’s sensible to believe one superstitious thing and absurd to believe another. (I know, I know, I know – that helpful nag who likes to tell me I’m secular religious or similar without ever explaining what he means by that is, if he bothers to read this, triumphantly telling himself that I am riddled with superstitions but just don’t know it. Let the court so stipulate.) What exactly is the criterion by which they know superstition from superstition-free religion? Just that they’re – you know – different?
According to a study, nearly all churchgoers admit to practising superstitious behaviour such as crossing their fingers for luck, touching wood for protection or throwing spilt salt over their left shoulder…The Christian Church has always been highly antagonistic towards superstition, believing it to be irrational and linked to paganism. Through the Dark and Middle Ages, anyone suspected of using traditional charms to secure good or bad luck for themselves or others would usually be burnt at the stake or drowned. The victims were nearly always women.
I don’t think that’s accurate. I’m pretty sure it’s not. Gledhill seems to be conflating the witch trials in the 15th-17th centuries with the sanctions on using charms from the 4th century onwards. I really don’t think everyone suspected of using a good luck charm in that period was killed – there’d have been no one left. But never mind that; the real question is what ‘the Christian Church’ (the what?) means by ‘irrational’ and at exactly what place on the map it draws the line between the rational and the irrational.
The research was carried out by a team at the University of Wales, Bangor, led by Leslie Francis, Professor of Practical Theology and the country’s leading exponent of the sociology of religion…In the paper, to be published in the Journal of Implicit Religion, the authors say that the findings contradict the hypothesis that Christian teaching precludes superstitious beliefs.
Well…how could it? Unless you simply take the resurrection as not a superstitious belief – by defining it that way. But that would be a rather glaring bit of special pleading. So…how else is it done?
Newsflash: Baseball players wear hats, swing bats!
Nothing like a good old expert in ‘Practical Theology’ to tell us something we don’t already know. (Does the study of ‘Practical Theology’ help one write diet books? How about “Jesus’ Guide to Lawncare”?)
I don’t know how one can lump the ‘Christian Church’ together as one group with similar teachings. (Lazy reporting? No!) This morning on NPR Tony Blair was described as a ‘committed Christian’ in a piece about his support for stem cell research – as if he was a pioneer or something.
The difference between superstition and religion is just the level of organisation involved – the mindset is surely the same, and it insists there is no alternative, hence the most annoying phrase in existence: “but science is just your religion”.
This calls for one of those conjugations invented by Bertrand Russell, I think.
I am devout/spiritual..
You are religious.
He is superstitious
Oh, I always thought it was Bernard on ‘Yes Minister’ who invented those.
That’s a good one.
First, the study.
Were the witnesses led? How was the survey conducted? How many surveys conducted till they got this answer? What is the Journal of Implicit Religion? Are our taxes really going to support a Professor of Practical Theology? How many exponents must there be for someone to be a leading exponent-3? The fact that the paper has got publicity before publication rather indicates its use for PR or Marketing as opposed to a pure search for truth and scientific study.
That Christians are superstitious is, unfortunately true. But Ruth Gledhill is right in saying that the Church is hostile to superstition – as am I.
The belief in the Resurrection is indeed core to Christianity, which is an historically based faith. Atheists obviously do not believe in the resurrection, or they would not be atheists. But Christians believe – not know – that this is the best explanation for the early accounts recorded in the gospels, Acts and Pauline letters and the growth of Christianity. I do. I have not yet read a convincing naturalist account of the post crucifixion events, which addresses the questions as to why the Church grew as quickly as it did and why the disciples, including James, the brother of Jesus, and leader of the church in Jerusalem, held the beliefs they did.
That does not make me superstitious. My belief is rooted in historical evidence. I may turn out to be wrong, but a wrong belief is not a superstition, unless it is held against the evidence.
I know you don’t agree with me, but if readers to B&W do have good evidence for a naturalistic explanation of the resurrection, please post it; that is, if OB does not object. I don’t want to turn this into a Christians vs rationalists argument. That won’t take us very far, and there are lots of nonsenses out there to be exposed.
Best wishes
So JM, why exactly do you need facts about Jesus when you ‘believe’? (Or, who worries about ignorance when you can believe?) With that ‘Get out of jail free’ card (faith/belief), you can believe anything you want about Jesus. Did he rise on the third day and see a show? Sure. Zeus turned himself into a swan, so why not Jesus?
Wade Boggs, Hall of Fame baseball player, eat chicken before every game he played. It was part of his routine – one of his many superstitions (he had a bunch.) How is he any different than any large group of godbotherers? There is more evidence of a causal connection for Boggs (3,000 hits!) than there is eye-witness testimony of the resurection.
Not only are our taxes supporting theologists at Bangor, but the University of Oxford recently advertised not one but two Regius Professorships in Theology.
I do think, though, that the Journal of Implicit Religion is a text just crying out for some satirical article-titles. OTOH, implicit religion is what all these ‘scientism-ists’ are accused of, isn’t it?
Yes, GT, I do think there is a simpler expanation. As the late Robeert A. Heinlein might metaphorically have put it, it was railroadin’ time. A belief in persons whose births were attended by wonders and marvels, who performed miracles, and who achieved apotheosis was part of the cultural milieu. You may well own a copy of Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms. The first paragraph of his book describes the history of just ssuch a person. At the end of that long paragraph, one discovers that Helms is descrbing Life of Apollonius, by Flavius Philostratus. As I am fond of remarking, to C. S. Lewis’s so-called trilemma of lunatic, liar, or lord, one must add, at the very least, legend.
IanB –
I think Wade Boggs is a terrific name and would gladly affiliate to any Branch Boggsian. Is there a url ?
JM, so you find the resurrection ‘the best explanation for the early accounts recorded in the gospels’? And you find naturalistic explanations unconvincing? So you’re saying you find it more plausible that a dead man was resurrected than that a few of his fans wrote stories about him? Could you explain to us why you find the resurrection explanation more convincing than the mythmaking explanation?
Or to put it another way: are you sure you’ve properly considered the (obvious) possibility that the resurrection was a story and that there is nothing else to explain?
I don’t want to ‘undermine your belief’ or anything like that (which is what such questions always look like) – but if you will say such things, then the questions do arise.
Nick S,
A shrine to Wade Boggs was dedicated in Cooperstown, NY in 2005. (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/includes/2005_Inductees/inductees_boggs.htm)
Many other ‘gods among men’ are honored there as well. I suggest purchasing postcards of Wade Boggs and sending them to your non-believing friends. Some day, all of mankind will know the glory of chicken dinners, taking batting practice at 5:17 every day, and growing a tremendous mustache.
If we take the Sermon on the Mount as the core message of Christianity then there is a lot to admire and little to condemn in the teachings. But the need for supernatural validation always gets in the way.
When I am told that an (arguably) historical figure in that context made such a clear and succinct ethical pronouncement, I am prepared to be impressed. When I am told he walked on water, raised the dead and cast out demons I am forced to conclude that whatever truths were told have be subborned and subverted by superstition and propaganda.
I’ve always seen the miracles, and the resurection in particular, as the weakest part of the New Testament. If the message itself is worthy, why does it need implausible and unoriginal magic tricks to validate it?
And I can seldom resist linking to;
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/03/07/tomb/
“If the message itself is worthy, why does it need implausible and unoriginal magic tricks to validate it?”
Because the message is not all that is valued (it’s also far from unique: it has much common ground with other Hellenistic philosophy).
Whether or not belief in the resurrection can be considered superstitious is the central question here. I disagree with JM’s view: “That does not make me superstitious. My belief is rooted in historical evidence. I may turn out to be wrong, but a wrong belief is not a superstition, unless it is held against the evidence.”
There is no historical evidence for the resurrection. A story is not evidence. By the same token, there is no historical evidence that Athena repeatedly appeared to Odysseus and helped him with his adventures. It’s a story. There is no need to cast about for naturalistic explanations of Athena’s appearances to Odysseus, because there is no evidence that they ever happened; there is nothing to explain. Stories do not constitute evidence. Thus there is no need to cast about for naturalistic explanations of the resurrection of Jesus since there is no evidence that it ever happened; it’s a story. An inability or refusal to see that is at least credulity if it is not superstition (and I’m not entirely sure what the difference is).
That’s very rude; but, again, if believers will say these things – I don’t know how else to reply.
Part of empirical rationality is, I suppose, thinking about what is and what is not evidence.
“My belief is rooted in historical evidence. I may turn out to be wrong, but a wrong belief is not a superstition, unless it is held against the evidence…if readers to B&W do have good evidence for a naturalistic explanation of the resurrection, please post it;”
True enough: a wrong belief is not a superstition, unless it is held against the evidence. But then the question becomes, what is being taken to be evidence? The answer seems to be that the gospels are being taken to be historical evidence – in the sense of being reliable historical accounts as opposed to stories. But that’s exceedingly tricky. All historical accounts are considered at least somewhat unreliable, especially deliberately authored ones (as opposed to documentary ones; secondary as opposed to primary); all the more so when they’re two thousand years old. There are libraries full of books that try to tease out how reliable Thucydides’s ostensibly coldly reportorial unfanciful history really is. Secular historians don’t take the gospels to be straightforwardly reliable eyewitness accounts of real events (to put it mildly). So: is a belief that relies on taking the gospel accounts that way not ‘going against the evidence’? I would say it is. Is there an argument for why it isn’t?
I’m still intrigued by this. It’s nagging away at me. It seems to me such a blatant example of having it both ways – of believing something obviously highly unlikely – something that contradicts all known examples of what happens to people after they die – and still claiming that the belief is ‘rooted in historical evidence’ – and not only that but that competing (naturalistic, i.e. non-miraculous) explanations for this highly unlikely event are unconvincing while the highly unlikely event is convincing. How can such a belief be called ‘rooted in historical evidence’?
But I daresay I’ll never know. Explanations never are forthcoming.
Atheists obviously do not believe in the resurrection, or they would not be atheists.
This is a somewhat puzzling claim; my Lubavitcher cousins, for example, think that the resurrection is nonsense, and yet it would be rather bizarre to describe them as “atheists.” Not believing in the resurrection simply means that you are a most heterodox Christian, a Unitarian, or not a Christian at all.
Christians themselves have always found “superstition” to be a conveniently moving target. My Victorian Protestants regularly define Roman Catholicism as a form of “superstition,” after all (a claim hardly original to them), and similar charges are still current in certain fundamentalist circles.
Those reluctant to close the door on both religion and superstition do so for one or more reasons: lack of rigour, ignorance, political correctness, magical thinking and the desire for the exceptional, and the persistance of childlike or primitive modes of thought. Lack of rigour amounts to a disregard for probabilities–a slim or virtually non-existent likelihood is placed on equal footing with virtual certainties. Ignorance pertains especially to being unaware of these probabilities and basic logic, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the negative or default position. The politically correct are just trying to avoid a fight. Magical thinking is an escape clause from physical reality; tomorrow can not only be better, it can be supernaturally fantastic–hope on steroids. Furthermore, magic can bypass the need for work and knowledge. Appease the gods, perform the spell, and all this can be yours.
JM’s post is an example of the persistance of childlike or primitive modes of thought. In the ancient world, stories of miraculous events attributed to heroes were common; indeed, a religious figure would hardly be worth noticing without tales of miraculous derring do, particularly amongst early Christians, who were, as contemporary critics noted at length, notoriously simple even by ancient standards. Even if we knew what James really said (which is doubtful,) it’s a sound bet that he would have gone along with miraculous tales just to compete with rival sects.
Hi OB! Glad to see you are still doing the good work.
Jeffery, a naturalistic explanation of ONE miraculous-sounding event is very worth reading – in the chapter Social Proof of Robert Cialdini’s “Influence: Science and Practice”.
The author doesn’t say it, but to a scripture-reader it screams ‘tongues of fire’. (Scientists were studying a flying saucer cult when the millenium failed to make the rendezvous.)
Miriam
Not in the least puzzling. The subject was atheists, not resurrection-rejectors. No assertions were being made about the latter being anything at all, least of all that they are all atheists.
_
Thanks IanB, v. instructive. I had already discovered the Way of Chicken.
That’s annoying about Martin Amis – I’d have thought Hitch would have taught him better. Atheism doesn’t mean knowing or claiming to know there’s no god – but most people seem to assume it does. The meaning has been hijacked. Politically, probably – if you have the gall to be not a theist, then you have to be considered dogmatic and over-certain. So you’re forbidden to be an atheist on pain of chronic misinterpretation. Pfffffff.
I have always considered the greatest strength of Zen Buddhism [besides the general atheism at the core of it] to be the fact that, if you tried to come up with a rationalising answer for something metaphysical, you would be twatted round the head with a big stick. Literally. It’s much cheaper than setting up a Faculty of Theology.
I take “superstition” to mean a belief founded on faith rather than on evidence (taking “evidence” in the ordinary legal or scientific sense) that does not fit into a belief structure; that, in effect, stands alone. Wade’s chicken dinners fall into this category, as does not walking under a ladder and worrying on Friday the 13th.
In that sense, organized religions are naturally opposed to superstitions, since they are beliefs that don’t fit the belief structure of that religion. So the surprise, if it is one, is that people who have belief structures like Christianity also have other random unfounded beliefs.
Don,
Did you possibly mean to link to: http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/08/02/pets-2/
That’s the one that’s about this discussion. Most of them are pretty good, though. Why isn’t anyone demonstrating?
Thanks, John, that’s a useful distinction.
Jesus and Mo are cool. I always kind of want to hop in with them for a chat – a brief chat.
Stewart,
No, I was linking to ‘tomb’. Your link seems to have been inspired by this site (see note under the cartoon). Always excellent, though.
Holy shit! I inspired a Jesus and Mo!
I’ve never been so flattered in my life.
I take the evidence of the gospels and Acts and Pauline letters as prima facie good historical evidence, subject to evidence to the contrary.
From these documents, of which there is physical evidence dating back to the beginning of the second century (a fragment of John in the John Rylands Library in Manchester is dated on palaeographical grounds to AD 130) we do get a pretty consistent picture of Jesus and the early Church. The documents themselves can be dated to within a generation of Jesus’ death and thus are powerful witnesses.
Christians base their belief based on the testimony of the early witnesses and the evidence of the New Testament (specifically the 4 canonical gospels, Acts and the Pauline letters).
Their testimony is consistent and early and the impact of their testimony evident in the rapid and widespread growth of the Christian church. This despite persecution under the Romans (Nero and Domitian) and punishment for failing to sacrifice to the emperors (see Pliny the Younger’s correspondence with Trajan).
So what is the convincing naturalistic explanation for the disciples post crucifixion experiences?
Until then, I accept I could be wrong. I don’t think I am, but when I found out, unless you convince me to the contrary before then, the question will be moot.
If there was convincing evidence to the contrary, and I still held to my belief, I would indeed be guilty of holding a superstition.
My degree was in history, including study of this period, and I try to stay up to date with current scholarship in this – and other areas of history, and the historicity of the documents is very high. Charges that the resurrection is a myth or similar to Hellenistic or Near Eastern fables are not just laughable, but wrong.
I’d be surprised if I convinced any atheist reader and I have not set out to do so, but rather to defend my belief as a Christian against the charge of superstition.
This has taken longer to post than first intended as I accidentally deleted my first post before sending last night, despite OB’s kind advice on how to avoid the problem.
With best wishes to all rationalists and those to whom Truth does, indeed, matter
PS I don’t take offence when people, like OB, make their points politely.
“and the historicity of the documents is very high”
What does that mean? Of course the documents are historical, but that doesn’t mean they are accurate accounts of what actually happened. The current secular scholarship that I’m aware of is pretty united in thinking the opposite: they are all later accounts written by non-witnesses whose thinking is shaped by the events of the day, such as the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. What historical scholarship can you cite, JM, that thinks otherwise? References please.
“So what is the convincing naturalistic explanation for the disciples post crucifixion experiences?”
There is nothing to explain, because no one knows what “the disciples post crucifixion experiences” were, because there is no evidence. Later secondary narratives do not constitute evidence (if your degree was in history, surely you understand that).
You’re arguing (attempting to argue) backwards. You’re assuming something miraculous happened, then you’re demanding convincing naturalistic explanation for the miraculous happening. But you can’t assume that something miraculous happened unless there is good evidence that it did: there is no such evidence. Some guy saying it did does not count.
Your comments deserve a full reply, but I have not got the time tonight.
re: Jesus and Mo
I missed that. That is, I noticed the link but didn’t go there because I assumed it would be the Times story that inspired OB’s Note, or similar.
Thanks Don and congratulations OB. Now you can put up a banner on the main page saying “Jesus and Mo lurk here!” Now I’m curious to know if it’s someone who’s ever contributed. If you’re reading this, keep up the good work and sidestep the fatwas.
Yeah. Some fun eh. [skips about foolishly] There was me wanting to chat with them, little imagining I’d given them material. [examines nails in nonchalant manner]
It’s as it should be OB. The great leading the good.
OB and JM,
The gold standard for ancient historical observation (in my opinion) are the astronomical observations collected by Ptolemy. He used years and years of data to develop an model with which he (and others) could predict the movements of the stars. The data was first-hand and verifiable. The story of Jesus, all seriously second-hand, does not come close.
In addition, there’s no need to use abstract authority to know it’s true. Ptolemy’s proofs can be studied by a college freshman (that’s how I did it.)
Other things OB-related also
seem to be an inspiration
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/06/30/good/
_____
“A pint of your best bitter, Ophelia m’luv!”
Now wouldn’t that just knock your socks off?
_
And, by the way, has anyone actually asked Abu Laban why “Jesus and Mo,” which is way more disrespectful than any of the Danish cartoons, is not worth rioting over? Does he want to be taken seriously or not? I understand it might be difficult to find and destroy the hosting server, but it’s out in book form now. Has the name Salman Rushdie lost all meaning for these clowns?
I disagree that religion is superstition – irrational, etc etc, but not superstition.
As far as I can see, we generally use the word ‘superstition’ to describe things like regarding black cats as lucky (or unlucky, depending on your geographical location), throwing spilt salt over your shoulder, wearing odd socks when your team plays away on an autumnal thursday and the wind is in the east, etc etc. Such things are characterized by being mechanistic (this action will have that response) yet detatched from any mechanism: no one who fears Friday 13th needs or has an explanation of why it should be unlucky – it just is.
Religious beliefs are qualitatively different. The most important distinction is that a mechanism is offered – sure, it’s a fantastical, irrational fairytale mechanism, but it’s there.
Religion appeals to the superstitious, of course, because they are already predisposed to believe in things for which there is no actual evidence; the relationship works in that direction, though – the religious need not be superstitious. It’s not a question of cat owners having pets – a closer analogy might be pet owners liking animals.
I appreciate that there are broader definitions of superstition, but this study is clearly referring to the kind of superstition I describe – and I feel that the mockery of the findings thereof is rooted in equivocation.
Fact: we have different words for them and people generally know what you’re talking about when you use one or the other. The question is (or should be) what is the relationship between them and what is the nature of the grey areas where they overlap or cannot be so easily teased apart? There’s no church consecrated to the avoidance of black cats. But how does one define the difference between swallowing a transubstantiated wafer and throwing salt over one’s shoulder? Is it only that one is regulated by a powerful organisation whereas the other can be denigrated as a folk tradition?
“Obviously, anyone is entitled to believe what they believe and they don’t need to justify to anyone why they believe it, certainly not as long as it’s a private matter.”
Of course. But that’s not relevant to this discussion, because JM is precisely not merely saying he believes (and even if he were he would be doing it as part of an argument here, so he could hardly demand that no one reply), he is saying he thinks his belief is rational, and then giving an account of why he thinks so. If he wants to say that as part of a public discussion, it’s perfectly reasonable to ask him to explain.
Hey, thanks for that link, Adam! That’s Peter Fosl’s article…I’ll have to tell him. What fun.
And I think you’re special too.
“he is saying he thinks his belief is rational, and then giving an account of why he thinks so”
I emphasised that explaining it to oneself would sensibly come first, but it’s answers to the same questions that are expected if he’s airing and wishing to defend those views in a forum where discussion is the main object.
I know. I was just announcing my view of the matter. I feel quite inquisitorial myself, asking all those questions, but I also think I shouldn’t, since JM is choosing to make an argument.
FWIW, I cribbed this from http://www.implicitreligion.org/, publishers of The Journal of Implicit Religion in which the study is to be published.
Their “Mission Statement” is:
“IMPLICIT RELIGION refers to people’s commitments – whether they take a religious or secular form.
“The study of implicit religion, which began in 1968, suggests our understanding of secular life may benefit from asking whether it contains a religion of its own.”
Hold on a minute, Tonto; just whoes defifition of “our” are we using here?
This quaint idea may obfuscate as much as it illuminates.
Why – that sounds like secular religion!
And these people are sociologists, too. Aha…
Further to yesterday’s post and OB’s response:
I think we can regard the canonical gospels, Acts (or Luke part II) and letters as primary rather than secondary sources. This is because they satisfy primary sources criteria.
Consensus view among New Testament scholars is to date the first three gospels pre 70 AD, and probably a lot earlier. The synoptic gospels are thought to be based on an earlier Q (Q= abbreviation for German Quelle, source). If so, that drags back the source of the gospels even earlier.
It seems probable that Matthew and Mark were originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated into Greek. Bishop Papias of Smyrna, martyred in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, claimed to have known the disciple John in his youth (and when John was very old). He wrote 5 books, fragments of which are preserved in Eusebius. There he is recorded as saying that Matthew first wrote the sayings (he actually wrote Logia) in Hebrew, and the other gospel authors used the sayings in their own gospels. So we have memoirs written by (Matthew) or dictated (Mark, as Peter’s secretary) by eye witnesses. Luke seems to have been more an historian of the Church. John is, of course, an eye-witness account.
I take the evidence of the gospels and Acts and Pauline letters as prima facie good historical evidence, subject to evidence to the contrary.
You should note that no-one claims to have witnessed the resurrection. Only later apocryphal gospels like the gospel of Peter make that claim.
The statement in Corinthians about the faith handed to Paul can be internally dated to around 48AD. That does not make that a primary source of the immediate post resurrection period, but it does confirm that what was being preached by the early Christians about Jesus being raised was early and consistent.
As I wrote earlier, Christians base their belief based on the testimony of the early witnesses and the evidence of the New Testament (specifically the 4 canonical gospels, Acts and the Pauline letters). This has been handed on and documented in unbroken succession since the crucifixion.
If you want to discard the testimony of the early records, you must have at least a plausible reason to do so. That reason lies behind my request for a convincing naturalistic explanation for the disciples post crucifixion experiences?
Your answer should also consider the early and wide spread of a religion whose central figure was someone crucified by the authorities, which offered no worldly advancement, but was subject to persecution – all the apostles bar John were martyred or murdered, including James, the brother of Jesus – and whose spread was not at the point of the sword, like Islam, but solely through peaceful preaching.
With best wishes to all rationalists and those to whom Truth does, indeed, matter
PS Christians were accused of being atheists by the rest of the population. As indeed was Socrates.
JM,
This is yet another non-responsive response. I’m tired of these. You haven’t answered any of my questions, or other people’s, you’ve ignored all the objections to your previious assertions and simply re-asserted some and added new ones. If we object to these, you’ll ignore our objections. This is hopeless, and a waste of time and effort. (And you’re quite wrong about the consensus of NT scholars; the consensus is that Mark is between 65 and 75 (see the Oxford Companion to the Bible, for instance) and all the others later. I asked for references for these scholars who say what you claim they say.) If you’re not going to engage with the discussion but instead just deliver impervious monologues, please don’t. And please stop claiming that you believe on rational historical grounds. It’s not rational to say: “What is the best explanation for X (X being, say, what the gospels say and the formation of the early church)? It is that a man was killed and then returned to life three days later, and unless someone can give me a naturalistic explanation of X, it is rational to believe the man was killed and then returned to life.” No; that’s not rational; it’s far more rational simply to say you don’t know.
Now – seriously – if you’re not going to answer, then don’t answer. Don’t just deposit another stand-alone screed.
In reply to stewart (sorry man i just had to go for this one): “Fact: we have different words for them and people generally know what you’re talking about when you use one or the other.”
Crap, feces, excrement, doo-doo, all different words we have yet they all mean shit, and people generally know what you’re talking about when you use one or the other.
Kaan,
You indubitably have a point and the five terms you used all provide one with the same idea without enabling one to differentiate qualitatively. Maybe it would be more helpful if one chose a pairing that would be more analogous with “superstition” and “religion,” say, perhaps, “droppings” and “diarrhoea.”
Sorry, I couldn’t resist either…
And I admit to a flaw there, anyway. One is considered normal and ok, while the other is considered to be a condition requiring treatment… on second thoughts, I take back the apology – it fits like a glove.
Stewart and Kaan,
The trouble with superstition is that unlike religion, it has no home. Avoiding black cats, salt over the shoulder, not toasting with water – are all supposed to bring good luck, but no one remembers where that luck is coming from.
Christians discount the veracity of superstitions to make them feel better about their organized clap-trap, just like they do by calling the theory of evolution a religion, but I don’t they are fooling anyone. (Well, they got JM.)
JM asks for scholarly reasons to discount the claimed eyewitness accounts of the canonical biblical texts.
Discounting for the moment the objections that they are not, in fact, eyewitness accounts and that the authors did possess a rather strong vested interest in exaggerating, there is indeed strong and scholarly reason to take those accounts with a largish grain of salt.
Allow me to introduce a friend. He’s called Fluid Dynamics. Now, our ‘eyewitness account’ says something about a lake and a guy walking on it, IIRC.
In the normal course of a historical investigation, accounts speaking of guys who walk on lakes is considered rather strong grounds for skepticism regarding the truthfulness of said accounts (or, perhaps, the sobriety of the source).
Because in the normal course of historical investigation, Fluid Dynamics beats eyewitness status. Every time. And our now-mutual friend Fluid Dynamics says that guys don’t – in the ordinary course of events – walk on lakes. Guys who try to walk on lakes have this embarressing habit of ending up with wet knickers.
So, in conclusion, JM is claiming that this particular event was not part of the ordinary course of events. Well, he can hardly use eyewitness accounts that would in the ordinary course of events be highly dubious when he argues this point, can he? I kinda figured that logical loops did Bad Things in history too…
– JS
lol@stewart.
@JS
If you take in to consideration, the quantum uncertanty principle, chaos theory and schroedingers cat, I think we can come to the conclusion that with Jesus being a combination of particle waves and the butterfly flaping its wings 20 miles under the ocean, Jesus was in a mixed/undecided state of both walking on water and not walking on water. Only after we mesure Jesus will he inevitably drown.
All in all I think the best argument against any Jesus “miracle” is the fact that any magician worth his salt should be able to pull every last one of them off.
JM,
If it were the case that resurrection were a phenomenon that occurred even rarely in our experience (as opposed to never), one could say maybe “Even though these texts are ancient and not entirely of crystal-clear provenance, there is a possibility that some of what they describe is accurate.” But that isn’t the case. Why would these (particular) extraordinary claims not require extraordinary evidence?
Of course, if resurrection were a phenomenon of which we could say “absolutely; it has reliably been known to happen,” believing in it wouldn’t be much of a faith issue, would it?
JM, so you find the resurrection ‘the best explanation for the early accounts recorded in the gospels’? And you find naturalistic explanations unconvincing? So you’re saying you find it more plausible that a dead man was resurrected than that a few of his fans wrote stories about him? Could you explain to us why you find the resurrection explanation more convincing than the mythmaking explanation?
Why would a few fans – devout Jews by all accounts – have made up stories about Jesus being resurrected? It’s not as though people then did not know what happened to people who got crucified. The only people who believed in a bodily resurrection were Pharisees and their followers. Sadduccees and pagans generally did not have any belief in a resurrection. Nobody, repeat nobody had any belief in a special resurrection. Where did that come from?
Or to put it another way: are you sure you’ve properly considered the (obvious) possibility that the resurrection was a story and that there is nothing else to explain?
Yes. But same objections as above. The essay by Habermas cited below summarises the naturalistic explanations. I don’t find them at all convincing. Why come up with such a strange story? Death, persecution, loss of worldly promotion, exclusion from Jewish society. Why go through all this?
There is no historical evidence for the resurrection. A story is not evidence.
Stories do not constitute evidence. Thus there is no need to cast about for naturalistic explanations of the resurrection of Jesus since there is no evidence that it ever happened; it’s a story.
If it’s just a story, where did it come from? There is plenty of evidence that the disciples thought something HAD happened. That is why Christianity started and became so wide spread. In fact Gary Habermas (essay in “The Resurrection of Jesus” , a collection of essays around a dialogue between N.T. Wright, the present Bishop of Durham and John Dominic Crossan, member of the Jesus Seminar, and whose own view is Jesus’s body was either left on the cross for the dogs to eat or buried in a shallow grave with the same result) surveyed the scholarly literature from 1975 to the present (over 2000 scholarly publications), and reports that most contemporary scholars agree, whether skeptics or not, that early followers had experiences that they at least believed were appearances of Jesus.
What does that mean? Of course the documents are historical, but that doesn’t mean they are accurate accounts of what actually happened. The current secular scholarship that I’m aware of is pretty united in thinking the opposite: they are all later accounts written by non-witnesses whose thinking is shaped by the events of the day, such as the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. What historical scholarship can you cite, JM, that thinks otherwise? References please.
“So what is the convincing naturalistic explanation for the disciples post crucifixion experiences?”
There is nothing to explain, because no one knows what “the disciples post crucifixion experiences” were, because there is no evidence. Later secondary narratives do not constitute evidence (if your degree was in history, surely you understand that).
(And you’re quite wrong about the consensus of NT scholars; the consensus is that Mark is between 65 and 75 (see the Oxford Companion to the Bible, for instance) and all the others later. I asked for references for these scholars who say what you claim they say.)
Jean Carmignac “ The Birth of the Synoptics” John Robinson “ Redating the New Testament” N.T.Wright “The Resurrection of the Son of God”. Standard treatments, like D. Campbell, ‘The Synoptic Gospels” have Mark 64-65AD, like the Oxford Companion to the Bible (my edition 1993), but also has written collection of Jesus sayings, early creeds for baptism converts around 40AD. Also F.F. Bruce “The New Testament Documents. Are they reliable?” Also, an essay by James Dunn “Jesus in Oral Memory: The Initial Stages of the Jesus Tradition”. See also Gerard O’Collins “Easter Faith” in particular Chapter 2 “Historical Evidence and its limits”
In essence, you say that the resurrection is just a story, you don’t need a naturalistic explanation, and any way, what about the possible naturalistic explanations?
I answer to the contrary, we won’t convince each other, but I’m not trying to convince you, merely attempt to show Christians are not superstitious as Christians.
The above responds to posts up to 49.
To IanB in NJ. No, I thimk the theory of evolution is a theory not a religion.
To JS _ Liked the pics. What is it with the anti-war left, that they are pro terrorists who openly espouse desire for a future genocide. Any way. I was not talking about walking on water. I can think of at least one naturalistic explanation. This does not affect my view of Jesus.
Stewart. I agree with you. Resurrection is not just a rare event. It does not happen at all in ordinary experience. In fact, the reported event ( or rather the post event experiences) as a single event , was outside any Jewish expectation. See Tom Wright’s The Resurrection of Jesus for a scholartly discussion of first century thinking about resurrection. I think it demonstrates how unique the early Christians claims were. Does not make them right of course.
Best wishes
JM – Just to clarify – the JS above isn’t the one who posted the pics. The JS above gives an email address which isn’t Jerry S’s. Confusing but true!
JM,
The above was a confusing read because the quotes you were answering were not set apart clearly from your answers. I trust you are familiar with the arguments that make the case that the existence of a historical Jesus at all is unlikely.
Stewart
The historical evidence for the existence of Jesus is overwhelming.For an easy to read comment on the historicity read F.F.Bruce “The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?”. E.P.Sanders “The Historical Figure Of Jesus” is readily available and is a good read. Interestingly, he comments that he can go no further than the crucifixion, although his view is that the disciples certainly seemed to have believed something happened.
You have not been the Soviet Encyclopaedia, have you?
Please send the references you have. I promise I’ll have a look at them,
Best wishes
Hi, zilch – thanks!
I think zilch is hitting the metaphorical nail on the head here. Of course there is a distinction between religion and superstition. They mean completely different things. Religion is a sort of compendium of superstition with a priesthood.
As far as the discussion with the Christian Historian guy goes, I think you all are making a big deal out of nothing. Not only is the resurection story not the only superstition in the bible its not even relevant if the authors of the gospels witnessed it and wrote about it in good faith. Proving that they wrote what they did when you say they did and that they were generally reliable sources of information would only result in most of us here thinking that they were generally reliable fools. Any illusionist worth his salt should be able to perform all of the Jesus “miracles” save the virgin birth.
As I said before, the resurection is not the only superstitious belief incorporated in christianity. How plausible is the virgin birth? Splitting the red sea? Prayer? There is this one website called whygodwonthealamputees.com. It’s really a brilliant question when you think about it.
“The historical evidence for the existence of Jesus is overwhelming.”
No it isn’t. Far from it. There is some evidence, but none of it is beyond question, and there isn’t a huge amount in any case. There is no physical evidence at all. “Overwhelming” is a wild exaggeration.
The evidence of Jesus never needed to be whelming. Like God him/her/it-self, the idea is what matters, not physical evidence. That’s why it’s a religion, and not something rigorous like baking or math.
“You have not been the Soviet Encyclopaedia, have you?”
No, I don’t think I ever have (though maybe people wanted to shield me from the truth).
But seriously, JM (that was just a lighthearted laugh at a typo), by all means take a look at Earl Doherty’s http://www.jesuspuzzle.org/
I’m not suggesting it’s going to change your life. It’s one source among many for information on the subject. I have not limited myself to the Internet, but have also taken a look at L. Gordon Rylands’ book from 1935.
Please be clear that I’m not claiming Jesus didn’t exist. If it should turn out that he did, I don’t object. My interest was originally piqued when I was given an unpublished novel in manuscript form to read. The author was a Jew who had attended a Christian school in India and the point of it seemed to be to provide an account of Jesus’ life that would give a non-supernatural explanation for everything miraculous reported. I started to think “Ok, he clearly doesn’t want to regard any of this as supernatural, but he also seems utterly unable to escape the belief that it was all at least perceived to have happened.” At that point I wanted to satisfy my own curiosity as to historical knowledge of a Jesus, which led me to, among others, Rylands and Doherty. Though Doherty does have a kind of “smoking gun,” I’m neither looking for nor expecting the (in any case) impossible proof of Jesus’ non-existence. From a reading of what both sides have to offer on this subject, it seems to me, on balance, that it is more likely that he didn’t exist than that he did, but I make no claim to certainty. There are pieces of evidence (or conspicuous lack of it when one would expect to find some) that are more persuasive than others, but it’s like Richard Evans says about the Holocaust in the piece posted on B&W (paraphrasing): not every strand has to be perfect and unassailable; when enough of it converges in the same direction, with no single, irrefutable piece going the other way, an “overwhelming probability” is created. Of course, it doesn’t help when recent “discoveries” claiming to be concrete evidence are exposed as hoaxes. By all means, remain unconvinced by the doubters; I do hope, however, you’ll concede that people on both sides (not just the doubters) might have an agenda.