|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Jul 17, 2011 16:44:23 GMT
And that is why theists will never be able present a convincing case for God. When it comes down to it, belief in God is a matter of faith. Rightly or wrongly, atheists simply refuse to make the leap on that basis. I have yet to meet a believer who was argued into faith. Are you an atheist, or an agnostic? I'm not attacking you, just trying to understand your position better. Straight questions deserve straight answers. I was a Christian up until maybe a couple of years ago, but could no longer suscribe to the key articles - Deity of Christ, Original Sin, Atonement, Resurrection. To me, rejection of any of those renders the rest meaningless, and I cannot see how Christians who reject any of those articles can continue to call themselves Christian in any intellectually meaningful way. Following that rejection though, I regarded myself as a mere theist, but then that belief too has died. There simply isn't enough evidence - for me, and I cannot manufacture the requisite faith to go on believing. So that makes me an atheist. |
|
|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Jul 17, 2011 17:13:33 GMT
It was a distinction I kept in mind, and I was presenting my statement as objective . One of the reasons why people are atheists is that they find the arguments for God's existence unconvincing. I think that those who do find them convincing are wrong to do so, and that is not meant as an insult or a jibe. I remember watching a debate between believers and non beleivers at Oxford, and one of the participants was Anthony Flew, while he was still an atheist. He made the point that it is not the case that theism explains more than atheism - it simply comes down to the fact that one is right, and the other is wrong.
Clearly it has to be the case that one position is wrong, and the other is right, and I would argue that it has to be the case that if theism is true, then the evidence would be incontrovertible. In this context, a quote I read made an impression on me, and in part it was that the way the world is is just how you would expect it to be if there is no God.
I would not, as some atheists do, regard belief in God as completely irrational. I would simply argue that it is just plain wrong, because given the supposed object of belief, whatever arguments are made are not made on the basis of incontrovertible evidence. What evidence is there for God's being omnipotent, for example, or all good? These traits cannot be deduced from nature. Belief in them is based entirely on religious tradition and putative revelations. Belief in the specifically Christian god is based on faith. The most that natural theology could give you is a cosmic intelligence - not a loving heavenly father.
The arguments only take you so far, and the evidence, as has already been pointed out, is ambiguous. And I do think, at the end of the day, that where argument and evidence fall short, faith has to come into play.
I accept your point that some people are convinced by the "evidence" as they interpret it, but I think they are wrong if they think that the evidence reaches as far as demonstrating God's existence even beyond reasonable doubt, let alone proof. Whatever evidence believers think there is is only evidence because they want it to be.
As you say, for most people, as for me at one time, faith, reason and more personal reasons combined to sustain my belief. However, over the years, as I have read and reflected on both sides of the debate, the evidence and arguments for God have
crumbled away, and conversely, the arguments in favour of atheism have grown correspondingly stronger.
I don't doubt that autobiographical factors are involved, as they must be for all of us, but one hopes that one has been as intellectually honest with oneself as possible.
For me, Theism is false because (a) the arguments in favour of God's existence are weak, and (b) the counter argument in favour of his non existence is, frankly, overwhelming, and none of the responses to it are any way adequate. I refer of course to the argument that an all powerful and all good God would not allow evil and suffering. Now is not the place to go into that of course; I am just responding to your main points.
As you say, it is too easy to generalise and categorise one's intellectual opponents. I appreciate your confession. It is difficult, in such a medium as this, to reflect the complexities of the issues,and I lack the grammatical skills to convey the subtleties adequately, so thank you for reminding us of them
- I think the best debates take place face to face in the pub with a good pint of ale, quite frankly.
One of my favourite quotes is from Chesteron - (if I recall correctly) -
"Malt, more than Milton, can
justify God's ways to man".
I will raise a glass to you next time my friends and I go quaffing!
Best wishes to you
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2011 20:12:04 GMT
That maywell be the case, but he does not represent anyone but himself. On that point Dawkins is surely correct. What weight does that point carry? Dawkins represent himself only as well. It's not about whom they represent but what worldview they defend. My mistake. As you put it in the same paragraph, I thought it pertained to Dawkins's remark on Craig's credentials. Last time I checked, the discussion is still in the philosophy mode. What you say is strange to me. The only relevant discussion over God's existence and theism is happening in philosophy journals, which are remote for the public like any other academic specialty. There, Dawkins is a noname. His work is pop-nonsense for the lowest common denominator. It's like a Clancy or King novel. A literary confect for the masses. Philosophers are qualified to use scientific data in support of the premises of their arguments. This is a common, uncontroversial occurrence for centuries. Those discipline don't need to be in complete isolation with one another but can inform each other. We're talking here about a certain group of atheist, the New Atheism, who stubbornly refuses an engagement with the most rigorous formulation of theism given by the most respected religious thinkers. Some of them, like Hitchens and Harris, did engage with Craig but this alone insufficient to say that the New Atheism has fulfilled its intellectual obligation. Dawkins must also share his burden. You don't know the full content behind Flew's idea of his presumption. He starts by redefining the definition of atheism to a position of not holding the belief of theism. From there on, he argues for a presumption of this non-theism as the default state. This is to me a tactic of evading the burden of proof by defining one's position in such way as to be unobligated to defend it. You also forget that most believers practice their religion without asserting anything. They believe but don't persuade others. How these people owe something to someone baffles my mind. They're not the ones who write "The presumption of atheism" or The God Delusion so that they have to prove something. It's time that those who do make a claim start to be intellectually responsible. |
|
|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Jul 17, 2011 21:30:32 GMT
That maywell be the case, but he does not represent anyone but himself. On that point Dawkins is surely correct. What weight does that point carry? Dawkins represent himself only as well. It's not about whom they represent but what worldview they defend. In an ideal world it should be about the ideas and not the individuals. Dawkins does however represent a constituency as you yourself tacitly admit, and what people refer to as the "New Atheism". Dawkins is a biologist, and in the main he has sought to defend evolutionary theory from it's detractors, that has been his main role. He has commented a number of times on why he would never debate Craig, and it is clear that he sees absolutely no reason to give Craig any more of an air of respectability than he already has. For Dawkins to debate Craig would give Craig an aura of respectability because he is debating a renowned biologist, and Dawkins has no intention of giving him that. OK, we all misread stuff from time to time. Shouldnt be - I was responding to your comments. That sounds very elitist to me. So this discussion on this forum is not relevant then? Are you suggesting that anyone who does not have the relevant academic qualifications cannot have a relevant discussion about God's existence? Let me go check my credentials..... does an honours degree in Philosophy cut it in your eyes? Mind you it is at least 20 years old. Perhaps I should retreat quietly into a corner! To paraphrase your opening shot - surely it's not about qualifcations but about the worldview. And here is a thing - if Dawkins work is so marginal, "pop nonsense" as you call it, how come so many academics have taken the trouble to write whole books in reply? It's a virtual micro industry all of it's own. There must be well over a dozen by now! I wonder how many parched bank accounts have benefited from the opprtunity to take Dawkins to task? Dawkins has touched a popular nerve, and asked a question that many theologians cleary don't like - "say what you mean, say it clearly and simply, stop hiding behind jargon, and present your evidence". As Corporal Jones used to say in Dads Army "They don't like it up em' Captain Mannering, they don't like it up em'! Looking at my philosophy books I note how few great philosophers had the "relevant qualifications" - Plato, Locke, Spinoza, Hume etc.. The arguments pro and con God's existence are not that obtuse. Most intelligent folk can grasp them. The arguments haven't changed all that much to be honest. They may come in new packaging, but really, to suggest that only academics can understand them is frankly... well, quite amusing actually. This argument as used by Eagleton and others is really just a tactic - a rather polite academic way of saying "You are too dumb to understand the REAL arguments, so we will dismiss anything you say". They can inform one another, but when different philosophers use the same data to reach very different conclusions then I find it hard to believe that they are properly qualified to do so. Again I ask - name these religious thinkers and we can post a list eh? I am FULLY conversant with Flew's article on the the presumption of atheism. I have read and reread the article many times over the years. I have also read other articles by Flew, so I know exactly what his arguments are. Flew's definition of atheism is correct as any atheist will tell you. It is the lack of belief in God. That is it: I don't believe in God. An atheist has no more need to justify that lack of belief than does the person who does not believe in the Loch Ness monster, or Big Foot, or ET.. The burden of proof is the same in all four cases - if you want me to believe in Big Foot, or the Loch Ness Monster, or God, or ET then give me incontrovertible evidence. [/quote] Oh come on! There are at least three Christian bookshops within half an hour of where I live. We get the Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, even people from the local church knocking on our door inviting us to services. If you are Catholic or Anglican, you cannot practice your faith withour asserting the Apostles Creed every Sunday. According to the New Testament Jesus COMMANDED, not suggested or recommended his disciples to "go unto all the nations teaching them as I have commanded you and baptising them." After 2000 years of aggressive evangelism Christians cannot just turn round and say they don't owe us a rational explanation of their beliefs. And the same applies to Muslims too. Both religions have a mandate to convert non believers. |
|
|
|
Post by noons on Jul 17, 2011 22:03:54 GMT
[ Dawkins has touched a popular nerve, and asked a question that many theologians cleary don't like - "say what you mean, say it clearly and simply, stop hiding behind jargon, and present your evidence". Well, that is at least one area in which Craig is pretty good. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 17, 2011 22:46:16 GMT
Straight questions deserve straight answers. I was a Christian up until maybe a couple of years ago, but could no longer suscribe to the key articles - Deity of Christ, Original Sin, Atonement, Resurrection. To me, rejection of any of those renders the rest meaningless, and I cannot see how Christians who reject any of those articles can continue to call themselves Christian in any intellectually meaningful way. Given that the original Christians did not believe in either the deity of Christ (which isn't found before the late 2nd-early 3rd century), or original sin (which isn't found before Irenaeus in the late 2nd century), it's clearly possible. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 18, 2011 6:44:42 GMT
G'day Hawk, thanks for your replies. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with candour but without rancour. I guess that means you must have been going through this process since you joined this forum? If I recall, you used to be a liberal christian and left wing politically, two viewpoints I have some sympathy with. I find the strength of this statement interesting. I wouldn't present my position in such a confident and black-and-white manner, yet you accuse me of believing by faith rather than by evidence. So to justify such a strong statement, you would need to have even more evidence than I could present for my view, otherwise your view is more faith-based than mine. I would present about six strong arguments in support of my views, yet you present only one as far as I can see. Like you say, this probably isn't the place to argue through all those arguments, but it seems again that you have made a statement way in excess of the evidence. This is where I have a problem. Flew's argument surely only applies to 'weak atheists', who, to use your words, "lack belief in God". But your statement - "Theism is false" - is not a lack of belief, but a very strongly stated disbelief. So the presumption of atheism should be known as the presumption of weak atheism, and it cannot be used by strong atheists. Yet most of the outspoken atheists are expressing strong atheistic views, so they seem to be using the argument as a ploy to avoid having to present an argument which may well be inadequate. Thus the Cambridge University Investigating Atheism website finds the strong/weak atheism distinction inconsistent and confusing. I half agree and half disagree. Natural theology leads at least to the suspicion that a God who satisfies the arguments from cosmology, design, morality and reason might have a loving and ethical purpose. Religious experience and the life of Jesus confirm this. This is another statement for which you offer no real justification, and for which I doubt any can be offered apart from your personal feeling. I can see plenty of reasons why it isn't true. Yes, we agree here. But that doesn't make christian belief totally faith-based, but it is evidence-based as far as it can be, then faith comes into the picture. The difference between atheists and christians is, in my view, while both sides recognise the evidence is ambiguous, and both assess the balance of the evidence differently, the christians recognise that the gap is filled by faith while the atheists seem to want to pretend that there is no gap on their side. Thank you. Besides the fact that I live half a world away from Manchester, I don't like beer! So doing it vicariously, or by proxy, seems to be the best way! : ) |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 18, 2011 7:19:25 GMT
Are you suggesting that anyone who does not have the relevant academic qualifications cannot have a relevant discussion about God's existence? I'm certainly not, but if people want to make bold statements about what the Bible does or doesn't say, or how it should and shouldn't be interpreted, they'd better be qualified or face justified ridicule when they make fools of themselves getting things badly wrong. Someone who thinks that the book of Hebrews (New Testament), was written by Paul for example, has an awful lot to learn about the Bible before they can start telling me how it should be intepreted (yes I'm looking at you Richard Dawkins). I really don't believe that's what Dawkins has done. No it isn't, it really isn't. People like Eagleton rightly correct Dawkins when he makes statements (about what the Bible says or how it should be interpreted, or about philosophy), which are factually wrong, which are unsubstantiated, or which are patently absurd. When someone like Dawkins makes a habit of this, people such as Eageleton rightly observe that he would be better off learning about the subject before he opens his mouth. Let me introduce you to the academic discipline of history, in which this happens all the time. Archaeology is another classic example; there are archaeological disputes in which a single body of hard data such as C14 dating is being used by competing archaeologists to support completely opposing interpretations of the evidence. I certainly agree. |
|
|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Jul 18, 2011 20:16:39 GMT
G'day Hawk, thanks for your replies. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with candour but without rancour. I guess that means you must have been going through this process since you joined this forum? If I recall, you used to be a liberal christian and left wing politically, two viewpoints I have some sympathy with. I am still on the left politically. What Flew actually said in the debate to which I referred is "if you are right, you are right, and if we are right, we are right". Either God exists, or God doesn't exist. Logically, the propositions are exclusive, and exhaustive. I was not saying that you are wrong and I am right. I would not be that brash. If that is how you understood me then it is my fault for not making my real point more clearly, and I apologise. This is the problem when debating more than one interlocutor. Different contexts - different responses. I do regard theism as false, and although I am aware of the distinction between strong and weak atheism, I am not convinced that they are entirely separate categories. Atheism is simply lack of belief in God, and an atheist who wishes to leave it that is within their epistemic rights to do so, as is the person who does not believe in astrology or Big Foot. No justifying reason is required, and if one is challenged, the challenge is met simply by asking for evidence. If evidence is not forthcoming, or is insufficient, or ambiguous, then the atheist is under no obligation to reconsider. In my previous post, I said that I believe Theism is false because the evidence is insufficient, and because of the existence of evil in the world. Although brief, that is the basis of a justification for atheism, but I need not have gone so far. No atheist need do that because it is up to the theist to provide evidence for their position. I admit that if the atheist does say that belief in God is false, they should be prepared to explain why, and part of that explanation would include the fact that the evidence falls very far short of what the theist is asserting to be the case. Theists are making an assertion about the whole of physical existence - and that is that it depends upon the will of a Being, who can neither be seen nor heard, nor felt nor actually identified in any empirical way at all. Leaky buckets. None of the arguments of natural theology taken singly are sufficient. On this basis you can say that possibly there is a God, and possibly he has a loving and ethical purpose - but it is all very speculative. And that is before one even considers all the pain and suffering that has ever existed, exists now and will continue to exist in the future. I am not happy with it myself actually. Sloppy on my part, and you were right to challenge me on it. I would just make the lesser claim that I think that the evidence that theists claim for theism is insufficient, and there is absolutely no reason why an atheist should be persuaded by it. However, Iwould point out that according to the official teaching of the Catholic church the existence of God can be proved by the light of reason. And St Paul, in Romans chapter 1 verse 19 makes a very bold statement "for that which may be known of God is manifest to them, for God has shown it to them, for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead, so that they are without excuse" There are probably believers about who think that way even now, although I hope that you are not one of them. That was what niggled at me for a long time you see. If the evidence was sufficient, then why faith? And if the evidence is not sufficient, then to me, faith just came to seem irresponsible. Faith cannot make something true. It cannot make weak evidence stronger. The more I thought about it, the more I became inclined to the view that at the end of the day, what REALLY counted was the faith, and not the putative evidence. In the gospel of John, when Thomas gets freaked out by Jesus, Jesus says "You have believed because you have seen, blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed". I think it is also in John's gospel that the Pharisees ask for a sign, and Jesus really lets them have it! The message that I get from reading the gospels is that the stronger the faith, the less evidence you need to demand. There is a gap on the believer's side because what you want to demonstrate is the existence of God. You do not have Jacob's ladder unfortunately. What you have is a stepstool that gets you a few feet off the ground. The atheist has no need of a ladder, she is happy enough with both feet on the ground. (Dammit, there I go again with my submission to feminist literary ideology - oh well!) Hmm - maybe you've never had real English ale - discerning Brits wouldnt give xxxx for anything else! (We need something to compensate for our appalling climate - and a Tory government.) |
|
|
|
Post by himself on Jul 18, 2011 23:57:38 GMT
Given that the original Christians did not believe in either the deity of Christ (which isn't found before the late 2nd-early 3rd century), or original sin (which isn't found before Irenaeus in the late 2nd century), it's clearly possible. Original sin is empirically obvious. Read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. Do not confuse the lack of surviving documentation with "did not believe." Recall that the Greeks did not trust the written word but the "living word," by which they meant testimony from living witnesses. So not much was written down before the 2nd century anyhow, when the original witnesses were dying. And later, Diocletian and his cronies did their level best to round up and destroy all Christian texts. Also it is seldom necessary to reiterate something the other party already knows. My father's letters to my mother seldom mention the geopolitical situation during the Pacific War. It is primarily when a tenet is doubted that we find it reinforced by writings. Irenaeus, for example, does not write of the primordial sin of our common ancestor as if it were a novelty. Naturally, he did not know of genetics, so he could not say how this source-of-sin was inherited. Recall, too, that he was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 19, 2011 0:49:56 GMT
Either God exists, or God doesn't exist. .... I was not saying that you are wrong and I am right. I would not be that brash. Hawk, I appreciate all you have said, and on at least a few matters I think we now understand each other better. So on this one I agree that both propositions cannot be true, and the acceptance of one includes the negation of the other. It is only a matter of how strongly we make our respective claims. I agree. My problem is that people leave their position unclear (to me at least) and sometimes seem (to me at east) to jump from one to the other. On one definition, being promoted primarily and recently by atheists. Others (e.g. the Cambridge website I referenced, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) still prefer the older definition: "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." (Stanford). One of my major gripes is the confusion caused by the different definitions. I agree but I think there is confusion here. No justification is needed for the statement I have no belief about God because I see insufficient evidence to make a choice, but justification is as much required for the statement I believe God probably doesn't exist as for the statement I believe God probably does exist. And, like the Cambridge website, I find in practice that very few people who talk about the subject actually have no belief about God - they almost always have quite strong beliefs about God, that he probably doesn't exist. So here we agree. The difference between us is 'simply' that we disagree about the value of the evidence. Not at all. We believe his existence can indeed be verified empirically, just not always to the satisfaction of unbelievers. Empirical evidence includes: - indirect evidence - the universe and human rationality & reason are all empirically observable and are best explained (in the theist's view) by God (note that indirect evidence is often used in science);
- direct evidence - personal experience - people hear from God and are healed by him - atheists will say these experiences are illusory or can be explained in other ways, but if they are from God then they are truly direct evidence;
- direct evidence - the life of Jesus - the Bible stresses many times that this was a real event, eyewitnesses saw him, touched him, heard him, experienced healing, in real time, in history - again, there are other explanations, but if the historical accounts are basically genuine as historians have concluded, this too is direct evidence.
I can understand that that is your assessment, but my assessment differs. There is no need to take the arguments singly, and cumulatively I find them very strong. I agree that the argument from pain and evil is very strong, and I disagree with christians who think it can be explained away. But (1) it is only one argument, whereas there are half a dozen strong arguments on the theist side, and (2) it can only come into effect after we have a universe and have an objective ethic, two things which are the basis of strong theistic arguments. (e.g. without an objective ethic, the problem of evil degenerates to a problem of inconvenience). So I find that the main argument against God cannot stand without first accepting one of the main arguments for God. In my life, I think I would have given up belief if it weren't for that realisation. I'm not a Catholic, but I think there may be varying uses of the word "proved". I agree with Paul, on the understanding that he is saying there is sufficient evidence for belief - but he doesn't use the word 'proof'. I think it is worth discussing the level of evidence required, as I think this may be the main difference between us. What do you think about these propositions? 1. We cannot properly make a decision on the probability of a proposition without considering the probability of the alternative propositions. (An apparently unlikely proposition may still be more likely than any alternative.) 2. Making no decision about many things is often equivalent to deciding against them. (e.g. if we come to no conclusion about marrying a person, it will be the same as deciding definitely not to.) 3. We make important decisions all the time without certainty, but just on the balance of probability - e.g. to get married or begin a close relationship; to embark on a course of university study, a career or to accept a particular job; to buy a house; to choose an ethic; to choose who to vote for; etc. 4. When you talk of faith vs evidence and Jacob's ladder, I suggest you are seeking a greater level of certainty than we have in many of the above cases. In the case of christianity, I think there is better evidence than there is for choosing how to vote for example, yet you and I both feel strongly about our political beliefs. 5. I have come to the conclusion that it is rarely the evidence that divides believers from unbelievers, but the level of evidence that each person requires. And I think that decision is most often made according to what a person wants to be true. (See for example this article.) I think that's a strange message to get. After all, Jesus was there in front of them, he was doing miracles (and he said they could provide a basis for belief), he had lived with his followers like Thomas for several years and they knew his character - they had heaps of evidence! Thanks for the opportunity to understand your views better, and to interact with them. Sorry this has been so long. Best wishes. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 19, 2011 2:33:15 GMT
Original sin is empirically obvious. Read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. Wait a minute, earlier you were saying you don't believe in the doctrine of original sin. Now you're saying you do? I've read 'The Selfish Gene' more than once, and whilst it doesn't do more for me than explain the biological mechanics behind what I already knew from the Bible, it has nothing to say about original sin (the doctrine that all people descended from Adam are morally guilty of his sin and have a stain on their souls as a result). What did I miss? It's ok I'm not doing that. I'm simply referring to the conclusions of the scholarly consensus. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but we do have excellent evidence that these two doctrines were post-apostolic inventions, and we can even trace their gradual development. It's much like reading the fossil record. People who invent things rarely do; 'Hey, I've just invented this brand new doctrine that the apostles never taught, want to hear about it?', I don't think so. I hate to break it to you, but there is no 'guilt gene'. Lots of things are inherited genetically. Guilt is not one of them. Our genes do not transmit moral guilt or virtue. Anyway, I thought you said you didn't believe in the doctrine of original sin? That still leaves the problem that he was writing in Europe over 100 years after the apostles, and in that time there's no evidence from other sources during that time of this doctrine of original sin. It's the same with the idea that Jesus is God. These are well documented as late doctrinal developments which have nothing to do with apostolic Christianity. |
|
|
|
Post by captainzman on Jul 19, 2011 5:10:24 GMT
Um, I think you're confusing himself with hawkinthesnow
|
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 19, 2011 5:28:41 GMT
Um, I think you're confusing himself with hawkinthesnow Thanks, you're correct. I apologize. I'm still interested in the idea that Richard Dawkins' work supports the doctrine of 'original sin', and the comments made on early Christian beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by himself on Jul 19, 2011 21:19:47 GMT
Original sin is empirically obvious. Read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. I've read 'The Selfish Gene' more than once, and whilst it doesn't do more for me than explain the biological mechanics behind what I already knew from the Bible, it has nothing to say about original sin (the doctrine that all people descended from Adam are morally guilty of his sin and have a stain on their souls as a result). What did I miss? - Original sin is not a sin in the sense of positive sinful acts. It is rather the origin-of-sin, which Aquinas equated with concupiscence or "wanting stuff." We an call that "selfishness."
- Doctrine originally imagined that as an innate selfishness that human beings inherited from their remotest ancestor. [BTW, doctrine does not hold that there was only one ancestor, only that there was one ancestor to whom all humans today trace their ancestry.]
- No one knew how this innate trait was transmitted from generation to generation; but genetics was not discovered until the 19th century.
- Dawkins' contention is that human selfishness is genetic. Thus, it must be something handed down from our remotest ancestor.
+ + + Do not confuse the lack of surviving documentation with "did not believe. It's ok I'm not doing that. I'm simply referring to the conclusions of the scholarly consensus. ...we do have excellent evidence that these two doctrines were post-apostolic inventions Were the modern scholars there, too? Why should it surprise them that the way of explaining a thing might become more sophisticated over time? Einstein's explanation of gravity differs from Aristotle's, but they both believed in gravity. So what is the excellent evidence? Recall, too, that (Irenaeus) was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. That still leaves the problem that he was writing in Europe over 100 years after the apostles... How is that a problem? He had the straight skinny from a guy who knew the apostles. They did not all die in AD 33, you know. Peter was executed under Nero, around AD 60. John is supposed to have died during Trajan's reign. We don't know when Ariston died, but he was certainly alive when Papias ("a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time") was about, which makes him still vertical when Polycarp, Pappias, and others of the sub-Apostolic age were in business. Polycarp did not die until AD 155, so we have a clear instance of someone who had heard the apostles first-hand hanging loose in the early second century. Also, Irenaeus became bishop of Lyon in Gaul, but he was born and spent his early years in Proconsular Asia, close to the scene of action, and certainly close to Smyrna and to Edessa (where Philip and his daughters lived). there's no evidence from other sources during that time of this doctrine of original sin. There is very little evidence of anything during that time that was not carved in stone, and imperial business. Especially not of a sect whose books were a target of book-burning by authorities during the reign of Diocletian. Do we need to get into the Myth of Hannibal? It's the same with the idea that Jesus is God. These are well documented as late doctrinal developments which have nothing to do with apostolic Christianity. Well, we have Clement of Rome (reg. AD 80-99) in his Letter to the Corinthians. Per Epiphanius, Clement was a contemporary of Peter and Paul. Indeed, Peter is supposed to have ordained him. (He may or may not have been the Clement mentioned by Paul in Phil 4:3.) Irenæus says that Clement "saw the blessed Apostles and conversed with them, and had yet ringing in his ears the preaching of the Apostles and had their tradition before his eyes, and not he only for many were then surviving who had been taught by the Apostles." Then we have Ignatius (b. AD 50, also a disciple of John), Polycarp (b. AD 69), Aristides (b. latter 1st cent.), Justin (b. AD 100), Athenagoras (b. ca. AD 150), all showing a consistent transmission of the same traditions generation to generation. |
|
