Oh yes, very compelling
This is quite funny. Christianity Today did a survey asking ‘What do you think is the most compelling argument for Christianity? ‘ The choices are: 1) The exquisiteness of the physical world; 2) The reliability of the Scriptures; 3) The life and character of Jesus; 4) Christianity’s positive influence on culture and individuals; 5) The experiences of individuals; 6) Something else.
Notice anything about the arguments? They’re not arguments! They’re so not arguments. They’re not even gestures at arguments – they wouldn’t be arguments even if you generously supplied some missing steps. Well I suppose 2 could be if some facts were completely different – if the ‘Scriptures’ actually were ‘reliable’ and if they didn’t contradict themselves all over the place. But the others?
The ‘exquisiteness’ of the physical world for instance? Which exquisiteness? That of shit? Tumors? Pus? Maggots? Wet rotting vegetation? Rotting corpses? But okay, suppose you restrict that ‘argument’ to hummingbirds and fuschias and cheetahs and sunsets – what is the argument? Sunsets are pretty therefore Jesus died and was resurrected? I don’t quite follow. Same with the life and character of the guy himself. One, it’s a mixed bag, not to say contradictory (see above), and two, that might be the start of an argument for emulating Jesus in certain selective ways, but it’s not an argument that Jesus died and was resurrected, or that he’s God. 4 of course is a bluntly utilitarian argument for why Christianity is a social good, but I take ‘compelling argument for Christianity’ to mean ‘compelling argument for the truth of Christianity’ – but maybe that’s my misunderstanding. Then there’s 5 – the experiences of individuals as a compelling argument for Christianity. I have an inner sense that Jesus is God – there’s your compelling argument (or do you have to multiply it by a billion to make it compelling? I’m a little behind on the technical aspects of these compelling arguments). It seems weak, because what if you have an inner sense that your cat is God? Or perhaps by ‘experiences’ is meant ‘I was upset so I turned to Jesus and I felt better.’ But then, again, you could still substitute your cat.
Of course there’s always ‘Something else.’ That’s probably the one reserved for all the actual compelling arguments. The ones that we never actually…quite…see.
Even if #1 were an argument (which it isn’t) how would it be an argument for christianity? Unless you only found to be exquisite, say, frozen tripartite water features.
To be fair, they do announce themselves as a magazine of evangelical conviction, so presumably the existence of a benevolent monotheistic deity is a given. All they have to do is argue for their brand of it.
But, yeah, watch out for the ‘something else’. That’s where the killer arguments are. Like maybe, I dunno, if you believe and you are wrong then you have lost nothing, but if, uh, … . Well, I’m sure someone could work that up into a real sockdollager.
Or, if it ain’t true then one day the universe will exist without me and that is patently ridiculous.
Or, of course I believe, you think I want to be tortured for eternity when I could get off on watching it happen to other people? There’ll be whips and pitchforks and, if I’m really lucky, gimp-masks.
Actually, that probably is the best they can come up with.
“I take ‘compelling argument for Christianity’ to mean ‘compelling argument for the truth of Christianity’ – but maybe that’s my misunderstanding”
If you’d been following the most recent round of religious apologetics (and I know you have) you’d know that arguments for and against religion must now only be carried out on the level of ‘is it a social good?’ because Richard Dawkins argues that it isn’t.
I couldn’t possibly speculate as to why the theists have chosen this tactic – I can’t imagine it has something to do with the poverty of their arguments for the factual basis for theism
I would say there is only one thing wrong with the way this survey is phrased and that’s the use of “argument” in the place of “justification”.
They are not trying to convince anybody, they are not asking the respondents: “how did you manage to convert an unbeliever?”
The real question was “what gives you a warm glow inside, what makes you feel good when you think about your own religion?”
You just need to replace christianity with islam, Jesus with Mohammed and scriptures with coran to have something that all muslims will agree with. A sure sign of the non-existence of the “argumentation”.
Arnaud,
Well, I had heard that ‘neo-functionalism’ was making something of a comeback in American sociological circles, so maybe they’ve just been dusting-down their Talcott Parsons and brushing-up on the good ol’ teleology…and worse!
:-)
Indeed. If the question had been ‘what is the main reason you are a Christian?’ then the answers would have been (within this particular game) reasonable.
But the trouble is that a lot of evangelicals seem to think that they do have compelling arguments, or something like that. I noticed that last night when watching the documentary on the Dover trial – the certainty with which some people announced that ‘the book of Genesis’ is all they need. As far as they were concerned they were talking about knowledge.
I dont think My cat would make a good substitute for Jesus, he is a cantankarous old bastard that frequenly bites family members!
Well, wasn’t Jesus created by his Father (or Himself, same difference) for the express purpose of being tortured to death? What’s a few bites amongst the family compared to that! I’ll take the cantankerous feline, thanks. At least it makes some sort of sense: A good solid bite in a middling tender spot – like that fleshy bit between the thumb and palm – is the very least of the damage I’d like to inflict on some family members…
(Can everyone tell G is not exactly looking forward to Thanksgiving with the relatives?)
The best justification for Christianity is, hands down, the one offered by Terry Pratchett:
All religions are true, for a certain definition of “true”.
G.I am not sure that Ahhh you no good s.o.b!!!(the blessing the cat recieves after bitting my toe at 4.00 in the morning) would make a very dignified prayer though? good luck with thanksgiving by the way.
Arnaud writes
>You just need to replace christianity with islam, Jesus with Mohammed and scriptures with coran to have something that all muslims will agree with.< According to the poll, only 21 percent cited the reliability of the scriptures as the most compelling reason for their beliefs. My impression is that in the case of Muslims and the Koran this would likely be up in the 90s. I find it interesting that in a poll conducted on an evangelistic Christian website only a fifth of respondents cited the reliability of the scriptures as the most compelling reason for their adherence to Christianity.
P.S. Of course, some (many?) of those voting for the “The life and character of Jesus” may well also believe in the reliability of the scriptures.
“Sunsets are pretty therefore Jesus died and was resurrected”
Ah, the waterfall argument.
(Named both for “this waterfall is beautiful, therefore I will become a Christian” and for the way that the it just cascades from one position to another some way away without stopping anywhere inbetween.)
ffs:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article2778493.ece
“Attention is focused on inquisitions and crusades, while the significance of Hitler and Stalin is downplayed. Believers in young-earth creationism are presented as if they were typical of religious people in general. The two books under review aim to make a more temperate contribution to the debate.”
And oh look:
“Cornwell begins by pointing out that Dawkins makes no serious attempt to engage with the academic discussion of religious thought and practice. “
When are these harrumphers going to give this meme a rest?
Ophelia, I always come here if I want an explosion of ideas. You have a mind like a Roman candle. Correction. Like a Roman candle factory. On fire.
Long may it blaze.
Correction, like a Roman (Vatican) City candle factory gone up in smoke? Long may it go on fuming?
Yes, that too, Marie-Therese. But not as a correction. An addition. I insist.
How about this incandescent, radiant , shining, glowing , lustrous, shimmering quote – by Jack Kerouac – to greet OB at this American Thanksgiving time of year!
“But then they danced down the streets like dingledodies, and I shambled after as I’ve been doing all my life after people who interest me, because the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones that never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes ‘Awww.
Does anyone know the meaning of dingledodies? I searched several on-line dictionaries, but, alas it was to no avail!
“They’re so not arguments”
Taking argument to mean “a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong”, then I’d say that all six qualify as arguments. I’ve unfortunately seen all of them used in attempts to persuade others of the value of Christianity. Poor arguments but arguments nonetheless.
Arguments or not, four beg at least one question each and are therefore worthless as worded.
1)Is the physical world exquisite?
2)Are the Scripture reliable?
3)Was there a historical figure called Jesus?
4)Has Christianity been a positive influence on any one?
Number five is so ambiguous as to be meaningless: I had the experience of picking up my dry-cleaning, therefore Jesus is lord!.
Number six is a feeble minded escape strategy for those who realise that the other five wouldn’t convince Jesus of the truth of Christianity.
I always thought the most compelling argument for Christianity was this: “If you don’t beleive in Jesus, you will go to hell!”
Everything else is secondary, right?
The apologists can yammer as much as they like about God’s forgiveness, but the New Testament was pretty dang clear about the rules for going to hell (with the gnashing of the teeth and what-not.)
Why would Christianity Today leave off that as a choice?
Oh, and there is also the Pat Robertson choice: “If you don’t accept God into your home/office/schools, God will kick your ass (or let someone kick you ass on his behalf.)”
There are really no arguments for religion, and all religious arguments are affirmed in bad faith. No one believes in a religion because he or she was convinced by rational arguments. People believe in religion because they were brought up in a religious family or because they need to feel protected by some hypothetical superior being or because everybody else around them believes in that religion and they don’t question what everyone else believes or pretends to believe, etc. Religion is irrational, and nothing irrational can be demonstrated by arguments.
Ian M – kind of you to say so! Now I feel all butch and dangerous.
giggle
Jeff, I think even bad arguments have to have at least an attempt at some kind of logical structure if they’re going to qualify as arguments as opposed to rhetoric or poetry or emotive declarations. These things (except possibly 4) don’t have any structure – nothing follows from them; not Christianity or Jesus or God or anything else.
The world is exquisite. And?
‘The world is exquisite’ isn’t an argument.
“‘The world is exquisite’ isn’t an argument.”
No kidding! I think our world is just fine, but I have nothing against which to compare it. If ours is the best planet ever, we’ll never know – so why make a big deal about it?
And, really, the only reason the ‘exquisiteness’ of the world matters is because some of us think this planet was made for us humans. If it was made for us, bears and lions would dispence candy, not try to eat us.
That’s a pleasant picture! Bears and lions on every street corner, handing out zero-calorie Godiva chocolates. And letting us pat them and say how kind they are. (The bears and lions, not the chocolates.)
Interesting Marie Therese, in the French translation the word is “clochedingues” which I don’t think I have encoutered before and a Google search only returns 14 references to Kerouac…
But “clochedingues” is probably a pun on “clochards” (vagrants, bums) and “dingues” (mad, insane). How closely it translates dingledoodies, I must say I have no idea…
Actually, I encountered the most compelling argument for Christianity in my schooldays, when I had a job delivering milk from a truck on a suburban morning round. The milkman drove the truck and I and another fellow ran down the streets with the crates of bottles.
One morning in an idle moment we were discussing the existence of God, and the milkman threw in the ultimate clincher: “If you don’t go to church, the Devil will come round and stick a pitchfork up your bum.”
I’ve been in church every Sunday ever since. Without fail.
And so far, it has worked. No Devil; no pitchfork.
Ian,
I’ve been applying the same principle to pouring fermented cabbage juice on my gatepost to keep away the elephants, with a similar level of success…
:-)
Good news Ian; if you get on board the church of Uniformitarianism, they will teach you that not having the devil sticking pitchforks in your bum yesterday or today means he might not do it tomorrow either, and you will be free to skip church once a year or so.
No promises about Marxists not doing the pitchfork thing though.
I would just like to thank all of you for your various giggle-inducing comments on what has proven to be an altogether crappy day in the life of G the social worker (my day job while I complete the philosophy PhD). My good humor is much restored.
I’m off to bed now. Time to say my prayers: Dear God, Ahhh you no good s.o.b!!!
:-)
G
G maybe in this new religion the cat bites could be a form of blessed stigmata? or maybe a penance like the r.c.s have? say three s.o.b.s for absoloution.
“No Devil; no pitchfork”
Aye, what a God damn ignominy it is that you do not have (by the red flaming angry fellow with the pitchfork) from him, any sign of visitation. You really do not know what you are missing. You are obviously not praying and suffering hard enough. Alternatively, either, making from the sound of it too many sacrifices in your life. From what I draw together, he only hangs around hallowed saintly characters. Therefore, I estimate that this fact counts the most of us out on B&W out. Keep sipping the milk, as well as keeping those Roman candles alight. Who knows, you will never know the hour or the day when he might make an appearance. God as well as him loves those who try their hardest!