A couple of weeks ago, I had a delightful dialogue concerning my post Why Materialism is Not Skeptical, during which a commenter made some very reasonable replies to my hyperbolic post. I’m not going to cover all those points here, but I’d encourage you to read it.
That discussion got me to thinking…I should more frequently answer reader questions/comments in blog posts. You know, like the Doonesbury “reader mailbag” segment…only without the witty banter and drawings of guys with abnormally long noses.
Now I know what you are thinking: This guy is sooooo lazy that, rather than answering questions in a normal comment dialogue – the way other bloggers do – he’s going to attempt to kill two birds with one proverbial stone. That cheap effort would allow him to address reader questions and meet his weekly blog quota at the same time. He must therefore be an unmotivated sap!
To which I respond: You’d be largely right about that.
Anyhoo, I’ll start this new segment with the following question raised during the discussion over materialism:
Reader Question: Why is your bird angry at my tornado?
My response: Why does your tornado irritate my bird? Next.
[Editor’s note: We apologize for the senior writer’s proclivity towards useless goofiness. That was not an actual question from a living reader. But the next one truly is a real question, ok?]
Reader Question: If you are to defend that some miracles exist while others do not, then I must ask what is the reason you believe in the resurrection of Jesus while not-believing the resurrection of Osiris?
So, waste no time and keep cialis tablets australia anti-ED drug handy when you wish to sweep her off her feet by making passionate love with her. erections during an intimacy. A testosterone shortage may cost your sexual life and can lead him to the sexual failure of erectile dysfunction. viagra prescription http://djpaulkom.tv/dj-paul-get-away-ft-yelawolf-jon-connor-video/ They are loaded with lots women viagra of vitamins, since it includes vitamin a, c and e, as well as minerals like folates and riboflavin, folic acid, potassium, iron. Below are the most common reasons to opt cialis brand 20mg for a therapist to sort out such concerns, better to use unique toilet tool like ToilyTool that really helps to heal bad toilet issues.
This is a perfectly reasonable question. My primary answer is that I have not met Osiris (the Egyptian God who, in the ancient myth, died and was brought back to life) in my own world – if I do, then I will believe in him. I believe I have met Christ – because He is still alive.
I realize that answer is not very intellectually satisfying, but really – there is a sense in which this question is like asking me why I believe in my wife, but not in an alien named Folek-Zantor. I’ve experienced one directly, but not the other.
(So, yeah, that is an extra-sucky answer. So now I will at least try to say something that’s hopefully a little more intellectually inspiring.)
Yet there is another sense in which I do believe in Osiris…or at least, I believe in the kernel around which the Osiris story is perhaps the shell. I might phrase it this way: I believe in Jesus because of Osiris. The whole world seems ripe with the cry of life from death; the desire seems to extend across times and cultures; the Egyptians had it; I have it, too. It’s the same desire I experience when I go to Rattlesnake Creek in April and I can just feel the whole sleeping world coming alive. And, as it wakes, I want to wake up with it. The call in the Bible to wake up, O sleeper, and rise from the dead isn’t something the Bible put in me; I already had it inside of me, just like the Egyptians had it inside of them. Jesus seems to me the literal fulfillment of this desire, expressed through the centuries in a myriad of ways, for a resurrection. A re-birth. A renewal.
Why do I say Jesus is the “literal” fulfillment? Well, Jesus was a real person who lived in a real time in a real place. Osiris is the myth; Jesus is the reality. Some people doubt Jesus’ resurrection, but few people doubt his existence as a real man. Most historians grant that he existed and was killed in some way, and had disciples – real people – who knew him and did lots of stuff afterwards to spread his beliefs. Show me the historians that believe that Osiris was a real person who had documented disciples – real people in the way that Peter was a real person – that actually knew Osiris.
Here is a link to one version of the Osiris myth – you can read it for yourself and make your own judgment. But to me, when I read that story, it is like a great epic poem or saga; but not like a history. It does not contain real people known to have really existed; heck, it barely contains real places. The New Testament is quite a contrast; it does not read like a myth, for the most part, but like a history. It is about real places and real people during a real historical time period. A lot of its content involves letters written by real people who lived in one place to real people who lived in another place. A fair bit of the New Testament has been historically corroborated through archaeology and other historical accounts. At the very least, it is highly unlikely that the whole story was just MADE UP out of someone’s head.
So, to go back to the question (mercifully, you might add!), I believe in this particular miracle – Jesus’ resurrection – because (a) I have a desire in me for re-birth, (b) this desire seems met in a historical event, and (c) I feel I have actually met the resurrected Christ from the historical event myself. Of these, a and c are the most important – I mean, I would not believe in Jesus if I thought the entire New Testament was made up (as, for example, it appears to me the book of Mormon was mostly made up), but my own personal experience is what I trust the most…history can be a dicey business.
Next week, we’ll answer other reader questions, such as If the Apologetic Professor could be a superhero, what superhero would I be? and Is God in the same epistemological category as a lucky ball?
Innate and universal desires are interesting places to put as evidence. They are kind of seemingly mystical things after all, so it is fitting to put them as an argument for a divinity. And I think because religions are made by people, who experience these universal desires, truths, and so on, they take on by their commentary and representations of them their mystical qualities.
So first, life from death seems pretty universal for humans. Probably because we are able to predict death and that we realize basically the root of all our fears is in the possibility of it for ourselves or those things we care about. So it isn’t a surprise people would have tales about resurrection, quests for immortality, monsters of death, and so on in all human cultures. Jesus touches on one aspect of it, the idea of rebirth – but Gilgamesh touches on the idea of death’s inevitability – and Buddha on the always changing but ever-constant cycle of life to death to life. So alone this argument for Jesus’ uniqueness isn’t too strong, as you pointed out, as there are more tales and perhaps (given different opinions) even more compelling ones about life and death in various traditions.
The second main argument was for the historical validity given by Jesus being that he seems to have existed. It is thought that most of these gods and heroes once did exist as real people, but through the ages the tales about them grew from rumors to legends to finally myths. And that person, who was as human as you or I, became larger than life. We see this process is VERY fast, even in literate times – look at the heroification of figures such as J. F. K. who, if it wasn’t for an assassin’s bullet, would have likely been seen as a rather mediocre president. Or look a little further back at the tales about the Founding Fathers (the very title grants them a more-than-human status already!), and how each has stories and legends about them, complete with artifacts and places and events, that really captivate the imagination. That was a process of only a handful of decades – what happens in a few centuries and in different times?
But we should stick to more relevant human figures about deification. How about Confucius? He was a real man, a teacher in fact, whose teachings became so profound in China that a whole system with not just philosophy but metaphysics and ethics (organs of any religion) was based around his thoughts, and around him. While not a direct comparison because Jesus is worshiped as/next to a god, it still shows how mystical and divine ideas can begin to cloud around and infuse into the real history of a person, despite those parts not being actual events at all. If Confucius had the fortune (or misfortune) of having a cult following that wished to verify his teachings as divine, would they not have extreme motivation to embellish if not fabricate outright tales of his divinity – it happens all the time in cults of personality, and it doesn’t take years to manufacture. And if the people were totally honest, still misinterpretations are bound to happen, tales change from person to person, and stories evolve over time. And mysticism makes for great storytelling. To me, I’d look at Jesus’ teachings in the same light as Socrates and Confucius – as philosophies from human beings without divine justification. If Jesus’ teachings are truly valid, they ought to stand firm in the light of reason and practice without needing a god to back them up – though so many people need that god to actually obey such teachings.
So that’s what I can say about those two arguments. The third is from personal experience, and I can’t tell you that it didn’t happen – for no one can know that but you, and you’ve got a clear picture of what that event was. My only thought on that is how people in other societies and in other times have met other gods and divinities, as well as mundane creatures and beings, in similar otherwise unexplained experiences. Polytheism, while out of favor right now for world religions, had the easy answer to that – the world is full of gods and goddesses and minor divinities, and what you saw was one of them. Monotheism encounters the tough problem of explaining all those other beings though, and while it seems easy to simply say, “It’s Jesus, God, an Angel, or it’s a Demon”, it always strikes me as a cop-out. And one who holds such a personal experience dear cannot say the others were fake since that would discredit their own experience as possibly fake too.
Individual experiences (and subjective interpretations of them) ought to be treated respectfully. Still, I always wonder why I don’t read about people “meeting Jesus” in cultures that have never heard the Christian story. Does Jesus politely defer to Christian missionaries, letting them pave the way for him before he starts manifesting himself to anyone? Is he afraid he’ll startle folks who haven’t been properly prepared to receive his message? Or is there some evidence of which I’m unaware that remote tribes, never exposed to Bibles or Christian teachings, have recorded encounters with the risen Christ?
Uh-Oh,
A very fair comment. I especially like the argument at the end: A very nice conundrum for the “personal experience” argument. Of course, personal experience isn’t really an argument (exactly), in part for the reasons you mentioned. And to the degree that it IS an argument, it is a very annoying one (sorry about that!), since it ends the discussion as technically neither you are I can dispute each others’ personal experience. I’m nothing if not irritating!
I would like to point out the following fact: If we are going to use your implied standard and aggregate personal experiences across time — then I agree, it isn’t a direct win for Christianity by any means, in the sense that lots of people experience other gods. You are completely right about that. But it is also a (nearly) TOTAL loss for atheism…since almost all of humanity DOES at one point or another experience some form of the divine.
Now about the other stuff: All reasonable. Indeed, I have myself said on this blog in a comment that I think a perfectly reasonable explanation for Christianity is the very one you mentioned — that it was exaggerated over time in some fashion. (A far better explanation than most of the dumb ones people try). Among other things, I study cultural transmission for a living, and I’m keenly aware of how much and how quickly it can go wrong.
But it can (and often does) go right, too. And just because I can’t play Bach, that doesn’t mean that Liberace couldn’t play Bach. Pianos can be misplayed; but they can also be played well. Just because sometimes communication goes wrong, doesn’t mean that this one instance it went wrong.
You mention the myths about the founding fathers. Yes: That’s true. But it’s also true that we, as a culture, have recognized them as myths and tried to correct them. The very fact that we have a category for “myths” about the founding fathers attests to that fact. The very fact that you are aware of their weaknesses attests to the positive power of cultural communication — else, how would you be aware of them? I actually think our cultural communication about the founding fathers has led to pretty accurate pictures of them overall. Yes, I was taught as a child about the cherry tree and how wonderful little George could not tell a lie. But I was also taught as an adult that he owned slaves and had bad teeth.
Well, early Christianity went through a similar myth-busting phase; it attempted to weed out many of the stories that had grown up around Jesus that didn’t seem to have historical backing. I’m not saying that this means for sure it worked — that would be ridiculous. I am biased to believe that it worked, and I recognize my own biases. But I AM saying that I am a little skeptical of your uber-skepticism about all forms of cultural communication. I think that your skepticism is partially uniquely applied to this case because you don’t believe in miracles. I think if you did believe in miracles, you’d approach the history differently. I doubt you apply the same skepticism to SCIENTIFIC communication — I am almost certainly MORE skeptical than you about scientific communication than you are (of course, that’s partially because I am a scientist and see its failings first-hand).
Anyway, it is certainly possible that the story evolved as you said; but it doesn’t really read that way to me. If it did evolve that way, it may be the worst effort in history to create mythical figures. I mean, there are lots of controversial statements in the Bible that it would have been easy to take out…lots of ways that those purported liars Peter and Paul and so forth could have made themselves look a LOT better…and so on.
And BTW, in comparing Jesus to those other heroes, I don’t think you quite got my point. I do realize that some people think Osiris was possibly based on a real hero. Some people think Arthur was based on a real king. I get that. It may or may not be true — those people could just as easily be based on stories like the Lord of the Rings. If Tolkein had lived in ancient Egypt, we might be talking about Gandalf instead of Osiris. But that is immaterial to my argument. Jesus is different historically from those people by leaps and bounds — they aren’t really comparable. Arthur MAY have been based on a real king; but we don’t even know what king it was, and scholars debate that issue. Jesus wasn’t BASED on anyone; he was a real person, the thing itself. So it’s reasonable to say “the stories about Jesus may have been exaggerated or even made up after the fact” — I respect that possibility. But I’m not sure about saying “Jesus himself was actually a hero of unknown origin from a different time period that got turned into a myth.” I don’t think that’s a very historically accurate picture of the state of things.
About Confucius and Buddha (and Moses and many other great religious figures): I do agree with your point, up to a point anyway. But really, those other figures kind of highlight Jesus’ uniqueness. You correctly point out that Confucius was never really diefied. Buddha was, later — but he explicitly forbid it, and serious followers of Buddha (like monks) do not really do that. The records of Buddha’s refusing to be considered a deity remain — that’s a part of cultural communication. So too with pretty much all major religious teachers. So the question still remains: If you are outlining a general process of explaning why Jesus ended up viewed by Christians as God incarnate, then why is he essentially the only major religious figure in history that (a) is explicitly recorded as claiming to be God incarnate, (b) founded a major world religion, and (c) has always been recognized by the major followers of that faith as having some special Divine properties? Put another way, if the general process would always lead to that kind of deification, why is Jesus the only one it actually worked on? Doesn’t seem very “general” to me.
I have a book to write on this part of your comment:
“If Jesus’ teachings are truly valid, they ought to stand firm in the light of reason and practice without needing a god to back them up – though so many people need that god to actually obey such teachings.”
But it will have to wait!
Meanwhile, I thought your comment was interesting and very fair-minded, and (despite my long reply) I found much in it to agree with. Keep those comments coming!
Jack,
Fabulous! Very clever, funny, erudite, and…a good argument to boot.
In reply, I’d say…I don’t know. I’m tempted to point out that reports from Muslim countries suggest some number of people converting to Christianity after they met Christ in visions…but I heard those stories in church and have never investigated them myself (I’m always suspicious of such stories, on the basis of the epistemological principle of distrusting biased sources).
Really, it’s a totally fair point that I’ve wondered about myself. But I don’t put a lot of stock in evangelism and I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about it. Jesus said seek and you’ll find: And I trust that people who seek, ultimately find (whether on this side of death or the other). Let me think about it a bit and see if I can come up with an intellectually meaningful reply. That reply (on the hopeful principle that I can think of anything to say) will likely have to offer a larger perspective on Heaven and Eternity.
But also, that reply certainly won’t answer the fundamental question well. The truth is: I probably can’t answer it, but it simply doesn’t bother me. I don’t understand why Christ doesn’t appear to every single person in physical form…but I trust Him anyway. He never appeared to me in physical form either, nor in a vision like Paul’s, and yet I still trust in His goodness.
All of that, in case you didn’t notice, is a round-about way of saying what ought to be said more directly — that argument is certainly a point to your side of the debate! Keep them coming, Jack — appreciate the comments.
Luke–I feel like I’ve just won (temporarily, at least) a round of “Stump the Band”! On top of getting your site’s “security question” right, that’s quite the feather in my cap.
Jack,
Funny! Thanks for the good laugh.
Well, you have definitely won this round of “Stump the Band.” I would not let it go to your head, though, since I am pretty much perpetually stumped about SOMETHING. (“Why did God allow mosquitoes? Why did He let the Cats beat the Griz? Why did He let me get bitten by a mosquito WHILE watching the Cats beat the Griz? Why do people like Justin Beiber’s haircut?” The list is pretty much endless, and includes more serious questions, like “why does God allow some people to live 10 years in abuse and poverty, and then die alone in a big city slum?”)
Anyway, I hope you take this next comment seriously: It is really a joy to be able to have honest quasi-public debates with all of you about these sorts of things. And yes, even when I clearly lose the debate, it is an honor to clash intellectual swords in an open and honest fashion. I’m not sure why I ended up with such nice and smart people to debate with, but I really do appreciate it.
OK, enough of that! Back to constructing my next intellectual parry.
A lot of thanks for your own hard work on this website. My mom delights in engaging in internet research and it’s really simple to grasp why. A lot of people learn all relating to the powerful tactic you provide priceless secrets via your website and welcome contribution from some others on that article while our favorite girl is undoubtedly starting to learn a whole lot. Take pleasure in the remaining portion of the new year. You have been doing a dazzling job.