DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Ħ on March 07, 2011, 07:01:39 PM
-
Yeah it's that can of worms again.
So, I just finished reading this book by Lee Strobel...it's a really good "Sparknote" version of the key points as to why the gospels are historically reliable and whatnot, as well as having refutations to critics.
I've seen a number of the points made in the book come up in P/R so I suspect I'm not the only one that has the book...
Anyway, just wanted to give it my commendation.
-
Yeah it's that can of worms again.
So, I just finished reading this book by Lee Strobel...it's a really good "Sparknote" version of the key points as to why the gospels are historically reliable and whatnot, as well as having refutations to critics.
I've seen a number of the points made in the book come up in P/R so I suspect I'm not the only one that has the book...
Anyway, just wanted to give it my commendation.
It's pretty solid; Strobel went to all the right people to make his case. The major criticism I've heard is that he could have done a better job of engaging the skeptics. But, yeah, it's a starting point. I read a number of books by people he interviewed, Craig Blomberg being the most recent.
-
i keep hearing good things about the books and video series. in fact just tonight someone was raving about it. need to check them out
-
The case for what about Christ? The sense of his teachings which are found in other bibles like the Tao and Hindu bibles? The existence of a person people called the Christ? The case for him being God incarnate etc?
-
The existence of a person people called the Christ? The case for him being God incarnate etc?
Mostly these.
I read this book years ago and thought it was pretty good. He's come out with other books as well "The Case for a Creator", etc. I don't recall exactly what arguements he uses in each of the books, but most of them were pretty solid. A few seemed a bit of a stretch to me, but overall a worthwhile read.
-
He believes in Bible inerrancy though, right?
rumborak
-
He believes in Bible inerrancy though, right?
rumborak
I believe so, but he doesn't ever use that arguement that Jesus existed and is the son of God because the Bible says so. He basically argues the point that Biblical records of Jesus can be trusted for various reasons. I don't think his book is anything that will convince a hardcore athiest as most of his points have been made elsewhere. He just does a pretty good job of backing up his claims with research.
-
Bah! Well-researched, supported, and reasoned claims are no match for SUPER ATHEIST! :superdude:
-
I think it's pretty tough to accept any argument from someone claiming the Bible is inerrant. Historical works need to be imbued with a strong sense of critical thinking.
-
I think it's pretty tough to accept any argument from someone claiming the Bible is inerrant. Historical works need to be imbued with a strong sense of critical thinking.
No. Historical analysis needs to be imbued with a strong sense of critical thinking. But applying that very principle here, implying that a well-researched, scholarly work may not possess requisite "critical thinking" simply because you happen to disagree with the author on a particular point is pretty much the opposite of critical thinking and analysis on your part. And your error is compounded by the fact that, as mentioned above, that aspect of his belief system does not really play a role in the analysis in the book.
-
I think it's pretty tough to accept any argument from someone claiming the Bible is inerrant. Historical works need to be imbued with a strong sense of critical thinking.
Have you read the book? Following on Bosk's post, I can only imagine the patronizing lecture somebody would get if he said what you just said, except about a scientific concept.
-
I can understand how one may be able to show that the Bible is historically accurate in things like Christ being an actual person. But I cant see how one can show that it is accurate in its claims that Jesus is the son of god. It cant be proven.
-
I think it's pretty tough to accept any argument from someone claiming the Bible is inerrant. Historical works need to be imbued with a strong sense of critical thinking.
No. Historical analysis needs to be imbued with a strong sense of critical thinking. But applying that very principle here, implying that a well-researched, scholarly work may not possess requisite "critical thinking" simply because you happen to disagree with the author on a particular point is pretty much the opposite of critical thinking and analysis on your part. And your error is compounded by the fact that, as mentioned above, that aspect of his belief system does not really play a role in the analysis in the book.
I'm going to ignore that thinking the Bible is inerrant, especially as a historian, means opposing or ignoring many mainstream historic and scientific theories. I'm going to ignore that you'd disregard a similar history written about Mohammed, or dozens of other religious personalities. I'm going to ignore that the author's motivation in writing the book is likely apologist in nature.
Do you really think a historical analysis done by an author who assumes accuracy in his major (and ancient) source won't lack in critical thinking?
-
Do you really think a historical analysis done by an author who assumes accuracy in his major (and ancient) source won't lack in critical thinking?
Something you wouldn't have said if you were familiar with Strobel. He was quite skeptical of religion and only became a Christian after seeking answers to the questions he discusses in the book. But why are his motives an excuse to dismiss the book as a religious screed?
-
Do you really think a historical analysis done by an author who assumes accuracy in his major (and ancient) source won't lack in critical thinking?
But why are his motives an excuse to dismiss the book as a religious screed?
I don't know whether he presents this book as history or as an (admittedly) apologist view. If it's the latter, I don't really have a problem with it. If it's the former, I'd have a hard time taking his theses as an unbiased take on things.
-
Fair enough. But both generally speaking and as it specifically relates to this discussion, the role of bias should be to make the listener suspicious and to more closely scrutinize the speaker/writer's arguments to determine whether they are correct--not to make the listener automatically write off the arguments as false without even hearing them. Your post that I initially responded to seemed to take the latter approach.
-
Fair enough. But both generally speaking and as it specifically relates to this discussion, the role of bias should be to make the listener suspicious and to more closely scrutinize the speaker/writer's arguments to determine whether they are correct--not to make the listener automatically write off the arguments as false without even hearing them. Your post that I initially responded to seemed to take the latter approach.
Yeah, I suppose I gave off that air. I've been reading different accounts and debates over the historiography of the Arab-Israeli conflict, so I've had it up to the eyes with "historical" works that can be divided largely by the religious/political beliefs of the author.
-
I haven't read the book, but I'm assuming it implicitly works on the conclusion that if one aspect of the Bible can be shown to be accurate (Jesus' existence), the rest can be assumed to be correct too?
rumborak
-
I haven't read the book, but I'm assuming it implicitly works on the conclusion that if one aspect of the Bible can be shown to be accurate (Jesus' existence), the rest can be assumed to be correct too?
rumborak
It presents for the existence of Jesus, that the gospels are reliable, that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, that Jesus did miracles and was ultimately resurrected. From there, the reader is left with deciding what to do with the evidence. It doesn't make any assertion to believe the rest of the Bible.
The premise of the book is the question "Where does the evidence point?" Strobel asks that you set aside any preconceived notions about whether God exists or not, whether the supernatural can occur or not, and just look at the evidence and decide for yourself what really happened.
-
I'm pretty sure you can argue for just about anything once you accept the "supernatural" as permissible evidence, given that the definition of supernatural says its not observable by normal means.
rumborak
-
Hmm I sort of see what your saying. I think you don't want to rule it out right from the get-go though. For example, the Jesus Seminar is a leftist fridge group that will come up with completely unsupported hypotheses just because they are reluctant to accept the supernatural from the start. A fair treating of the evidence will allow for whatever possibility, supernatural or not. And if the evidence definitively points towards something supernatural, don't invent bogus claims that "fit" the evidence but really aren't demanded by the evidence.
-
Hmm I sort of see what your saying. I think you don't want to rule it out right from the get-go though. For example, the Jesus Seminar is a leftist fridge group that will come up with completely unsupported hypotheses just because they are reluctant to accept the supernatural from the start. A fair treating of the evidence will allow for whatever possibility, supernatural or not. And if the evidence definitively points towards something supernatural, don't invent bogus claims that "fit" the evidence but really aren't demanded by the evidence.
The problem is, every religion claims their evidence points to the super natural while denying the same for every other religion. Muslim/Christian debates are hilariously redundant because both sides claim a supernatural connection for "their guy" while arguing against one for the other based on thin evidence and double standards.
-
Bah! Well-researched, supported, and reasoned claims are no match for SUPER ATHEIST! :superdude:
:rollin
-
For example, the Jesus Seminar is a leftist fridge group
Would you say that their feelings toward mainstream portraits of Jesus's life could be described as "cold"? :hat
-J
-
And if the evidence definitively points towards something supernatural, don't invent bogus claims that "fit" the evidence but really aren't demanded by the evidence.
Isn't one of religion's greatest calamities that all supernatural evidence occurred when people were inherently superstitious, and that nothing supernatural happened since then?
I think religion would be far less controversial if at least some of the awesome stuff we hear about in the Bible happened around our time, not when people thought stars were holes in the firmament spanned in a half-sphere over a flat earth. Heck, if I saw somebody parting the seas I would certainly be sold!
rumborak
-
Li Hongzhi can levitate!
-
For example, the Jesus Seminar is a leftist fridge group
Would you say that their feelings toward mainstream portraits of Jesus's life could be described as "cold"? :hat
-J
:horatio:
I think religion would be far less controversial if at least some of the awesome stuff we hear about in the Bible happened around our time, not when people thought stars were holes in the firmament spanned in a half-sphere over a flat earth.
FYI, not everybody who ever lived in the world in all of history before 1950 believed the same thing as medieval Europeans.
-
I read this book but didn't find it compelling or convincing at all. It just didn't grab me as convincing but rather as someone scrambling to compile as much evidence as possible to make a quick case to prove a point to make him feel more secure.
I appreciate the research he did but the book really wasn't all that good in my opinion. (not trying to troll or anything, just giving my opinion)
-
I read this book but didn't find it compelling or convincing at all. It just didn't grab me as convincing but rather as someone scrambling to compile as much evidence as possible to make a quick case to prove a point to make him feel more secure.
I appreciate the research he did but the book really wasn't all that good in my opinion. (not trying to troll or anything, just giving my opinion)
I don't think it's meant to be completely sufficient just by itself. And the end of each chapter he gives four or five "further study" suggestions.
-
Josh McDowell's "In Sear of Certainty" used to be one of my favorite books. I thought it was amazing and that it made a great case. I read it again recently and was shocked at how terrible a book it was. There's no doubt that the success of these books in convincing readers depends largely on how ready each reader is to be convinced. I'm sure its the same with books like The God Delusion. I haven't read this book but its probably meant to appease more than it is to convince.
-
That's what I'm thinking too. At this point both of these types of books are mostly for pandering to their respective sides.
rumborak
-
I think religion would be far less controversial if at least some of the awesome stuff we hear about in the Bible happened around our time, not when people thought stars were holes in the firmament spanned in a half-sphere over a flat earth.
FYI, not everybody who ever lived in the world in all of history before 1950 believed the same thing as medieval Europeans.
Please don't tell me you think that the authors of the Bible knew the true composition of the universe, wrote it down cryptically and misleadingly, and then as a society forgot it again, only for the Europeans to come up with the aforementioned notion.
rumborak
-
I read this book but didn't find it compelling or convincing at all. It just didn't grab me as convincing but rather as someone scrambling to compile as much evidence as possible to make a quick case to prove a point to make him feel more secure.
I appreciate the research he did but the book really wasn't all that good in my opinion. (not trying to troll or anything, just giving my opinion)
Same here. I read it a few years ago, but I was unimpressed. And no, I can't cite examples of why not because I didn't like the book and I no longer have it. But even as a believer, I didn't find it that fulfilling.
-
I think religion would be far less controversial if at least some of the awesome stuff we hear about in the Bible happened around our time, not when people thought stars were holes in the firmament spanned in a half-sphere over a flat earth.
FYI, not everybody who ever lived in the world in all of history before 1950 believed the same thing as medieval Europeans.
Please don't tell me you think that the authors of the Bible knew the true composition of the universe, wrote it down cryptically and misleadingly, and then as a society forgot it again, only for the Europeans to come up with the aforementioned notion.
rumborak
No. But that also doesn't mean everybody was ignorant of science until the enlightenment.
-
You're not gonna tell me that 0AD people knew that lightning isn't the wrath of God, but instead a discharge of electrons, right?
People around that time knew next to nothing about natural forces. Bottom line is that a lot of natural things got attributed to God's doings, and that's obviously the reason why these days God's interaction is very "clandestine".
BTW, my question to bosk was somewhat rhetorical. Unless memory serves me wrong, he *does* believe that the authors of the Bible knew the full extent of modern cosmology, but then everybody around them forgot it again.
rumborak
-
I think religion would be far less controversial if at least some of the awesome stuff we hear about in the Bible happened around our time, not when people thought stars were holes in the firmament spanned in a half-sphere over a flat earth.
FYI, not everybody who ever lived in the world in all of history before 1950 believed the same thing as medieval Europeans.
Please don't tell me you think that the authors of the Bible knew the true composition of the universe, wrote it down cryptically and misleadingly, and then as a society forgot it again, only for the Europeans to come up with the aforementioned notion.
rumborak
No. But that also doesn't mean everybody was ignorant of science until the enlightenment.
I suppose it doesn't mean that, but they pretty much were ignorant. History hadn't even reached the Greeks yet. If there was any critical thought about science, it was either kept quiet or the heretics were killed for even insinuating such a fact.
-
The vast majority of people are still ignorant of science.
-
The Case for Christ was pretty cool, at least to me at the time when I was still trying to learn about these arguments.
However, I love The Case for a Creator. I read it recently. It goes into the science part of it (and even some mathematical arguments) and it was a great read. Don't know if I agree with everything in it, though, and it may be a little dated now.
-
The vast majority of people are still ignorant of science.
Of that there is no doubt. But, if you were to take the highest levels of understanding and compare them between then and now, the difference is nothing short of exponential.
-
The vast majority of people are still ignorant of science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OruQy-X32O0
-
The vast majority of people are still ignorant of science.
No they aren't. (https://www.science20.com/news_articles/understanding_science_nearly_triple_1988-76403) In fact, science literacy is increasing.
No. But that also doesn't mean everybody was ignorant of science until the enlightenment.
I suppose it doesn't mean that, but they pretty much were ignorant. History hadn't even reached the Greeks yet. If there was any critical thought about science, it was either kept quiet or the heretics were killed for even insinuating such a fact.
Obviously they didn't know as much as we know now. But this line of argument is used to support a cartoonish narrative about belief: religious people had fairy tales because they couldn't explain lightening. Fortunately, science stepped up and revealed the mysteries of the natural world. That is not true
-
Eh. If you look at the OT stories, they reek of natural disasters being wrongly ascribed to deities. In the OT (~500BC), there are
- floods
- famines
- plagues
- earthquakes
Let's compare that to today. Today there are
- floods (Pakistan)
- famines (Africa)
- plagues (Haiti)
- earthquakes (Japan)
What's the difference? None, only that we don't ascribe them wrongly to deities anymore.
rumborak