https://religions.wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=TimSC&feedformat=atomReligions Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T18:57:20ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.39.6https://religions.wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Legendtepeta&diff=44099User talk:Legendtepeta2024-03-06T09:33:26Z<p>TimSC: Add title</p>
<hr />
<div>==Content should be original==<br />
Your recent edit contained content from [https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/sickness-suffering-and-death/sickness]. Work uploaded here has to be original content or at least you need permission from the author to upload it.--[[User:TimSC|TimSC]] ([[User talk:TimSC|talk]]) 09:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Legendtepeta&diff=44098User talk:Legendtepeta2024-03-06T09:32:48Z<p>TimSC: Created page with "Your recent edit contained content from [https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/sickness-suffering-and-death/sickness]. Work uploaded here has to be original content or at least you need permission from the author to upload it.--~~~~"</p>
<hr />
<div>Your recent edit contained content from [https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/sickness-suffering-and-death/sickness]. Work uploaded here has to be original content or at least you need permission from the author to upload it.--[[User:TimSC|TimSC]] ([[User talk:TimSC|talk]]) 09:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=44095Jehovah's Witnesses2024-02-21T15:08:08Z<p>TimSC: /* New light */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{wikipedia}}<br />
[[Image:JW Literature.jpg|thumb|Apologetics magazines are often distributed by Witnesses]]<br />
[[Image:KingdomHall.jpg|thumb|Jehovah's Witnesses refer to their place of worship as a Kingdom Hall]]<br />
[[Image:Charles Taze Russell.jpg|thumb|upright|The Jehovah's Witnesses grew out of the [[Bible Student movement]], which was founded by [[Charles Taze Russell]].]]<br />
{{harm|http://whatstheharm.net/jehovahswitnesses.html|What's the harm in Jehovah's Witnesses?}}<br />
{{wikipedia|Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses}}<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses are a fundamentalist Christian denomination best known for door-to-door evangelism, distribution of religious literature such as [[The Watchtower]] and [[Awake!]] magazines, and their refusal to accept blood transfusions.<br />
<br />
The religion's organization report over 7,000,000 members worldwide, and over 18,000,000 attendees at their annual Memorial ceremony. <ref>[http://www.watchtower.org/e/statistics/worldwide_report.htm]</ref> Third-party reports estimate the number to be 30-60% higher than reported by the religion.<br />
{{wikipedia|History of Jehovah's Witnesses}}<br />
==Beliefs==<br />
<br />
They consider [[My religion is the one true religion|all other Christian denominations to be false]] and part of a [[great apostasy]]. Jehovah's Witnesses refer to other religions collectively as "Babylon the Great," which is another term used by Jehovah's Witnesses for false religions. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102001028]</ref><br />
<br />
Witnesses consider unity of belief as important, as this is thought to be in agreement with scripture and so as to present a unified front to the world, so there is no new Bible interpretation attempts by normal Witnesses.<br />
<br />
=== Sacred text ===<br />
<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses use their own translation of the [[Bible]], the ''New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures'', first published in 1961. This was followed by a revised 2013 version which includes an introductory 20 question and answer section, outline of contents before each book and two appendixes (A and B) with biblical information, teachings doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Bible is primarily addressed to the 144,000 "anointed" Christians that will reach Heaven. <ref>[http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/bible-for-anointed.php]</ref><br />
<br />
Interpretation of the Bible is done by the church's governing body, which has currently seven members. Rank and file members are forbidden from trying to interpret the text independently. Only one interpretation is acceptable to the church. Disagreement with the governing body is considered to be disagreement with the Bible, since their views are supposedly Biblically supported. They consider the governing body's interpretation to be generally correct but may err in less important matters such as particular details of prophecy.<br />
<br />
===God and Jesus===<br />
<br />
[[Jesus]] is the Archangel Michael and not God. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2010250#h=3]</ref> He is God's son in the sense that he was "the firstborn of all creation" and the only thing directly created by God. All other things were created by Jesus under God's direction. <ref>[https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-jesus-christ/#?insight[search_id]=10437d3f-e69a-4f3b-bebe-207392a11a01&insight[search_result_index]=3]</ref> <br />
<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses reject the concept of the [[Trinity]]. <ref>[http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20091101/myth-god-is-a-trinity/]</ref> They believe that Jesus died on a stake, not a cross,<ref>[http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/did-jesus-die-on-cross/]</ref> and see the use of the cross in worship as a form of idolatry. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005154]</ref> They believe the [[resurrection]] of Jesus was spiritual, not bodily. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000783]</ref><br />
<br />
God is considered to be the "Universal Sovereign". His "right to rule" has come into question because of the actions of [[Satan]]. "[...] time was needed to settle the issue and to demonstrate convincingly that the rebels were utterly wrong." For this reason, God allows human governments to exist but they are ultimately doomed to failure. "Eventually, Jehovah would be vindicated" <ref>Satan’s Way of Ruling Sure to Fail, The Watchtower (2010)</ref><br />
<br />
===Divine Name===<br />
{{wikipedia|Jehovah}}<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God should be referred to as "Jehovah God" or simply "Jehovah." They do not normally refer to him as "God" the way most Christian denominations do. They consider the use of [[Tetragrammaton|God's true name]] an important sign that they are the one true religion. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011568?q=god%E2%80%99s+name+true+religion&p=par]</ref> Note that [[Yahweh]] is believed to be the name of God by secular scholars, not Jehovah. The confusion arises because the [[Tetragrammaton|name of God in the Hebrew Bible]] only recorded the four consonants, not the vowels. Jehovah's Witnesses admit this is true but continue to call God by the name "Jehovah." <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002391]</ref><br />
<br />
===Creation===<br />
<br />
Witnesses believe in [[old-Earth creationism]], in that the days in [[Genesis]] were not literally days. However, they do believe that [[Adam and Eve]] literally existed. <ref>The Watchtower (2009), [http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2009645 Adam and Eve—Were They Real People?]</ref> Adam is thought to have been born in 4026 BCE and died in 3096 BCE. <ref name="message">The Bible, What is its message?, 2012</ref> They reject [[evolution]]. It is noteworthy that [[Richard Dawkins]] devoted a chapter of his book, [[The God Delusion]], to commenting on [[Life — How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?]] which was the Watchtower Society's flagship publication on evolution for many years.<br />
<br />
===Prophecy and the end of the world===<br />
{{wikipedia|Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses}}<br />
The [[Apocalypse]] is thought to finally vindicate God's "right to rule" and "sanctify his name".<ref name="message"/> Jehovah's Witnesses have proclaimed numerous dates for the [[Apocalypse]], principally 1914, 1925, 1975, but also 1799, 1874, 1878 and 1918. They have passed without apparent incident. New doctrines were added as the predictions failed, usually by [[Holy books can be interpreted in any way you choose to believe|convenient reinterpretation of scriptures]]. The church continues to believe that the end will be "soon" or "imminent". <ref>[http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/end-soon.php]</ref> <br />
<br />
{{wikipedia|Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC)}}<br />
Many of the Witnesses' predictions and doctrines are based on the belief that Jerusalem fell in 607 BCE. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011810 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One], w11 10/1 pp. 26-31, The Watchtower (2011)</ref> However, historians generally consider this to have occurred in 587 BCE. <ref>[http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/607-587.php]</ref><br />
<br />
===Afterlife===<br />
<br />
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that only 144,000 "Anointed" people will go to [[Heaven]] and will "rule as kings with Jesus". <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2006125 Gathering Things in Heaven and Things on Earth], w06 2/15 pp. 21-25, The Watchtower (2006)</ref> This group is also known as the "little flock," the "slave class," and other terms. Jehovah's Witnesses once believed that since 1935, no one could go to [[heaven]] because there were already 144,000 people within their denomination; in other words, Heaven was full.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Hence, especially after 1966 it was believed that the heavenly call ceased in 1935. [...] On the other hand, as time has gone by, some Christians baptized after 1935 have had witness borne to them that they have the heavenly hope. ({{Bible|Romans 8:16-17}}) Thus, it appears that we cannot set a specific date for when the calling of Christians to the heavenly hope ends. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2007327 Questions From Readers], w07 5/1 pp. 30-31, The Watchtower (2007)</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Teachings were later revised so that more recent believers and those who died before Jesus, known collectively as "other sheep," will spend an eternity on a paradise [[Earth]] instead of in Heaven. Today, these "other sheep" are more commonly referred to as "the great crowd of other sheep" or simply "the great crowd." <ref>http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001762?q=the+great+crowd&p=par</ref> <br />
<br />
People in Hell are thought to be in an unconscious state, similar to death. <ref>[http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/what-is-hell/]</ref> Hence, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that human souls will be tortured as punishment for their sins. They also believe that anyone living at the time of Armageddon who is not a faithful Jehovah's Witness will be killed. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005881?q=armageddon+survive&p=par]</ref> They also believe that the majority of people who died before Armageddon will be resurrected and given a chance to learn God's true teachings and to live forever alongside those Jehovah's Witnesses who survived Armageddon. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005158?q=resurrection+armageddon&p=par]</ref> Anyone killed during Armageddon will not be resurrected.<br />
<br />
Witnesses reject the existence of an immortal [[soul]], considering it to be an idea borrowed from [[Plato]]. <ref>[https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/what-is-a-soul/]</ref><br />
<br />
===Imperfection===<br />
<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Adam and Eve were perfect beings prior to eating from the [[Tree of knowledge]] and that it was the act of eating the forbidden fruit that caused their downfall, leaving them - and all their descendants - in a state of imperfection.<br />
<br />
{{quote|How would mankind be freed from their struggle with inherited imperfection? Jehovah provided for a Kingdom government made up of “the last Adam” [who is Jesus] and chosen associates from among mankind. (Read Revelation 5:9, 10.) Those associated with Jesus in heaven will have experienced what it means to be imperfect. For a full thousand years, their joint rulership will provide assistance to those on earth, helping them to overcome the imperfection that they could not conquer on their own.—Rev. 20:6. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2014686#h=23:0-23:494]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
They also believe that Jesus was a perfect man while on Earth. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005135?q=jesus+perfect&p=par]</ref><br />
<br />
The concept of perfection has never been fully explained by the church, but it is believed that the human race will reach a state of perfection 1,000 years after Armageddon under the guidance of Jesus' and the anointed. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003440?q=perfect+new+system+jesus&p=par]</ref><br />
<br />
===New light===<br />
<br />
The church leadership sometimes feel the need to change the church's official position on doctrine. This is referred to within the church as "new light". <br />
<br />
Note that Jehovah's Witnesses refer to their beliefs as "the truth." Some even refer to outdated teachings as "old truth." If the church was guided by Jehovah, it seems strange that changes in doctrine are necessary.<br />
<br />
{{quote|At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. (4) Now is the time for any who may be putting their trust in secular education, material things, or human institutions to adjust their thinking.<ref>[Watchtower 2013 Nov 15 p.20 https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pl/r1/lp-e?q=w13%2011%2F15%2020]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===Happiest people===<br />
<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses believe they are the happiest people of all, which they claim as evidence for the truth of their beliefs.<ref>[http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/jehovahs-witnesses-happiest-people.php]</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|Of course, the fact that Jehovahs servants "weep" over the sorry state of world affairs does not preclude their being happy. On the contrary! They are actually the happiest group of people on earth.<ref>Watchtower 1999 10/1 p. 8 par. 13</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===Social issues===<br />
<br />
The church officially condemns the practice of [[homosexuality]]<ref>[http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/homosexuality.php]</ref>, as well as [[fornication|sex before marriage]].<br />
<br />
{{quote|Some customs involve practices so gross that they are detestable to Jehovah, and, hence, to his people. Among such practices are sodomy, bestiality, homosexuality, incest and other forms of sexual immorality.<ref>Watchtower 1979 Mar 15 pp.10-11</ref>}}<br />
<br />
People in the church who refuse the repress their homosexuality are disciplined and [[Religious shunning|shunned]].<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-FZWBuwTew Leaving Jehovah's Witnesses (Gay EXJW)]</ref><br />
<br />
==Practices==<br />
<br />
Witnesses are discouraged from voting in elections and generally remain neutral on politics. This involves not voting, not campaigning in politics, not holding political office, not saluting a country's flag, not serving on a jury or discussing politics. <ref>[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/06/why_dont_jehovahs_witnesses_vote.html]</ref> Also, Witnesses refuse to serve in the military. <ref>[https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/why-dont-you-go-to-war/]</ref> Smoking and gambling are not tolerated and can lead to dis-fellowship. <ref>[http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/disfellowship-shunning.php]</ref><br />
<br />
===Meetings===<br />
<br />
Members are expected to attend five meetings a week but the exact arrangements vary between different groups. Their place of worship is called a "Kingdom Hall". The organization of the church is hierarchical with the Governing Body being in overall control and branch offices overseeing a country. A circuit is a group of twenty congregations, (male only) elders oversee a congregation with ministerial servants in an assisting role. Normally, only men can take on leadership or teaching roles at a meeting. Women may only take on these roles if there are no men who are qualified to do so. Even then, they must wear a head covering if teaching or leading in the presence of a man. Note that the head covering can be anything. In some areas, female Jehovah's Witnesses will simply hold a book on top of their heads if they don't have a hat.<br />
<br />
===Field Service===<br />
<br />
One of the most visible aspects of Jehovah's Witnesses is their door to door preaching. This is referred to as "field service". Field service also includes telephone contact, letter writing and street witnessing. <ref>[http://www.english.hawaii.edu/henry/464/pubs/Evie.pdf]</ref> It is a central activity of the denomination <ref>[http://thewatchtowerfiles.com/recruitment/]</ref> and is required of believers unless circumstances prevent it. There has been a recent move toward street witnessing in parts of the US and UK, which is a boon to believers that dislike door to door preaching. <ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28166192]</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|For the Jehovah's Witnesses (JWS), the door-to-door ministry appears to be more of a demonstration of faith and solidarity, than a real effort to convert. I grew up in the Jehovah's Witness religion (or cult, as I prefer to think of it), and the dedication to the preaching work promotes a shared feeling of persecution and self-righteousness. <ref>[http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/67708941]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===No blood transfusions and animal slaughter===<br />
<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood is a sacred representation of life and that God forbids its use for purposes other than atonement for [[sin]] (sacrifice). Believers are forbidden from eating meat from which the [[Ritual slaughter|blood has not been drained, food products containing blood]], and from receiving blood transfusions, regardless of its medical necessity and of the consequences to their life or health. This is based on {{Bible|Genesis 9:4}}, {{Bible|Leviticus 17:14}}, {{Bible|Acts 15:20}}, etc.<br />
<br />
Specifically, they are directly forbidden from willingly accepting a transfusion of stored whole blood, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma, on penalty of disfellowshipment and the threat of God's disfavor. Preoperative extraction followed by postoperative re-transfusion of their own blood is also disallowed, though certain intraoperative re-transfusion procedures (such as salvage) are allowed. Organ and bone marrow transplants are discouraged as well, though the final decision is left to the individual. Those choosing to follow discouraged actions are often informally ostracized. They are directed to follow their own personal conscience in deciding to use other components of blood, or other products derived from or produced in blood (such as antivenins).<br />
<br />
{{quote|Blood had a symbolic meaning. It stood for life provided by the Creator. By treating blood as special, the people showed dependence on him for life. Yes, the chief reason why they were not to take in blood was, not that it was unhealthy, but that it had special meaning to God.<ref>[https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/blood/blood-vital-for-life/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
One of the controversial aspects of their refusal to accept blood transfusions is in that, against the advice of their doctors and surgeons, they often hold their critically ill minor children to the same rule, who are themselves not mature enough to decide to follow the belief willfully. This is an instance of [[religiously motivated medical neglect]].<br />
<br />
Witnesses do not refrain from eating normal meat. They reason that having the animal bled during slaughter is acceptable. The red fluid found in some red meats is juice containing myoglobin, which is technically not blood.<br />
<br />
{{quote|The fact that meat appears to be very red or even has red fluid on the surface does not mean that it has not been bled. Extravascular fluid, fluid filling the spaces between the cells, is known as interstitial fluid and resembles blood plasma. But it is not blood and therefore does not come under the prohibition respecting blood. [...] Of course, bleeding does not remove every trace of blood from the animal. But God’s law does not require that every single drop of blood be removed. It simply states that the animal should be bled, not that the meat be soaked in some special preparation to draw out every trace of it.<ref>[https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100108122845AAlUrsl], see also Watchtower 1961 page 29; 1972 p 13</ref>}}<br />
<br />
=== Membership ===<br />
<br />
It is difficult to assess actual membership among Jehovah's Witnesses, as their organizing body reports neither officiated members nor church attendance. Instead, they report:<br />
<br />
* The peak number of members who submit a report on their evangelism efforts, tabulated monthly.<br />
* Combined attendance at their annual memorial ceremony.<br />
* Combined peak attendance at their annual three-day convention.<br />
<br />
The latter two do not reflect membership, as attendance of both includes casual visitors, one-time visitors, and unbaptized children of Jehovah's Witnesses who attend with their parents. Ministry campaigns are carried out for a few weeks before the event in an attempt to invite as many new people as possible.<br />
<br />
The first is not an exact representation of actual membership, as it excludes those who attend services, consider themselves members, but who do not participate in evangelism efforts. It excludes even officiated members who do not evangelize. But given that better information is not reported, it may be considered the best representation available.<br />
<br />
In reporting religious affiliation, government censuses, pew surveys, and statistical abstracts usually rely on self-identification. As such, they include children and others not recognized as members by the church, and thus find the number of Witnesses to be 30-60% higher than reported by the religion itself. But as they are collected the same way regardless of religion, these reports may be considered accurate for comparing one religion to another.<br />
<br />
==== Disfellowshipping ====<br />
<br />
The practice of "disfellowshipping", more commonly known as [[excommunication]] or [[shunning]], is used by Jehovah's Witnesses to punish those who break the rules of the religion and fail to convince congregation elders that they have repented. Church members are prohibited with associating with disfellowshipped people, and in many situations even members of their immediate family. An exception can be made where regularly speaking with the disfellowshipped person cannot be avoided, such as between married couples, for the care of children, and for business contracts and partnerships. Continuing to associate with a disfellowshipped person is itself a basis for disfellowshipping, though this is rarely the actual penalty. In the case of a family member, one would more likely be excluded from leadership positions and certain church activities. <br />
<br />
{{quote|If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped. <ref>[http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
In Norway, Jehovah's Witnesses lost their recognised status as a religion over their practice of shunning.<ref>[https://cne.news/article/2289-jehovah-s-witnesses-norway-lose-registration-religious-community Jehovah's Witnesses Norway lose registration religious community]</ref><br />
<br />
==== Disassociation ====<br />
<br />
Those who renounce their membership with the church are "disassociated." This is basically equivalent to disfellowshipping, except that it is not due to breaking any rules, and is initiated by the member himself.<br />
<br />
Disassociation occurs when a person specifically renounces his membership, either by formally informing the congregation elders of his/her decision or by participating in the services/rituals of another Christian denomination or non-Christian religion. The Society has also stated that a person can sometimes disassociate from the congregation simply through their own actions. <ref>Watchtower 1982 Jan 15 p. 31</ref> For example, those who accept blood transfusions are said to have disassociated. Also, those who leave to join another religion are said to have disassociated. <ref>Watchtower 1986, Oct 15, p. 31</ref><br />
<br />
=== Holidays ===<br />
<br />
Most holidays are of either religious or political origin, which Witnesses consider idolatrous worship of either a false god or the state, respectively. Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses do not observe any secular or religious holidays or celebrations, save wedding anniversaries.<br />
<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses also have one religious celebration they do observe: the memorial of Christ's death.<br />
<br />
====The Memorial====<br />
<br />
The memorial of Christ's death, known as "The Memorial", is the only celebration officially endorsed by the church and observed by followers. This celebration is their version of the Last Supper.<br />
<br />
Their practice of it involves a scripted sermon about the significance of Christ's sacrificing himself, and the importance of carrying on the tradition. This sermon is almost identical every year. It concludes with wine and unleavened bread being passed around the audience. Most members (99.9%) simply pass the bread and wine on to the person sitting beside them, but a few who feel they are anointed by God to act as rulers eat and drink them.<br />
<br />
====Birthdays====<br />
<br />
Birthdays are viewed as a form of idolatry, and the common American custom (getting really drunk at your friends' expense, which is great) contrary to scriptural principles. The celebration of birthdays is therefore expressly disallowed.<br />
<br />
However, what a ''celebration'' consists of is not explicitly defined by the Jehovah's Witness organization. Some members do celebrate birthdays surreptitiously.<br />
<br />
====Christmas====<br />
<br />
[[Christmas]] is considered by Witnesses to be a celebration of mostly pagan origin (which is largely true), observed on a date and in a way that coincides with (and they believe is rooted in) several pagan rituals. They do not celebrate Christmas and generally consider it one of the more abhorrent holidays.<br />
<br />
====Wedding Anniversaries====<br />
<br />
It is perfectly acceptable for Witnesses to celebrate wedding anniversaries. The idolatrous aspects of admiring and giving gifts to someone on the yearly anniversary of their birth do not apply to admiring and giving gifts to a married couple on the yearly anniversary of their wedding.<br />
<br />
===Not associating with people outside the religion===<br />
<br />
Becoming close friends, dating or even associating with people outside the religion is discouraged, because outsiders are considered to be "worldly". <ref>[http://thejehovahswitnesses.org/friends.php]</ref> Many Witnesses have at least acquaintances that are outside the religion but they don't make it widely known. Marriage is expected to be within the religion.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Our choice of associates. Of course, some contact with unbelievers — such as at school, at work, and when sharing in the ministry — is unavoidable. It is quite another matter, though, to socialize with them, even cultivating close friendships with them. Do we justify such association by saying that they have many good qualities? “Do not be misled,” warns the Bible. “Bad associations spoil useful habits.” ({{Bible|1 Cor. 15:33}}) Just as a small amount of pollution can contaminate clean water, friendship with those who do not practice godly devotion can contaminate our spirituality and lead us into adopting worldly viewpoints, dress, speech, and conduct.<ref>Watchtower 2013 Feb study ed. p.24</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|We must also be on guard against extended association with worldly people.<ref>Watchtower 1994 Feb 15 p.24</ref>}}<br />
<br />
They are also discouraged or forbidden from joining [[the Scout Association]], practicing [[yoga]] or being involved in any way with other denominations.<br />
<br />
===Criticism not tolerated===<br />
<br />
Witnesses are forbidden from criticizing their religion. They are told to be "like-minded" and to practice "speaking in agreement" or face being disfellowshipped<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/oct/08/religion.world]</ref>. They must avoid independent thought or personal interpretation of scripture. The organization emphasizes harmony and the need to avoid "stumbling" other believers, by causing them to doubt.<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|[A Witness] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and "the faithful and discreet slave." [the church's Governing Body]|Matthew 24:45. Watchtower 2001 Aug 1 p.14}}<br />
<br />
===Subjugation of women===<br />
<br />
[[Women]] are either subjugated to either their father, if unmarried, or their husband. Elders are always male.<br />
<br />
== Controversies ==<br />
<br />
===Cult Practices===<br />
A [[cult]] is popularly defined as an individual or organization which employs intensive methods to control behavior, thinking, and emotions of its followers. Jehovah's Witness religion requires members to isolate themselves from social interactions outside the religion. Those who do not do not follow their rules are [[shunning|disfellowshiped/shunned]]. This causes an almost total collapse of that person's social support structure. Witnesses' lives are tightly controlled by their church. They are also discouraged from researching their religion or developing critical thinking skills. <ref>[http://www.jehovahswitnessblog.com/cult/jehovahs-witness-cult/]</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|I was warned away from cultivating any close friendships with non-Jehovah’s Witnesses for this reason. As a result, most young Witnesses grow up sequestered in their homes and their congregations, fearful of anything outside those boundaries. [...] The faith discourages more than the bare minimum education, advising that higher education is a waste of time that could be better dedicated to “ministry” [...], and that it fosters a materialistic and selfishly ambitious attitude. [...] they emphasise the dangers and repercussions of searching for answers to faith-related questions in any place except their own literature [...] I eventually left the faith at 18. Many former “friends”, including my best friend of 10 years, shunned me.<ref> Anonymous, [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/09/moment-changed-me-quitting-jehovahs-witnesses A moment that changed me: quitting the Jehovah’s Witnesses], The Guardian, 9 June 2016</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The denomination generally [[Religious opposition to education|opposes university education]], considering it to be a distraction from spiritual matters, being of questionable worth and exposes the followers to outside influences. <ref>[http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/higher-education-university.php]</ref> The most likely reason for this policy is that independent thought and questioning ideas, taught routinely in a university education, makes followers less compliant with the denomination's demands. However, the link between [[education and religiosity]] is controversial.<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Such `wisdom' adds nothing to the stature of an individual as a minister of Jehovah ...|The Watchtower, May 15, 1956 p. 315. Article entitled "Careful Living Helps Avoid Life's Pitfalls," subheading "Advanced Education".}}<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|In addition to the bad environment, there is the pressure of schoolwork and examinations. Naturally, students need to study and do their homework to pass the exams. Some may also need to hold at least a part-time job while going to school. All of this takes a great deal of their time and energy. What, then, will be left for spiritual activities?|Watchtower, 2005, Oct 1}}<br />
<br />
[[Religious leaders must not be questioned|Questioning of the church's leadership]] is forbidden:<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|The point is that Christians have implicit trust in their heavenly Father; they do not question what he tells them through his written Word and organization.|Watchtower 1974 Jul 15 p.441}}<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|If we get to thinking that we know better than the organization, we should ask ourselves: “Where did we learn Bible truth in the first place? Would we know the way of the truth if it had not been for guidance from the organization? Really, can we get along without the direction of God’s organization?” No, we cannot!|Watchtower 1983 January 15 page 27 – “Fight Against Independent Thinking”.}}<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses.|Watchtower 1986 April 1 page 30-31 – “Questions From Readers”.}}<br />
<br />
They are also forbidden from reading literature that is critical of the group:<br />
<br />
{{quote|As Witnesses, we were told to avoid literature that was critical of us. We were made to feel it was almost on the level of being satanic. When I first got hold of one of these books, not long after I left the religion, I was literally shaking with fear<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jul/15/apostasy-director-daniel-kokotajlo-liberating-to-leave-jehovahs-witnesses-interview]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
There is also a prevalent [[persecution complex]] which is common to many [[cult]]s but also, to a lesser extent, of [[Christian victimhood|Christianity generally]]. The Watchtower often contains examples of the persecution of Witnesses from around the world, citing abuses in [[Russia]]<ref>[https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/russia/bans-jehovahs-witnesses-samara-video/]</ref>, [[Eritrea]]<ref>[https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/eritrea/jehovahs-witnesses-unjust-imprisonment-20-years/]</ref>, [[South Korea]]<ref>[https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/south-korea/conscientious-objectors-human-rights-video/]</ref> and others, often because of their refusal of military service and political neutrality.<br />
<br />
{{quote|All imperfect humans experience problems in life. However, Christians face additional tribulations. ({{Bible|1 Corinthians 10:13}}) One type of tribulation they face is severe persecution because they are determined to remain loyal to God.<ref>[https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/ws201409/serve-god-despite-tribulations/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===Biblical interpretation and religious truth===<br />
{{wikipedia|Raymond Franz}}<br />
<br />
Most Witnesses rely on the governing body to interpret the Bible. However, former body member Raymond Franz said the body relies too much on tradition doctrine and not enough on the Bible. He was expelled from the body in 1980 for his divergent views. Writing about his years in the governing body, he said:<br />
<br />
{{quote|I have since come to appreciate the rightness of a quotation I recently read, one made by a statesman, now dead, who said: "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive and unrealistic." I now began to realize how large a measure of what I had based my entire adult life course on was just that, a myth—persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.}}<br />
<br />
Witnesses don't seem to consider the possibility of religious truth that might exist independently of the Bible.<br />
<br />
===Racial prejudice===<br />
During the early 20th century, Jehovah’s Witnesses saw black people as inferior. Black people it was believed had the curse of [[Ham]] in their hearts and were fit to be servants. Black people could get spiritual benefits by staying meek and accepting their inferior status. Black people were not encouraged to feel good about being black, rather they should hope to become white. As a special blessing black Jehovah’s Witnesses might become white through God’s intervention. Black people were uneducated and therefore would not benefit from the tracts and reading material supplied to white congregations.<br />
<br />
Prejudice is much less evident in the 21st century, though few black people have reached the highest administrative levels of the church. <ref>[http://www.freeminds.org/history/blacks.htm]</ref><br />
<br />
===Child abuse===<br />
<br />
Like many other denominations, the Jehovah's Witnesses covered up evidence of widespread [[child abuse]]. <ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/27/jehovahs-witnesses-destroyed-notes-about-child-sex-abuse-inquiry-told]</ref> This is largely because of their reliance on requiring two witnesses and weak internal sanctions. <ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/28/jehovahs-witnesses-did-not-protect-children-from-abuse-inquiry-finds Jehovah's Witnesses did not protect children from abuse, inquiry finds]</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://jwvictims.org/ JW Victims], Documents the harm to individual believers<br />
*[http://www.jwfacts.com JWfacts] Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/beliefs/beliefs.shtml The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and how they differ from mainstream Christianity.]<br />
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/ Jehovah's Witnesses at a glance]<br />
*[http://www.jw.org/en/ Jehovah's Witnesses official website]<br />
* [https://www.jehovahswitnessrecovery.com/ Jehovah's Witness Recovery], support forum for those leaving or who have left.<br />
<br />
{{Religion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Religions]]<br />
[[Category:New religious movements]]<br />
[[Category:Christian denominations]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=44094Jehovah's Witnesses2024-02-16T15:56:14Z<p>TimSC: /* Disfellowshipping */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{wikipedia}}<br />
[[Image:JW Literature.jpg|thumb|Apologetics magazines are often distributed by Witnesses]]<br />
[[Image:KingdomHall.jpg|thumb|Jehovah's Witnesses refer to their place of worship as a Kingdom Hall]]<br />
[[Image:Charles Taze Russell.jpg|thumb|upright|The Jehovah's Witnesses grew out of the [[Bible Student movement]], which was founded by [[Charles Taze Russell]].]]<br />
{{harm|http://whatstheharm.net/jehovahswitnesses.html|What's the harm in Jehovah's Witnesses?}}<br />
{{wikipedia|Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses}}<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses are a fundamentalist Christian denomination best known for door-to-door evangelism, distribution of religious literature such as [[The Watchtower]] and [[Awake!]] magazines, and their refusal to accept blood transfusions.<br />
<br />
The religion's organization report over 7,000,000 members worldwide, and over 18,000,000 attendees at their annual Memorial ceremony. <ref>[http://www.watchtower.org/e/statistics/worldwide_report.htm]</ref> Third-party reports estimate the number to be 30-60% higher than reported by the religion.<br />
{{wikipedia|History of Jehovah's Witnesses}}<br />
==Beliefs==<br />
<br />
They consider [[My religion is the one true religion|all other Christian denominations to be false]] and part of a [[great apostasy]]. Jehovah's Witnesses refer to other religions collectively as "Babylon the Great," which is another term used by Jehovah's Witnesses for false religions. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102001028]</ref><br />
<br />
Witnesses consider unity of belief as important, as this is thought to be in agreement with scripture and so as to present a unified front to the world, so there is no new Bible interpretation attempts by normal Witnesses.<br />
<br />
=== Sacred text ===<br />
<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses use their own translation of the [[Bible]], the ''New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures'', first published in 1961. This was followed by a revised 2013 version which includes an introductory 20 question and answer section, outline of contents before each book and two appendixes (A and B) with biblical information, teachings doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Bible is primarily addressed to the 144,000 "anointed" Christians that will reach Heaven. <ref>[http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/bible-for-anointed.php]</ref><br />
<br />
Interpretation of the Bible is done by the church's governing body, which has currently seven members. Rank and file members are forbidden from trying to interpret the text independently. Only one interpretation is acceptable to the church. Disagreement with the governing body is considered to be disagreement with the Bible, since their views are supposedly Biblically supported. They consider the governing body's interpretation to be generally correct but may err in less important matters such as particular details of prophecy.<br />
<br />
===God and Jesus===<br />
<br />
[[Jesus]] is the Archangel Michael and not God. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2010250#h=3]</ref> He is God's son in the sense that he was "the firstborn of all creation" and the only thing directly created by God. All other things were created by Jesus under God's direction. <ref>[https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-jesus-christ/#?insight[search_id]=10437d3f-e69a-4f3b-bebe-207392a11a01&insight[search_result_index]=3]</ref> <br />
<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses reject the concept of the [[Trinity]]. <ref>[http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20091101/myth-god-is-a-trinity/]</ref> They believe that Jesus died on a stake, not a cross,<ref>[http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/did-jesus-die-on-cross/]</ref> and see the use of the cross in worship as a form of idolatry. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005154]</ref> They believe the [[resurrection]] of Jesus was spiritual, not bodily. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000783]</ref><br />
<br />
God is considered to be the "Universal Sovereign". His "right to rule" has come into question because of the actions of [[Satan]]. "[...] time was needed to settle the issue and to demonstrate convincingly that the rebels were utterly wrong." For this reason, God allows human governments to exist but they are ultimately doomed to failure. "Eventually, Jehovah would be vindicated" <ref>Satan’s Way of Ruling Sure to Fail, The Watchtower (2010)</ref><br />
<br />
===Divine Name===<br />
{{wikipedia|Jehovah}}<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God should be referred to as "Jehovah God" or simply "Jehovah." They do not normally refer to him as "God" the way most Christian denominations do. They consider the use of [[Tetragrammaton|God's true name]] an important sign that they are the one true religion. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011568?q=god%E2%80%99s+name+true+religion&p=par]</ref> Note that [[Yahweh]] is believed to be the name of God by secular scholars, not Jehovah. The confusion arises because the [[Tetragrammaton|name of God in the Hebrew Bible]] only recorded the four consonants, not the vowels. Jehovah's Witnesses admit this is true but continue to call God by the name "Jehovah." <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002391]</ref><br />
<br />
===Creation===<br />
<br />
Witnesses believe in [[old-Earth creationism]], in that the days in [[Genesis]] were not literally days. However, they do believe that [[Adam and Eve]] literally existed. <ref>The Watchtower (2009), [http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2009645 Adam and Eve—Were They Real People?]</ref> Adam is thought to have been born in 4026 BCE and died in 3096 BCE. <ref name="message">The Bible, What is its message?, 2012</ref> They reject [[evolution]]. It is noteworthy that [[Richard Dawkins]] devoted a chapter of his book, [[The God Delusion]], to commenting on [[Life — How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?]] which was the Watchtower Society's flagship publication on evolution for many years.<br />
<br />
===Prophecy and the end of the world===<br />
{{wikipedia|Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses}}<br />
The [[Apocalypse]] is thought to finally vindicate God's "right to rule" and "sanctify his name".<ref name="message"/> Jehovah's Witnesses have proclaimed numerous dates for the [[Apocalypse]], principally 1914, 1925, 1975, but also 1799, 1874, 1878 and 1918. They have passed without apparent incident. New doctrines were added as the predictions failed, usually by [[Holy books can be interpreted in any way you choose to believe|convenient reinterpretation of scriptures]]. The church continues to believe that the end will be "soon" or "imminent". <ref>[http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/end-soon.php]</ref> <br />
<br />
{{wikipedia|Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC)}}<br />
Many of the Witnesses' predictions and doctrines are based on the belief that Jerusalem fell in 607 BCE. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011810 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One], w11 10/1 pp. 26-31, The Watchtower (2011)</ref> However, historians generally consider this to have occurred in 587 BCE. <ref>[http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/607-587.php]</ref><br />
<br />
===Afterlife===<br />
<br />
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that only 144,000 "Anointed" people will go to [[Heaven]] and will "rule as kings with Jesus". <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2006125 Gathering Things in Heaven and Things on Earth], w06 2/15 pp. 21-25, The Watchtower (2006)</ref> This group is also known as the "little flock," the "slave class," and other terms. Jehovah's Witnesses once believed that since 1935, no one could go to [[heaven]] because there were already 144,000 people within their denomination; in other words, Heaven was full.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Hence, especially after 1966 it was believed that the heavenly call ceased in 1935. [...] On the other hand, as time has gone by, some Christians baptized after 1935 have had witness borne to them that they have the heavenly hope. ({{Bible|Romans 8:16-17}}) Thus, it appears that we cannot set a specific date for when the calling of Christians to the heavenly hope ends. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2007327 Questions From Readers], w07 5/1 pp. 30-31, The Watchtower (2007)</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Teachings were later revised so that more recent believers and those who died before Jesus, known collectively as "other sheep," will spend an eternity on a paradise [[Earth]] instead of in Heaven. Today, these "other sheep" are more commonly referred to as "the great crowd of other sheep" or simply "the great crowd." <ref>http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001762?q=the+great+crowd&p=par</ref> <br />
<br />
People in Hell are thought to be in an unconscious state, similar to death. <ref>[http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/what-is-hell/]</ref> Hence, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that human souls will be tortured as punishment for their sins. They also believe that anyone living at the time of Armageddon who is not a faithful Jehovah's Witness will be killed. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005881?q=armageddon+survive&p=par]</ref> They also believe that the majority of people who died before Armageddon will be resurrected and given a chance to learn God's true teachings and to live forever alongside those Jehovah's Witnesses who survived Armageddon. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005158?q=resurrection+armageddon&p=par]</ref> Anyone killed during Armageddon will not be resurrected.<br />
<br />
Witnesses reject the existence of an immortal [[soul]], considering it to be an idea borrowed from [[Plato]]. <ref>[https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/what-is-a-soul/]</ref><br />
<br />
===Imperfection===<br />
<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Adam and Eve were perfect beings prior to eating from the [[Tree of knowledge]] and that it was the act of eating the forbidden fruit that caused their downfall, leaving them - and all their descendants - in a state of imperfection.<br />
<br />
{{quote|How would mankind be freed from their struggle with inherited imperfection? Jehovah provided for a Kingdom government made up of “the last Adam” [who is Jesus] and chosen associates from among mankind. (Read Revelation 5:9, 10.) Those associated with Jesus in heaven will have experienced what it means to be imperfect. For a full thousand years, their joint rulership will provide assistance to those on earth, helping them to overcome the imperfection that they could not conquer on their own.—Rev. 20:6. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2014686#h=23:0-23:494]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
They also believe that Jesus was a perfect man while on Earth. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005135?q=jesus+perfect&p=par]</ref><br />
<br />
The concept of perfection has never been fully explained by the church, but it is believed that the human race will reach a state of perfection 1,000 years after Armageddon under the guidance of Jesus' and the anointed. <ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003440?q=perfect+new+system+jesus&p=par]</ref><br />
<br />
===New light===<br />
<br />
The church leadership sometimes feel the need to change the church's official position on doctrine. This is referred to within the church as "new light". <br />
<br />
Note that Jehovah's Witnesses refer to their beliefs as "the truth." Some even refer to outdated teachings as "old truth." If the church was guided by Jehovah, it seems strange that changes in doctrine are necessary.<br />
<br />
===Happiest people===<br />
<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses believe they are the happiest people of all, which they claim as evidence for the truth of their beliefs.<ref>[http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/jehovahs-witnesses-happiest-people.php]</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|Of course, the fact that Jehovahs servants "weep" over the sorry state of world affairs does not preclude their being happy. On the contrary! They are actually the happiest group of people on earth.<ref>Watchtower 1999 10/1 p. 8 par. 13</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===Social issues===<br />
<br />
The church officially condemns the practice of [[homosexuality]]<ref>[http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/homosexuality.php]</ref>, as well as [[fornication|sex before marriage]].<br />
<br />
{{quote|Some customs involve practices so gross that they are detestable to Jehovah, and, hence, to his people. Among such practices are sodomy, bestiality, homosexuality, incest and other forms of sexual immorality.<ref>Watchtower 1979 Mar 15 pp.10-11</ref>}}<br />
<br />
People in the church who refuse the repress their homosexuality are disciplined and [[Religious shunning|shunned]].<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-FZWBuwTew Leaving Jehovah's Witnesses (Gay EXJW)]</ref><br />
<br />
==Practices==<br />
<br />
Witnesses are discouraged from voting in elections and generally remain neutral on politics. This involves not voting, not campaigning in politics, not holding political office, not saluting a country's flag, not serving on a jury or discussing politics. <ref>[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/06/why_dont_jehovahs_witnesses_vote.html]</ref> Also, Witnesses refuse to serve in the military. <ref>[https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/why-dont-you-go-to-war/]</ref> Smoking and gambling are not tolerated and can lead to dis-fellowship. <ref>[http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/disfellowship-shunning.php]</ref><br />
<br />
===Meetings===<br />
<br />
Members are expected to attend five meetings a week but the exact arrangements vary between different groups. Their place of worship is called a "Kingdom Hall". The organization of the church is hierarchical with the Governing Body being in overall control and branch offices overseeing a country. A circuit is a group of twenty congregations, (male only) elders oversee a congregation with ministerial servants in an assisting role. Normally, only men can take on leadership or teaching roles at a meeting. Women may only take on these roles if there are no men who are qualified to do so. Even then, they must wear a head covering if teaching or leading in the presence of a man. Note that the head covering can be anything. In some areas, female Jehovah's Witnesses will simply hold a book on top of their heads if they don't have a hat.<br />
<br />
===Field Service===<br />
<br />
One of the most visible aspects of Jehovah's Witnesses is their door to door preaching. This is referred to as "field service". Field service also includes telephone contact, letter writing and street witnessing. <ref>[http://www.english.hawaii.edu/henry/464/pubs/Evie.pdf]</ref> It is a central activity of the denomination <ref>[http://thewatchtowerfiles.com/recruitment/]</ref> and is required of believers unless circumstances prevent it. There has been a recent move toward street witnessing in parts of the US and UK, which is a boon to believers that dislike door to door preaching. <ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28166192]</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|For the Jehovah's Witnesses (JWS), the door-to-door ministry appears to be more of a demonstration of faith and solidarity, than a real effort to convert. I grew up in the Jehovah's Witness religion (or cult, as I prefer to think of it), and the dedication to the preaching work promotes a shared feeling of persecution and self-righteousness. <ref>[http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/67708941]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===No blood transfusions and animal slaughter===<br />
<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood is a sacred representation of life and that God forbids its use for purposes other than atonement for [[sin]] (sacrifice). Believers are forbidden from eating meat from which the [[Ritual slaughter|blood has not been drained, food products containing blood]], and from receiving blood transfusions, regardless of its medical necessity and of the consequences to their life or health. This is based on {{Bible|Genesis 9:4}}, {{Bible|Leviticus 17:14}}, {{Bible|Acts 15:20}}, etc.<br />
<br />
Specifically, they are directly forbidden from willingly accepting a transfusion of stored whole blood, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma, on penalty of disfellowshipment and the threat of God's disfavor. Preoperative extraction followed by postoperative re-transfusion of their own blood is also disallowed, though certain intraoperative re-transfusion procedures (such as salvage) are allowed. Organ and bone marrow transplants are discouraged as well, though the final decision is left to the individual. Those choosing to follow discouraged actions are often informally ostracized. They are directed to follow their own personal conscience in deciding to use other components of blood, or other products derived from or produced in blood (such as antivenins).<br />
<br />
{{quote|Blood had a symbolic meaning. It stood for life provided by the Creator. By treating blood as special, the people showed dependence on him for life. Yes, the chief reason why they were not to take in blood was, not that it was unhealthy, but that it had special meaning to God.<ref>[https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/blood/blood-vital-for-life/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
One of the controversial aspects of their refusal to accept blood transfusions is in that, against the advice of their doctors and surgeons, they often hold their critically ill minor children to the same rule, who are themselves not mature enough to decide to follow the belief willfully. This is an instance of [[religiously motivated medical neglect]].<br />
<br />
Witnesses do not refrain from eating normal meat. They reason that having the animal bled during slaughter is acceptable. The red fluid found in some red meats is juice containing myoglobin, which is technically not blood.<br />
<br />
{{quote|The fact that meat appears to be very red or even has red fluid on the surface does not mean that it has not been bled. Extravascular fluid, fluid filling the spaces between the cells, is known as interstitial fluid and resembles blood plasma. But it is not blood and therefore does not come under the prohibition respecting blood. [...] Of course, bleeding does not remove every trace of blood from the animal. But God’s law does not require that every single drop of blood be removed. It simply states that the animal should be bled, not that the meat be soaked in some special preparation to draw out every trace of it.<ref>[https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100108122845AAlUrsl], see also Watchtower 1961 page 29; 1972 p 13</ref>}}<br />
<br />
=== Membership ===<br />
<br />
It is difficult to assess actual membership among Jehovah's Witnesses, as their organizing body reports neither officiated members nor church attendance. Instead, they report:<br />
<br />
* The peak number of members who submit a report on their evangelism efforts, tabulated monthly.<br />
* Combined attendance at their annual memorial ceremony.<br />
* Combined peak attendance at their annual three-day convention.<br />
<br />
The latter two do not reflect membership, as attendance of both includes casual visitors, one-time visitors, and unbaptized children of Jehovah's Witnesses who attend with their parents. Ministry campaigns are carried out for a few weeks before the event in an attempt to invite as many new people as possible.<br />
<br />
The first is not an exact representation of actual membership, as it excludes those who attend services, consider themselves members, but who do not participate in evangelism efforts. It excludes even officiated members who do not evangelize. But given that better information is not reported, it may be considered the best representation available.<br />
<br />
In reporting religious affiliation, government censuses, pew surveys, and statistical abstracts usually rely on self-identification. As such, they include children and others not recognized as members by the church, and thus find the number of Witnesses to be 30-60% higher than reported by the religion itself. But as they are collected the same way regardless of religion, these reports may be considered accurate for comparing one religion to another.<br />
<br />
==== Disfellowshipping ====<br />
<br />
The practice of "disfellowshipping", more commonly known as [[excommunication]] or [[shunning]], is used by Jehovah's Witnesses to punish those who break the rules of the religion and fail to convince congregation elders that they have repented. Church members are prohibited with associating with disfellowshipped people, and in many situations even members of their immediate family. An exception can be made where regularly speaking with the disfellowshipped person cannot be avoided, such as between married couples, for the care of children, and for business contracts and partnerships. Continuing to associate with a disfellowshipped person is itself a basis for disfellowshipping, though this is rarely the actual penalty. In the case of a family member, one would more likely be excluded from leadership positions and certain church activities. <br />
<br />
{{quote|If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped. <ref>[http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
In Norway, Jehovah's Witnesses lost their recognised status as a religion over their practice of shunning.<ref>[https://cne.news/article/2289-jehovah-s-witnesses-norway-lose-registration-religious-community Jehovah's Witnesses Norway lose registration religious community]</ref><br />
<br />
==== Disassociation ====<br />
<br />
Those who renounce their membership with the church are "disassociated." This is basically equivalent to disfellowshipping, except that it is not due to breaking any rules, and is initiated by the member himself.<br />
<br />
Disassociation occurs when a person specifically renounces his membership, either by formally informing the congregation elders of his/her decision or by participating in the services/rituals of another Christian denomination or non-Christian religion. The Society has also stated that a person can sometimes disassociate from the congregation simply through their own actions. <ref>Watchtower 1982 Jan 15 p. 31</ref> For example, those who accept blood transfusions are said to have disassociated. Also, those who leave to join another religion are said to have disassociated. <ref>Watchtower 1986, Oct 15, p. 31</ref><br />
<br />
=== Holidays ===<br />
<br />
Most holidays are of either religious or political origin, which Witnesses consider idolatrous worship of either a false god or the state, respectively. Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses do not observe any secular or religious holidays or celebrations, save wedding anniversaries.<br />
<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses also have one religious celebration they do observe: the memorial of Christ's death.<br />
<br />
====The Memorial====<br />
<br />
The memorial of Christ's death, known as "The Memorial", is the only celebration officially endorsed by the church and observed by followers. This celebration is their version of the Last Supper.<br />
<br />
Their practice of it involves a scripted sermon about the significance of Christ's sacrificing himself, and the importance of carrying on the tradition. This sermon is almost identical every year. It concludes with wine and unleavened bread being passed around the audience. Most members (99.9%) simply pass the bread and wine on to the person sitting beside them, but a few who feel they are anointed by God to act as rulers eat and drink them.<br />
<br />
====Birthdays====<br />
<br />
Birthdays are viewed as a form of idolatry, and the common American custom (getting really drunk at your friends' expense, which is great) contrary to scriptural principles. The celebration of birthdays is therefore expressly disallowed.<br />
<br />
However, what a ''celebration'' consists of is not explicitly defined by the Jehovah's Witness organization. Some members do celebrate birthdays surreptitiously.<br />
<br />
====Christmas====<br />
<br />
[[Christmas]] is considered by Witnesses to be a celebration of mostly pagan origin (which is largely true), observed on a date and in a way that coincides with (and they believe is rooted in) several pagan rituals. They do not celebrate Christmas and generally consider it one of the more abhorrent holidays.<br />
<br />
====Wedding Anniversaries====<br />
<br />
It is perfectly acceptable for Witnesses to celebrate wedding anniversaries. The idolatrous aspects of admiring and giving gifts to someone on the yearly anniversary of their birth do not apply to admiring and giving gifts to a married couple on the yearly anniversary of their wedding.<br />
<br />
===Not associating with people outside the religion===<br />
<br />
Becoming close friends, dating or even associating with people outside the religion is discouraged, because outsiders are considered to be "worldly". <ref>[http://thejehovahswitnesses.org/friends.php]</ref> Many Witnesses have at least acquaintances that are outside the religion but they don't make it widely known. Marriage is expected to be within the religion.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Our choice of associates. Of course, some contact with unbelievers — such as at school, at work, and when sharing in the ministry — is unavoidable. It is quite another matter, though, to socialize with them, even cultivating close friendships with them. Do we justify such association by saying that they have many good qualities? “Do not be misled,” warns the Bible. “Bad associations spoil useful habits.” ({{Bible|1 Cor. 15:33}}) Just as a small amount of pollution can contaminate clean water, friendship with those who do not practice godly devotion can contaminate our spirituality and lead us into adopting worldly viewpoints, dress, speech, and conduct.<ref>Watchtower 2013 Feb study ed. p.24</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|We must also be on guard against extended association with worldly people.<ref>Watchtower 1994 Feb 15 p.24</ref>}}<br />
<br />
They are also discouraged or forbidden from joining [[the Scout Association]], practicing [[yoga]] or being involved in any way with other denominations.<br />
<br />
===Criticism not tolerated===<br />
<br />
Witnesses are forbidden from criticizing their religion. They are told to be "like-minded" and to practice "speaking in agreement" or face being disfellowshipped<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/oct/08/religion.world]</ref>. They must avoid independent thought or personal interpretation of scripture. The organization emphasizes harmony and the need to avoid "stumbling" other believers, by causing them to doubt.<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|[A Witness] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and "the faithful and discreet slave." [the church's Governing Body]|Matthew 24:45. Watchtower 2001 Aug 1 p.14}}<br />
<br />
===Subjugation of women===<br />
<br />
[[Women]] are either subjugated to either their father, if unmarried, or their husband. Elders are always male.<br />
<br />
== Controversies ==<br />
<br />
===Cult Practices===<br />
A [[cult]] is popularly defined as an individual or organization which employs intensive methods to control behavior, thinking, and emotions of its followers. Jehovah's Witness religion requires members to isolate themselves from social interactions outside the religion. Those who do not do not follow their rules are [[shunning|disfellowshiped/shunned]]. This causes an almost total collapse of that person's social support structure. Witnesses' lives are tightly controlled by their church. They are also discouraged from researching their religion or developing critical thinking skills. <ref>[http://www.jehovahswitnessblog.com/cult/jehovahs-witness-cult/]</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|I was warned away from cultivating any close friendships with non-Jehovah’s Witnesses for this reason. As a result, most young Witnesses grow up sequestered in their homes and their congregations, fearful of anything outside those boundaries. [...] The faith discourages more than the bare minimum education, advising that higher education is a waste of time that could be better dedicated to “ministry” [...], and that it fosters a materialistic and selfishly ambitious attitude. [...] they emphasise the dangers and repercussions of searching for answers to faith-related questions in any place except their own literature [...] I eventually left the faith at 18. Many former “friends”, including my best friend of 10 years, shunned me.<ref> Anonymous, [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/09/moment-changed-me-quitting-jehovahs-witnesses A moment that changed me: quitting the Jehovah’s Witnesses], The Guardian, 9 June 2016</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The denomination generally [[Religious opposition to education|opposes university education]], considering it to be a distraction from spiritual matters, being of questionable worth and exposes the followers to outside influences. <ref>[http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/higher-education-university.php]</ref> The most likely reason for this policy is that independent thought and questioning ideas, taught routinely in a university education, makes followers less compliant with the denomination's demands. However, the link between [[education and religiosity]] is controversial.<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Such `wisdom' adds nothing to the stature of an individual as a minister of Jehovah ...|The Watchtower, May 15, 1956 p. 315. Article entitled "Careful Living Helps Avoid Life's Pitfalls," subheading "Advanced Education".}}<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|In addition to the bad environment, there is the pressure of schoolwork and examinations. Naturally, students need to study and do their homework to pass the exams. Some may also need to hold at least a part-time job while going to school. All of this takes a great deal of their time and energy. What, then, will be left for spiritual activities?|Watchtower, 2005, Oct 1}}<br />
<br />
[[Religious leaders must not be questioned|Questioning of the church's leadership]] is forbidden:<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|The point is that Christians have implicit trust in their heavenly Father; they do not question what he tells them through his written Word and organization.|Watchtower 1974 Jul 15 p.441}}<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|If we get to thinking that we know better than the organization, we should ask ourselves: “Where did we learn Bible truth in the first place? Would we know the way of the truth if it had not been for guidance from the organization? Really, can we get along without the direction of God’s organization?” No, we cannot!|Watchtower 1983 January 15 page 27 – “Fight Against Independent Thinking”.}}<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses.|Watchtower 1986 April 1 page 30-31 – “Questions From Readers”.}}<br />
<br />
They are also forbidden from reading literature that is critical of the group:<br />
<br />
{{quote|As Witnesses, we were told to avoid literature that was critical of us. We were made to feel it was almost on the level of being satanic. When I first got hold of one of these books, not long after I left the religion, I was literally shaking with fear<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jul/15/apostasy-director-daniel-kokotajlo-liberating-to-leave-jehovahs-witnesses-interview]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
There is also a prevalent [[persecution complex]] which is common to many [[cult]]s but also, to a lesser extent, of [[Christian victimhood|Christianity generally]]. The Watchtower often contains examples of the persecution of Witnesses from around the world, citing abuses in [[Russia]]<ref>[https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/russia/bans-jehovahs-witnesses-samara-video/]</ref>, [[Eritrea]]<ref>[https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/eritrea/jehovahs-witnesses-unjust-imprisonment-20-years/]</ref>, [[South Korea]]<ref>[https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/south-korea/conscientious-objectors-human-rights-video/]</ref> and others, often because of their refusal of military service and political neutrality.<br />
<br />
{{quote|All imperfect humans experience problems in life. However, Christians face additional tribulations. ({{Bible|1 Corinthians 10:13}}) One type of tribulation they face is severe persecution because they are determined to remain loyal to God.<ref>[https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/ws201409/serve-god-despite-tribulations/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===Biblical interpretation and religious truth===<br />
{{wikipedia|Raymond Franz}}<br />
<br />
Most Witnesses rely on the governing body to interpret the Bible. However, former body member Raymond Franz said the body relies too much on tradition doctrine and not enough on the Bible. He was expelled from the body in 1980 for his divergent views. Writing about his years in the governing body, he said:<br />
<br />
{{quote|I have since come to appreciate the rightness of a quotation I recently read, one made by a statesman, now dead, who said: "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive and unrealistic." I now began to realize how large a measure of what I had based my entire adult life course on was just that, a myth—persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.}}<br />
<br />
Witnesses don't seem to consider the possibility of religious truth that might exist independently of the Bible.<br />
<br />
===Racial prejudice===<br />
During the early 20th century, Jehovah’s Witnesses saw black people as inferior. Black people it was believed had the curse of [[Ham]] in their hearts and were fit to be servants. Black people could get spiritual benefits by staying meek and accepting their inferior status. Black people were not encouraged to feel good about being black, rather they should hope to become white. As a special blessing black Jehovah’s Witnesses might become white through God’s intervention. Black people were uneducated and therefore would not benefit from the tracts and reading material supplied to white congregations.<br />
<br />
Prejudice is much less evident in the 21st century, though few black people have reached the highest administrative levels of the church. <ref>[http://www.freeminds.org/history/blacks.htm]</ref><br />
<br />
===Child abuse===<br />
<br />
Like many other denominations, the Jehovah's Witnesses covered up evidence of widespread [[child abuse]]. <ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/27/jehovahs-witnesses-destroyed-notes-about-child-sex-abuse-inquiry-told]</ref> This is largely because of their reliance on requiring two witnesses and weak internal sanctions. <ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/28/jehovahs-witnesses-did-not-protect-children-from-abuse-inquiry-finds Jehovah's Witnesses did not protect children from abuse, inquiry finds]</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://jwvictims.org/ JW Victims], Documents the harm to individual believers<br />
*[http://www.jwfacts.com JWfacts] Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/beliefs/beliefs.shtml The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and how they differ from mainstream Christianity.]<br />
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/ Jehovah's Witnesses at a glance]<br />
*[http://www.jw.org/en/ Jehovah's Witnesses official website]<br />
* [https://www.jehovahswitnessrecovery.com/ Jehovah's Witness Recovery], support forum for those leaving or who have left.<br />
<br />
{{Religion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Religions]]<br />
[[Category:New religious movements]]<br />
[[Category:Christian denominations]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Would_someone_die_for_what_they_knew_was_a_lie%3F&diff=44091Would someone die for what they knew was a lie?2024-01-25T19:15:43Z<p>TimSC: Move to external links</p>
<hr />
<div>An often used modern [[argument]] for the [[truth]] of the [[resurrection]] of [[Jesus]] is that of [[martyr]]dom. The claim is that all of the [[apostle]]s would have had first-hand [[knowledge]] as to whether or not Jesus actually returned from the dead and confirmed that he was the [[Jesus|Son of God]]. As they died rather than admit the account was false, this suggests that rather than just [[believe]] that it was true like other martyrs in other faiths, they knew it was true for a fact.<br />
<br />
{{quote|People do not willingly allow themselves to die for something they know is a lie so the Apostles really believed they saw, talked with, touched, walked with and even ate with Jesus in various group settings after He died on the cross which convinced them He was God so they became bold proclaimers when before they were doubters.<ref>[http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476-4-Step-Proof-for-God-amp-Minimal-Facts-Approach]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|They didn't just die for a lie either, they left lives of general stability, families, and the things they enjoyed to go to parts of the world the had never dreamed of. All but one were killed in terrible circumstance.}}<br />
<br />
==Argument structure==<br />
<br />
* The disciples of Jesus either were either telling the truth or lying about Jesus.<br />
* Many of them were martyred for speaking about their belief.<br />
* People don't die for a lie that they know is a lie when they have the ability to live by denouncing the lie.<br />
* Therefore, the disciples were telling the truth about Jesus.<br />
* Therefore, Jesus was resurrected.<br />
<br />
The argument also can be applied to other believers and belief systems.<br />
<br />
==Counter-apologetics==<br />
<br />
===Beliefs are not always correct===<br />
<br />
If early Christians did in fact die specifically for holding to the claim that Jesus was real (which has in no way been demonstrated), that only indicates that they believed it, not that they were correct. People have been willing to die for a mistaken or delusional belief.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Countless people throughout history have been fully convinced that gods or ghosts spoke to them, by the mere fact that they dreamt it, or hallucinated it... Thus countless people die for a “lie” in the sense that they don’t know that what they are dying for is false.<ref>Richard Carrier, [https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9978 Did the Apostles Die for a Lie?], 7 April 2016</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Examples of people dying for delusional beliefs include: <br />
* Many thousands of Germans died during World War II based on the belief that they were the "master race" and were justified in conquering other nations for "living space". <br />
* Also during World War II, many Japanese civilians committed suicide rather than being captured by the Americans because of the false belief they would be mistreated. <br />
* At Jonestown, over 900 people committed mass suicide while under the influence of the cult leader Jim Jones. <br />
* In 1993, 76 people died at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas because they believed their leader, David Koresh, was a prophet of God. <br />
* In 1997, 39 members of [[Heaven's Gate]] committed suicide in the belief that a UFO following the comet Hale-Bopp would transport them to "Their world". <br />
Since accepting delusional beliefs would prove multiple incompatible religions were true, it is a [[broken compass argument]] (e.g. this argument would imply that Heaven's Gate is just as true as Christianity).<br />
<br />
{{quote-source| Characters of blood did they write on the way they went, and their folly taught that truth is proved by blood. But blood is the very worst witness to truth; blood tainteth the purest teaching, and turneth it into delusion and hatred of heart.|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]}}<br />
<br />
===Earliest records we have===<br />
<br />
The earliest record of Christians from non-Christian sources is the letter of [[Pliny the Younger]] who specifically did give these very early Christians a choice between dying and worshiping Jesus. They overwhelmingly recanted and did not die for their faith.<br />
<br />
{{quote|I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.<ref>[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
When threatened the group of Christians quickly recanted and insisted they first said they were Christians in error, they stopped being Christians long ago and all hail the emperor and to hell with Christ! Apparently when push came to shove, the evidence is they recanted and rejected Christ. Strenuously refusing to die for their belief. Being willing to die has little bearing on authenticating belief. But, in this case the earliest non-ambiguous non-Christian reference we have to Christians as a group, and they promptly recant.<br />
<br />
===Based on unreliable accounts===<br />
<br />
The [[Apostles]] may well have had firsthand knowledge, but that doesn't lend any credibility to the claim because we don't have first hand knowledge about them or of their claims. We also have only vague accounts of the death of the apostles, which are generally known by "tradition" or biased sources, rather than primary sources. <br />
<br />
Many people have personally witnessed a seemingly paranormal phenomenon, and genuinely believe that what they saw was a supernatural element, only for them to discover after a meticulous analysis that what they witnessed was actually a regular incident with a logical and natural explanation (Will-O-Wisps were thought to be ghostly apparitions before being identified as the manifestation of chemical reactions).<br />
<br />
===Assumption of Biblical accuracy===<br />
{{quote|If you read through the book of Acts, it is obvious that the early Messianic community was willing to die whether than recant their faith in the risen Lord.<ref>[https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/the-8-es-of-testimony-in-the-new-testament/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Implicit]] in this argument is the idea that the [[miracles of Jesus]] therefore actually happened, which is not supported by the [[premise]] that his apostles would not have died for a lie. This [[conclusion]] ignores several other possibilities:<br />
# The apostles strongly believed the stories to be true, but were mistaken:<br />
#* The ones who were killed never actually [[witness]]ed the events take place themselves, but were told by other apostles, whom they trusted.<br />
#* They convinced themselves the stories were true, to the point of actually believing they were, even though what they witnessed directly contradicted them.<!-- ? --><br />
#* They remembered the details of the events differently than they witnessed, because the false details were constantly reinforced by everyone they kept company with.<br />
#* They were fooled. They really did see the events, but what they saw was a [[magic|trick]].<br />
# The apostles did not believe all of the stories, but died for another reason:<br />
#* They believed the literal truth of {{Bible|John 3:16}}, and thought they would not die.<br />
#* They considered the cause to be just, even though they knew some of the stories were embellished or exaggerated.<br />
#* They were protecting the lives of other people.<br />
#* They would have chosen death rather than be exposed as shameless liars.<br />
#* They were killed because they were public figureheads for the cause, not due to the specific stories they maintained or denied.<br />
#* They were killed without having an opportunity to retract their stories.<br />
#* They stuck to their story to maintain some dignity in their death, as they were going to be killed either way.<br />
#* They intended to become martyrs.<br />
# The apostles admitted the stories were not true, but the admission was never made public.<br />
# They did die protecting the truth, but the stories of those events were later embellished. The "miracles" we now read about are not what they actually saw and died for.<br />
# The stories of the apostles' deaths were themselves later embellished to present them as martyrs.<br />
# The apostles as well as Jesus died for something else; perhaps they hoped they would help free Israel from the Romans.<br />
# The apostles were never killed.<br />
# The existence of the apostles was also an invention.<br />
<br />
While all the above are possible explanations for early Christian martyrs, what we can tell about the 1st century Christian apostles (assuming they all existed) is mostly based on the stories within the New Testament. In the book of [[Acts]], we only have two martyrs: Stephen and James. Stephen wasn't even an eyewitness, he was a later convert, meaning if he died for anything it was entirely based on hearsay. But according to Acts, he was not killed for what he believed, but for some trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted. So his death does not prove he died for his beliefs, which was Jesus was the messiah and was at that moment in heaven. The lack of any mention of a physical resurrection could indicate that if Stephen died for his beliefs, it could have been a belief in a spiritual resurrection instead of an actual physical resurrection. As for James, we are not told anything about why he was killed or whether recanting would have saved him, or (like Stephen) if he believed in a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical resurrection. [[Josephus]] does mention that a James (which may or may not be the same James in Acts) was stoned to death in 62 CE, but he was stoned for breaking the Jewish law-recanting would not have saved him anyway.<br />
<br />
Then we have stories of Apostle martyrs outside the New Testament, such as the famous crucifixion of Peter upside-down. The problem is that this event doesn't have any contemporary sources. It is never mentioned until about two or three generations later in only a single source: the Gnostic Acts of Peter, a gospel rejected as a false document by many Christians of the day. But even if this account is true, it claims that Peter was executed for political meddling and not for his beliefs. Even more important, it states that Peter believed Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, not in the flesh.<br />
<br />
[[Paul the Apostle]] admits he was not an eyewitness. He merely had a vision of a spiritual figure of Jesus while on the road to Damascus. So even if he did die for his beliefs, it was based on a vision of a man he never met in his life. While the date of Paul's death is unknown, it is commonly accepted to have occurred after the Great Fire of Rome in July 64 CE, but before the last year of Nero's reign, in 68 CE. But all accounts of Paul's "martyrdom" come from sources 30-50 years after his death. The earliest mention comes from the non-canonical document 1 Clement, in which it only suggests Paul was martyred under the prefects.<br />
<br />
As for the rest of the Apostles being martyred, they all come from non-eyewitness sources written numerous generations after their deaths, so there is no way to be certain how they died and if they did or did not die for their beliefs. The Apostle Philip has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the earliest mention comes from the apocryphal Acts of Philip which was written between the mid-to-late 4th century CE. Mark "the evangelist" was killed by Egyptian pagans, but there is no mention of this until the 4th century. The martyrdom of the Apostle Andrew account comes from the apocryphal Acts of Andrew written in the 3rd century CE. The Apostle Jude's martyrdom is only mentioned in the apocryphal Acts of Simon and Jude written in the 4th century CE. The Apostle Bartholomew has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the Gospel of Bartholomew is a missing text. And then there's Thomas, often called [[Doubting Thomas]], according to tradition believed to be martyred in 72 CE. Yet the earliest mention of his martyrdom comes from a Syriac Christian, Ephrem the Syrian, who wasn't born until over 200 years after the death of Thomas.<br />
<br />
===Jesus didn't die===<br />
Assuming the Bible is true, Jesus didn't die, he was found alive some days after his crucifixion.<ref>Achtemeier, Paul J. "Introducing the New Testament." Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eardmans Publishing Company. 2001.</ref><br />
<br />
This is contrary to the account in the Bible. According to the Bible Jesus did die and was resurrected, ergo creating a difference between resuscitation and resurrection. The gospels say that Jesus died on the cross as a result of crucifixion (if that doesn't prove his death, being in a sealed tomb for three days does). Furthermore, according to gospel accounts and other accounts, upon Jesus' resurrection it is said that he had wounds but wasn't in a state of looking ill (as would be the result of crucifixion and being in a tomb for three days). Thus Jesus had to die and resurrect, not just resuscitate, assuming the accounts are correct. The Gospels were all written at least a generation after the events stated there allegedly took place so we cannot be sure that the Gospel account is accurate.<br />
<br />
===Jesus was executed but not for his core beliefs===<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that because Jesus was willing to die for what he believed it proves that he believed in what he had said. However, assuming the Gospels are true, Jesus was executed as a criminal. The crimes described in the Gospels consist of vandalism ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}), theft ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}, {{Bible|Matthew 21:12}}, {{Bible|John 2:15}}), battery with a weapon ({{Bible|John 2:15}}), impeding traffic ({{Bible|Mark 11:16}}) and making terrorist threats ({{Bible|John 2:19}}), as well as assault, disturbing the peace and impeding commerce. Most of these were capital crimes, and he was arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to death for another-blasphemy (by supposedly claiming to be God). It is often believed that Jesus knew his actions would result in his death, so that despite his execution being legally justified it has no bearing on whether is was martyrdom. However, if he died for his beliefs, then those beliefs for which he died consist of not changing money or selling animals inside of the Temple. In addition, he was not killed for his beliefs, but as a threat to Jewish authority ({{Bible|Mark 11:18}}).<br />
<br />
===Being willing to die does not authenticate Jesus===<br />
<br />
Their willingness to die shows that early Christians believed firmly in their religious ideal, not that they believed [[Jesus]] was a real person. The religious ideal could easily have been considered a worthy cause, whether or not its founder was invented.<br />
<br />
===People do die for a lie===<br />
The [[premise]] that people would never "die for a lie" is arguably true. However, apologists point out that while people do die for lies, the actual issue is whether people die for what they ''knew'' to be a lie i.e. a lie of their own creation or contrary to facts known to them. Psychology shows that people will not die for what they ''know'' to be false.<br />
<br />
Arguing that "the disciples were not like that because they had proof" [[#Further arguments|doesn't address the argument]].<br />
<br />
==Further arguments==<br />
<br />
It is claimed that the [[apostles]] were eye witness experiences so they would know Jesus's [[resurrection]] to be either true or false, they were not dying for an unproven or abstract belief but rather what they had been shown. Therefore, they were not dying for a lie. <br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] The disciples [...] did not really believe Jesus until he showed up reanimated. Peter denied Jesus three times before he saw Christ resurrected. He was crucified upside down because he thought something was true but because he knew it was, and he denied the truth and was not worthy to die as Christ did. The disciples did not die practising unsubstantiated belief but on the understanding that they saw something and they believed it enough to die. [...] All the people or events mentioned in the above agreement are cases were people did not question the nature of the circumstances, the disciples did. At first they were in at state of disbelief, then they died in a understanding of what they perceived as fact.}} <br />
<br />
While this argument has a point, it does have the premise that the apostles actually had the experiences described in the Bible, including many [[miracles]], which is [[begging the question]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
* [http://www.heavensgate.com/ Heaven's Gate official website]<br />
* [http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/christians.htm Nero Persecutes, The Christians, 64 A.D.]<br />
* [https://www.equip.org/articles/apostles-really-die-martyrs-faith/ Did the Apostles Really Die as Martyrs for Their Faith?]<br />
<br />
{{Arguments for god}}</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Moral_absolutism&diff=44085Moral absolutism2024-01-12T14:41:59Z<p>TimSC: /* A moral standard above self interest */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{wikipedia}}<br />
'''Moral absolutism''' or '''absolute morality''' is an [[ethics|ethical]] view that some actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of the intentions behind them. For example, stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family because you don't have enough money to buy it is still considered immoral.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Some people think there are such universal rules that apply to everyone. This sort of thinking is called moral absolutism. Moral absolutism argues that there are some moral rules that are always true, that these rules can be discovered and that these rules apply to everyone.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] moral absolutism refers to the belief that right and wrong are determined by absolute standards. Individuals who belief in moral absolutism would hold that their set of beliefs is universal and appropriate for application globally.<ref>Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society, edited by Robert W. Kolb</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|The absolutist believes that there are nonoverrideable moral principles that one ought never violates. Moral principles are exceptionless. For example, some absolutists hold that one ought never break a promise, no matter what.<ref>Cengage Advantage Books: Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, By Louis P. Pojman, James Fieser</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Moral absolutism is related to the concepts of: [[moral realism]], [[moral universalism]] and [[divine command theory]].<br />
<br />
Moral absolutism is not compatible with [[consequentialism]], [[moral anti-realism]], [[moral skepticism]] or [[moral relativism]].<br />
<br />
==A moral standard above self interest==<br />
<br />
{{quote|Any morality that can be created on an individual level is inherently dangerous because you can immediately graft that morality on to your personal self interest. The entire purpose of religion, whether you want to ground that in evolutionary brain function or if you want to ground that on revelation, the entire purpose of religion on a utility level is to remove morality from the purview of my special interest and to say "here are things I cannot do, even if they are in my interest because there is a higher power that says I cannot do these things". I think that a society that does not have these moral absolutes is in deep trouble.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6mkPTmym0o Ben Shapiro Challenges Atheist's Ethical Worldview]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This is an argument for general ''belief'' in something to produce a stable society, rather than the actual existence of moral absolutes. It is therefore an [[appeal to consequences]].<br />
<br />
==Counter arguments==<br />
<br />
===No agreement on the basis or specifics of morality===<br />
<br />
If an absolute and broadly knowable moral system existed, we would expect almost uniform agreement as to what it entails, even if people do not always follow it. However, what is seen is a wide variety of moral systems and no clear way to arbitrate between them. Either morality is not absolute or it is not easily knowable or both.<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] they disagree among themselves not only about which moral claims are actually true but about what it is about the world that makes those claims true.<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The teaching of each religion, particularly of longer established beliefs, tends to vary over time. This also indicates that absolute morality is not reliably knowable to them or it does not exist. However, this line of reasoning is not without its critics:<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Their usual mistaken premise is that they affirm some consensus among people, at least among tame peoples, concerning certain moral principles, and then conclude that these principles must be unconditionally binding also for you and me–or conversely, they see that among different peoples moral valuations are ''necessarily'' different and infer from this that ''no'' morality is binding—both of which are equally childish.|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]}}<br />
<br />
====Knowability====<br />
<br />
How can humans come to know this law? Simply listening to the claims of divine beings is not necessarily reliable since the [[Distinguishing between God and Satan|devil could impersonate god]]. Intuition or [[divine sense]] could be flawed, specific to individuals or mislead. The general disagreement over what morality entails suggests that it is not knowable.<br />
<br />
===Absolutists do not follow their own system===<br />
<br />
So called "absolutists" routinely [[cherry pick]] their holy books to support their subjective views. The behavior of so called absolutists is not consistence with their professed beliefs:<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] in truth, I rarely ever meet someone who actually believes that there is a strict absolute morality that must be followed regardless of the situation and even if it will knowingly increase suffering and harm to others.<ref name="case"/>}}<br />
<br />
Strictly speaking, this is an [[ad hominem]].<br />
<br />
===Incomplete and inflexible===<br />
<br />
Recorded moral systems tend to be incomplete because they do not address situations that only emerged recently. Moral systems should adapt to novel situations.<br />
<br />
{{quote|There is no absolute rule that says I must always use one method over another no matter the situation. The same is true when it comes to morality: Different circumstances will lead to different ways to prevent unnecessary harm and increase well-being and happiness.<ref name="case"/>}}<br />
<br />
It is difficult to formulate a moral system that has no exceptions. Each moral rule can usually be undermined with a counter example. Note that "[[murder]] is wrong" is a [[tautology]]. For a moral system that actually was sensible in a comprehensive range of situations, a much larger holy scripture would be needed!<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] situations, though relative, are objective, not subjective. And motives, though subjective, come under moral absolutes. They can be recognized as intrinsically and universally good or evil. The will to help is always good, the will to harm is always evil. So even situationism is an objective morality, and even motivationism or subjectivism is a universal morality.<ref>[http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
While it is possible that an absolute moral law could be specified for every possible situation, it is not practical for humans to record or comprehend such a law - it would simply be enormous and unmanageable. Vague principles, such as "the will to help is always good", do not apply unambiguously to all situations. In any case, absolute morality is ''defined'' as to be invariant to the situation. Redefining it to encompass moral relativism makes it meaningless.<br />
<br />
An absolute law is not necessarily perfect. A flawed creator could insist on a defective moral system. In fact, the moral systems that are supposedly absolute often have glaring problems, such as allowing [[slavery]] (which is the case for the [[Bible]] and the [[Qur'an]]). An absolute moral system is problematic because it is not open to improvement.<br />
<br />
Absolute morality inconsistently applies to humans but not other animals. If it was independent of context, it would apply to these creatures too.<br />
<br />
===Absolutism is harmful===<br />
<br />
Belief in a moral system that is absolutely and objectively true implies that any deviation from that standard must be wrong, or at least less moral. Other communities often differ in their values from one's own, so the difference in moral systems provides grounds to consider other groups to be inferior. This is arguably a harmful attitude to have.<br />
<br />
{{quote|To millions of churchgoers, the terms "ethical conduct" and "Christian conduct" are synonymous and interchangeable. A "Christian act" is ''by definition'' an "ethical act." And an "immoral deed" is ''necessarily'' "un-Christian." The logical problem pose by these definitions, however, is that non-Christians-be they Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist or atheist-must ''necessarily'' be perceived as unethical-or at least ''less'' ethical-when compared to "true" Christian, simply because they hold differing religious beliefs.<ref>David Mills, ''Atheist Universe'' 2006</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Moral absolutism, believing that you are more right about morality than others, can be thought of as the first step toward hypermoralism, harming others in support of your moral principles. [...] we should be working to expand our moral imaginations.<ref>[https://www.civilpolitics.org/content/2010-04-sam-harris-ted-video-and-the-danger-of-liberal-atheist-moral-absolutism/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This is a [[slippery slope]] argument and also appeals to [[consequentialism]].<br />
<br />
===Dependant on questionable metaphysics===<br />
<br />
It is unclear how prescriptive statements can exist metaphysically, particularly since there is no reliable evidence that anything metaphysical actually exists.<br />
<br />
There is also no evidence that prescriptive statements, such as moral laws, can exist independently of a mind. Of course, there is no reliable evidence of any divine minds.<br />
<br />
Even if divine beings exist, there is no reliable reason to suppose they are able to establish an absolute moral system. Even if an entity who claims to be God insists on it, that does not make it necessarily so.<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] saying that something is moral does not make it so, and making creatures with that sense of morality doesn't make it any more moral either.<ref>[http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Argument_fom_Absolute_Morality]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Ontologically, morality is not grounded in the existence of any spiritual beings, and to the naturalist this very idea seems ridiculous. If the theist thinks objective moral values are founded on the existence of god, he has to explain how moral values and actions like love, kindness, fairness, and generosity would ''not'' positively affect beings in a universe with no god, or how these actions would somehow be different.<ref name="case">[http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2013/02/a-case-for-secular-morality-objective.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Since these problems have no easy answer, this undermines the theist claim that "an objective foundation for morality depends on God".<br />
<br />
===Undermines human initiative===<br />
<br />
Just telling people that certain actions are always forbidden or mandatory undermines human initiative and existence. People need to be able to think and learn for themselves.<ref>[http://history-world.org/Against%20Absolutism.htm]</ref><br />
<br />
===Abrogation and change over time===<br />
{{main article|Religious morality does not change}}<br />
Both [[Christianity]] and [[Islam]] [[Abrogation|abrogate]] earlier teachings. For example, Christianity abrogates "[[an eye for an eye]]" and most of the [[Old Testament]]. Islam abrogates the permissibility of [[alcohol]]. This shows that their moral code is not absolute since it is time dependent.<ref name="case"/> Also, religious morality changes over time; for instance most mainstream religions initially accepted [[slavery]] and now they reject it.<br />
<br />
{{quote|[Religious morality] has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries.<ref>[http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/humanist_manifesto_i]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|If God was absolutely moral, because morality was absolute, and if the nature of “right” and “wrong” surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?|Rachael Slick, daughter of [[Matt Slick]]<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/15/the-atheist-daughter-of-a-notable-christian-apologist-shares-her-story/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===Arguing from the failure of moral relativism===<br />
<br />
It is no good arguing that if moral relativism is unworkable, then moral absolutism is true because these two positions are a [[false dichotomy]].<br />
<br />
===Euthyphro dilemma===<br />
{{main article|Euthyphro dilemma}}<br />
<br />
The Euthyphro dilemma is found in [[Plato]]'s ''Euthyphro'' dialogue, in which [[Socrates]] asks the question, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" In layman's terms this would be, "Is that which is [[good]] commanded by [[God]] because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?" Neither option is particularly attractive to absolutists.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:Morality]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Moral_absolutism&diff=44084Moral absolutism2024-01-12T13:19:25Z<p>TimSC: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{wikipedia}}<br />
'''Moral absolutism''' or '''absolute morality''' is an [[ethics|ethical]] view that some actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of the intentions behind them. For example, stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family because you don't have enough money to buy it is still considered immoral.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Some people think there are such universal rules that apply to everyone. This sort of thinking is called moral absolutism. Moral absolutism argues that there are some moral rules that are always true, that these rules can be discovered and that these rules apply to everyone.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] moral absolutism refers to the belief that right and wrong are determined by absolute standards. Individuals who belief in moral absolutism would hold that their set of beliefs is universal and appropriate for application globally.<ref>Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society, edited by Robert W. Kolb</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|The absolutist believes that there are nonoverrideable moral principles that one ought never violates. Moral principles are exceptionless. For example, some absolutists hold that one ought never break a promise, no matter what.<ref>Cengage Advantage Books: Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, By Louis P. Pojman, James Fieser</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Moral absolutism is related to the concepts of: [[moral realism]], [[moral universalism]] and [[divine command theory]].<br />
<br />
Moral absolutism is not compatible with [[consequentialism]], [[moral anti-realism]], [[moral skepticism]] or [[moral relativism]].<br />
<br />
==A moral standard above self interest==<br />
<br />
{{quote|Any morality that can be created on an individual level is inherently dangerous because you can immediately graft that morality on to your personal self interest. The entire purpose of religion, whether you want to ground that in evolutionary brain function or if you want to ground that on revelation, the entire purpose of religion on a utility level is to remove morality from the purview of my special interest and to say "here are things I cannot do, even if they are in my interst because there is a higher power that says I cannot do these things". I think that a society that does not have these moral absoletes is in deep trouble.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6mkPTmym0o Ben Shapiro Challenges Atheist's Ethical Worldview]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This is an argument for general ''belief'' in something to produce a stable society, rather than the actual existence of moral absolutes. It is therefore an [[appeal to consequences]].<br />
<br />
==Counter arguments==<br />
<br />
===No agreement on the basis or specifics of morality===<br />
<br />
If an absolute and broadly knowable moral system existed, we would expect almost uniform agreement as to what it entails, even if people do not always follow it. However, what is seen is a wide variety of moral systems and no clear way to arbitrate between them. Either morality is not absolute or it is not easily knowable or both.<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] they disagree among themselves not only about which moral claims are actually true but about what it is about the world that makes those claims true.<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The teaching of each religion, particularly of longer established beliefs, tends to vary over time. This also indicates that absolute morality is not reliably knowable to them or it does not exist. However, this line of reasoning is not without its critics:<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Their usual mistaken premise is that they affirm some consensus among people, at least among tame peoples, concerning certain moral principles, and then conclude that these principles must be unconditionally binding also for you and me–or conversely, they see that among different peoples moral valuations are ''necessarily'' different and infer from this that ''no'' morality is binding—both of which are equally childish.|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]}}<br />
<br />
====Knowability====<br />
<br />
How can humans come to know this law? Simply listening to the claims of divine beings is not necessarily reliable since the [[Distinguishing between God and Satan|devil could impersonate god]]. Intuition or [[divine sense]] could be flawed, specific to individuals or mislead. The general disagreement over what morality entails suggests that it is not knowable.<br />
<br />
===Absolutists do not follow their own system===<br />
<br />
So called "absolutists" routinely [[cherry pick]] their holy books to support their subjective views. The behavior of so called absolutists is not consistence with their professed beliefs:<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] in truth, I rarely ever meet someone who actually believes that there is a strict absolute morality that must be followed regardless of the situation and even if it will knowingly increase suffering and harm to others.<ref name="case"/>}}<br />
<br />
Strictly speaking, this is an [[ad hominem]].<br />
<br />
===Incomplete and inflexible===<br />
<br />
Recorded moral systems tend to be incomplete because they do not address situations that only emerged recently. Moral systems should adapt to novel situations.<br />
<br />
{{quote|There is no absolute rule that says I must always use one method over another no matter the situation. The same is true when it comes to morality: Different circumstances will lead to different ways to prevent unnecessary harm and increase well-being and happiness.<ref name="case"/>}}<br />
<br />
It is difficult to formulate a moral system that has no exceptions. Each moral rule can usually be undermined with a counter example. Note that "[[murder]] is wrong" is a [[tautology]]. For a moral system that actually was sensible in a comprehensive range of situations, a much larger holy scripture would be needed!<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] situations, though relative, are objective, not subjective. And motives, though subjective, come under moral absolutes. They can be recognized as intrinsically and universally good or evil. The will to help is always good, the will to harm is always evil. So even situationism is an objective morality, and even motivationism or subjectivism is a universal morality.<ref>[http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
While it is possible that an absolute moral law could be specified for every possible situation, it is not practical for humans to record or comprehend such a law - it would simply be enormous and unmanageable. Vague principles, such as "the will to help is always good", do not apply unambiguously to all situations. In any case, absolute morality is ''defined'' as to be invariant to the situation. Redefining it to encompass moral relativism makes it meaningless.<br />
<br />
An absolute law is not necessarily perfect. A flawed creator could insist on a defective moral system. In fact, the moral systems that are supposedly absolute often have glaring problems, such as allowing [[slavery]] (which is the case for the [[Bible]] and the [[Qur'an]]). An absolute moral system is problematic because it is not open to improvement.<br />
<br />
Absolute morality inconsistently applies to humans but not other animals. If it was independent of context, it would apply to these creatures too.<br />
<br />
===Absolutism is harmful===<br />
<br />
Belief in a moral system that is absolutely and objectively true implies that any deviation from that standard must be wrong, or at least less moral. Other communities often differ in their values from one's own, so the difference in moral systems provides grounds to consider other groups to be inferior. This is arguably a harmful attitude to have.<br />
<br />
{{quote|To millions of churchgoers, the terms "ethical conduct" and "Christian conduct" are synonymous and interchangeable. A "Christian act" is ''by definition'' an "ethical act." And an "immoral deed" is ''necessarily'' "un-Christian." The logical problem pose by these definitions, however, is that non-Christians-be they Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist or atheist-must ''necessarily'' be perceived as unethical-or at least ''less'' ethical-when compared to "true" Christian, simply because they hold differing religious beliefs.<ref>David Mills, ''Atheist Universe'' 2006</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Moral absolutism, believing that you are more right about morality than others, can be thought of as the first step toward hypermoralism, harming others in support of your moral principles. [...] we should be working to expand our moral imaginations.<ref>[https://www.civilpolitics.org/content/2010-04-sam-harris-ted-video-and-the-danger-of-liberal-atheist-moral-absolutism/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This is a [[slippery slope]] argument and also appeals to [[consequentialism]].<br />
<br />
===Dependant on questionable metaphysics===<br />
<br />
It is unclear how prescriptive statements can exist metaphysically, particularly since there is no reliable evidence that anything metaphysical actually exists.<br />
<br />
There is also no evidence that prescriptive statements, such as moral laws, can exist independently of a mind. Of course, there is no reliable evidence of any divine minds.<br />
<br />
Even if divine beings exist, there is no reliable reason to suppose they are able to establish an absolute moral system. Even if an entity who claims to be God insists on it, that does not make it necessarily so.<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] saying that something is moral does not make it so, and making creatures with that sense of morality doesn't make it any more moral either.<ref>[http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Argument_fom_Absolute_Morality]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Ontologically, morality is not grounded in the existence of any spiritual beings, and to the naturalist this very idea seems ridiculous. If the theist thinks objective moral values are founded on the existence of god, he has to explain how moral values and actions like love, kindness, fairness, and generosity would ''not'' positively affect beings in a universe with no god, or how these actions would somehow be different.<ref name="case">[http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2013/02/a-case-for-secular-morality-objective.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Since these problems have no easy answer, this undermines the theist claim that "an objective foundation for morality depends on God".<br />
<br />
===Undermines human initiative===<br />
<br />
Just telling people that certain actions are always forbidden or mandatory undermines human initiative and existence. People need to be able to think and learn for themselves.<ref>[http://history-world.org/Against%20Absolutism.htm]</ref><br />
<br />
===Abrogation and change over time===<br />
{{main article|Religious morality does not change}}<br />
Both [[Christianity]] and [[Islam]] [[Abrogation|abrogate]] earlier teachings. For example, Christianity abrogates "[[an eye for an eye]]" and most of the [[Old Testament]]. Islam abrogates the permissibility of [[alcohol]]. This shows that their moral code is not absolute since it is time dependent.<ref name="case"/> Also, religious morality changes over time; for instance most mainstream religions initially accepted [[slavery]] and now they reject it.<br />
<br />
{{quote|[Religious morality] has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries.<ref>[http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/humanist_manifesto_i]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|If God was absolutely moral, because morality was absolute, and if the nature of “right” and “wrong” surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?|Rachael Slick, daughter of [[Matt Slick]]<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/15/the-atheist-daughter-of-a-notable-christian-apologist-shares-her-story/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===Arguing from the failure of moral relativism===<br />
<br />
It is no good arguing that if moral relativism is unworkable, then moral absolutism is true because these two positions are a [[false dichotomy]].<br />
<br />
===Euthyphro dilemma===<br />
{{main article|Euthyphro dilemma}}<br />
<br />
The Euthyphro dilemma is found in [[Plato]]'s ''Euthyphro'' dialogue, in which [[Socrates]] asks the question, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" In layman's terms this would be, "Is that which is [[good]] commanded by [[God]] because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?" Neither option is particularly attractive to absolutists.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:Morality]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Moral_absolutism&diff=44083Moral absolutism2024-01-12T13:19:04Z<p>TimSC: Add quote</p>
<hr />
<div>{{wikipedia}}<br />
'''Moral absolutism''' or '''absolute morality''' is an [[ethics|ethical]] view that some actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of the intentions behind them. For example, stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family because you don't have enough money to buy it is still considered immoral.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Some people think there are such universal rules that apply to everyone. This sort of thinking is called moral absolutism. Moral absolutism argues that there are some moral rules that are always true, that these rules can be discovered and that these rules apply to everyone.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] moral absolutism refers to the belief that right and wrong are determined by absolute standards. Individuals who belief in moral absolutism would hold that their set of beliefs is universal and appropriate for application globally.<ref>Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society, edited by Robert W. Kolb</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|The absolutist believes that there are nonoverrideable moral principles that one ought never violates. Moral principles are exceptionless. For example, some absolutists hold that one ought never break a promise, no matter what.<ref>Cengage Advantage Books: Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, By Louis P. Pojman, James Fieser</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Moral absolutism is related to the concepts of: [[moral realism]], [[moral universalism]] and [[divine command theory]].<br />
<br />
Moral absolutism is not compatible with [[consequentialism]], [[moral anti-realism]], [[moral skepticism]] or [[moral relativism]].<br />
<br />
==A moral standard above self interest==<br />
<br />
{{quote|Any morality that can be created on an individual level is inherently dangerous because you can immediately graft that morality on to your personal self interest. The entire purpose of religion, whether you want to ground that in evolutionary brain function or if you want to ground that on revelation, the entire purpose of religion on a utility level is to remove morality from the purview of my special interest and to say "here are things I cannot do, even if they are in my interst because there is a higher power that says I cannot do these things". I think that a society that does not have these moral absoletes is in deep trouble.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6mkPTmym0o Ben Shapiro Challenges Atheist's Ethical Worldview]</ref><br />
<br />
This is an argument for general ''belief'' in something to produce a stable society, rather than the actual existence of moral absolutes. It is therefore an [[appeal to consequences]].<br />
<br />
==Counter arguments==<br />
<br />
===No agreement on the basis or specifics of morality===<br />
<br />
If an absolute and broadly knowable moral system existed, we would expect almost uniform agreement as to what it entails, even if people do not always follow it. However, what is seen is a wide variety of moral systems and no clear way to arbitrate between them. Either morality is not absolute or it is not easily knowable or both.<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] they disagree among themselves not only about which moral claims are actually true but about what it is about the world that makes those claims true.<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The teaching of each religion, particularly of longer established beliefs, tends to vary over time. This also indicates that absolute morality is not reliably knowable to them or it does not exist. However, this line of reasoning is not without its critics:<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Their usual mistaken premise is that they affirm some consensus among people, at least among tame peoples, concerning certain moral principles, and then conclude that these principles must be unconditionally binding also for you and me–or conversely, they see that among different peoples moral valuations are ''necessarily'' different and infer from this that ''no'' morality is binding—both of which are equally childish.|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]}}<br />
<br />
====Knowability====<br />
<br />
How can humans come to know this law? Simply listening to the claims of divine beings is not necessarily reliable since the [[Distinguishing between God and Satan|devil could impersonate god]]. Intuition or [[divine sense]] could be flawed, specific to individuals or mislead. The general disagreement over what morality entails suggests that it is not knowable.<br />
<br />
===Absolutists do not follow their own system===<br />
<br />
So called "absolutists" routinely [[cherry pick]] their holy books to support their subjective views. The behavior of so called absolutists is not consistence with their professed beliefs:<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] in truth, I rarely ever meet someone who actually believes that there is a strict absolute morality that must be followed regardless of the situation and even if it will knowingly increase suffering and harm to others.<ref name="case"/>}}<br />
<br />
Strictly speaking, this is an [[ad hominem]].<br />
<br />
===Incomplete and inflexible===<br />
<br />
Recorded moral systems tend to be incomplete because they do not address situations that only emerged recently. Moral systems should adapt to novel situations.<br />
<br />
{{quote|There is no absolute rule that says I must always use one method over another no matter the situation. The same is true when it comes to morality: Different circumstances will lead to different ways to prevent unnecessary harm and increase well-being and happiness.<ref name="case"/>}}<br />
<br />
It is difficult to formulate a moral system that has no exceptions. Each moral rule can usually be undermined with a counter example. Note that "[[murder]] is wrong" is a [[tautology]]. For a moral system that actually was sensible in a comprehensive range of situations, a much larger holy scripture would be needed!<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] situations, though relative, are objective, not subjective. And motives, though subjective, come under moral absolutes. They can be recognized as intrinsically and universally good or evil. The will to help is always good, the will to harm is always evil. So even situationism is an objective morality, and even motivationism or subjectivism is a universal morality.<ref>[http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
While it is possible that an absolute moral law could be specified for every possible situation, it is not practical for humans to record or comprehend such a law - it would simply be enormous and unmanageable. Vague principles, such as "the will to help is always good", do not apply unambiguously to all situations. In any case, absolute morality is ''defined'' as to be invariant to the situation. Redefining it to encompass moral relativism makes it meaningless.<br />
<br />
An absolute law is not necessarily perfect. A flawed creator could insist on a defective moral system. In fact, the moral systems that are supposedly absolute often have glaring problems, such as allowing [[slavery]] (which is the case for the [[Bible]] and the [[Qur'an]]). An absolute moral system is problematic because it is not open to improvement.<br />
<br />
Absolute morality inconsistently applies to humans but not other animals. If it was independent of context, it would apply to these creatures too.<br />
<br />
===Absolutism is harmful===<br />
<br />
Belief in a moral system that is absolutely and objectively true implies that any deviation from that standard must be wrong, or at least less moral. Other communities often differ in their values from one's own, so the difference in moral systems provides grounds to consider other groups to be inferior. This is arguably a harmful attitude to have.<br />
<br />
{{quote|To millions of churchgoers, the terms "ethical conduct" and "Christian conduct" are synonymous and interchangeable. A "Christian act" is ''by definition'' an "ethical act." And an "immoral deed" is ''necessarily'' "un-Christian." The logical problem pose by these definitions, however, is that non-Christians-be they Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist or atheist-must ''necessarily'' be perceived as unethical-or at least ''less'' ethical-when compared to "true" Christian, simply because they hold differing religious beliefs.<ref>David Mills, ''Atheist Universe'' 2006</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Moral absolutism, believing that you are more right about morality than others, can be thought of as the first step toward hypermoralism, harming others in support of your moral principles. [...] we should be working to expand our moral imaginations.<ref>[https://www.civilpolitics.org/content/2010-04-sam-harris-ted-video-and-the-danger-of-liberal-atheist-moral-absolutism/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This is a [[slippery slope]] argument and also appeals to [[consequentialism]].<br />
<br />
===Dependant on questionable metaphysics===<br />
<br />
It is unclear how prescriptive statements can exist metaphysically, particularly since there is no reliable evidence that anything metaphysical actually exists.<br />
<br />
There is also no evidence that prescriptive statements, such as moral laws, can exist independently of a mind. Of course, there is no reliable evidence of any divine minds.<br />
<br />
Even if divine beings exist, there is no reliable reason to suppose they are able to establish an absolute moral system. Even if an entity who claims to be God insists on it, that does not make it necessarily so.<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] saying that something is moral does not make it so, and making creatures with that sense of morality doesn't make it any more moral either.<ref>[http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Argument_fom_Absolute_Morality]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Ontologically, morality is not grounded in the existence of any spiritual beings, and to the naturalist this very idea seems ridiculous. If the theist thinks objective moral values are founded on the existence of god, he has to explain how moral values and actions like love, kindness, fairness, and generosity would ''not'' positively affect beings in a universe with no god, or how these actions would somehow be different.<ref name="case">[http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2013/02/a-case-for-secular-morality-objective.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Since these problems have no easy answer, this undermines the theist claim that "an objective foundation for morality depends on God".<br />
<br />
===Undermines human initiative===<br />
<br />
Just telling people that certain actions are always forbidden or mandatory undermines human initiative and existence. People need to be able to think and learn for themselves.<ref>[http://history-world.org/Against%20Absolutism.htm]</ref><br />
<br />
===Abrogation and change over time===<br />
{{main article|Religious morality does not change}}<br />
Both [[Christianity]] and [[Islam]] [[Abrogation|abrogate]] earlier teachings. For example, Christianity abrogates "[[an eye for an eye]]" and most of the [[Old Testament]]. Islam abrogates the permissibility of [[alcohol]]. This shows that their moral code is not absolute since it is time dependent.<ref name="case"/> Also, religious morality changes over time; for instance most mainstream religions initially accepted [[slavery]] and now they reject it.<br />
<br />
{{quote|[Religious morality] has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries.<ref>[http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/humanist_manifesto_i]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|If God was absolutely moral, because morality was absolute, and if the nature of “right” and “wrong” surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?|Rachael Slick, daughter of [[Matt Slick]]<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/15/the-atheist-daughter-of-a-notable-christian-apologist-shares-her-story/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===Arguing from the failure of moral relativism===<br />
<br />
It is no good arguing that if moral relativism is unworkable, then moral absolutism is true because these two positions are a [[false dichotomy]].<br />
<br />
===Euthyphro dilemma===<br />
{{main article|Euthyphro dilemma}}<br />
<br />
The Euthyphro dilemma is found in [[Plato]]'s ''Euthyphro'' dialogue, in which [[Socrates]] asks the question, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" In layman's terms this would be, "Is that which is [[good]] commanded by [[God]] because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?" Neither option is particularly attractive to absolutists.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:Morality]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Universe&diff=44081Universe2023-12-29T20:11:30Z<p>TimSC: /* Religion and the Universe */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{wikipedia}}<br />
The '''universe''' is generally understood to be everything which physically exists, including all forms of matter and energy, and all events that occur involving the two. It is sometimes contrasted with a supposed "other world" of some metaphysical nature (e.g., other "planes of existence").<br />
<br />
==Scientific description==<br />
<br />
According to the most widely accepted [[scientific theory]], the universe consists of a four-dimensional [[Wikipedia:continuum|continuum]] of [[Wikipedia:spacetime|spacetime]] (three dimensions of space and one of time) that grew out of an incredibly small "ball" of matter/energy (perhaps even a [[Wikipedia:Gravitational singularity|singularity]], a dimensionless point) in an event called the [[Big Bang]] about 13.7 billion years ago.<br />
<br />
It is currently unknown whether the universe extends beyond the ''observable'' universe, that part which we are able to observe (at least theoretically) from our particular vantage point at this particular time (see [[Wikipedia:Light cone]]); many cosmologists assume that there are portions of the universe which we can not presently see. Also there may be a larger [[Wikipedia:Multiverse|Multiverse]]. Still, even the observable universe is (theorized to be) bigger than the 13.7 billion [[Wikipedia:Light year|light years]] that its age would seem to imply. This is because of the curvature of space-time; see Wikipedia's articles on the [[Wikipedia:Observable universe|observable universe]] and the central ideas of [[Wikipedia:Introduction to general relativity|general relativity]] for more information.<br />
<br />
===Did the universe have a beginning?===<br />
<br />
Perhaps. Or perhaps not.<br />
<br />
{{quote|In the beginning, superstrings created higher-dimensional membranes, That's one story I have been told, but there are many others. Some physicists believe it started with a bang, others think it was a bounce, yet again others bet on bubbles. Some say everything began with a network. Some like the idea that it was a collision of sorts, or a timeless phase of absolute silence, or a gas of superstrings, or a five-dimensional black hole, or a new force of nature... These stories reach back so far in time that data are too sparse for astrophysicists to distinguish one tale from another, and this impasse be impossible to overcome.<ref>Sabine Hossenfelder, Existential Physics, 2022</ref>}}<br />
<br />
An informed discussion of these issues is unfortunately beyond almost everyone, since the early universe was quite unlike the currently observed universe. Many of these issues are among the greatest unsolved problems of physics. <ref>Wikipedia, ''List of unsolved problems in physics'' [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics]]</ref><br />
<br />
==Religion and the Universe==<br />
Many religious people, particularly those believing in a theist religion, believe that their god created the universe, with some believing that the Earth is in the center of the Universe. Although many theists believe the Earth to be the center of the universe, for the most part, this is the uneducated minority. The common scientist and theist understand the sun to be the center of our solar system. Thus, the Earth cannot possibly be the center of the universe. In a sense, yes, Earth is in the center, but Earth is in the center only of the '''observable''' universe. Scientists cannot view other parts of the universe because the light waves from those parts have not come to Earth yet since the beginning of the Universe. The earth is not in any special or privileged place, if there are other conscious observers in other parts of the universe their observation point is the center of their subjective observable universe.<br />
<br />
===Old Testament===<br />
<br />
The Old Testament describes God separating light from darkness, the sky from the land on a "formless" Earth. {{Bible|Genesis 1:1-14}} That is not consistent with how we know the universe and the Earth came to be. Also, bringing form to formlessness is not how the [[ontological argument]] considers creation to have happened.<br />
<br />
==Equivocation==<br />
<br />
Since "universe" can mean both "the observable universe" and "the set of all things that exist," a common apologetics tactic is to treat the two concepts as if they were identical. This is a form of [[equivocation]]. When someone says "we know that the universe began to exist," as for instance in the [[Kalam]] cosmological argument, be sure to check which term they are using. The observable universe "began to exist" in the sense that it came into its current form during the Big Bang, but statements about the second term are not as clear cut.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Eternalism]]<br />
* [[Philosophy of space and time]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Universe&diff=44080Universe2023-12-29T20:10:49Z<p>TimSC: /* Old Testament */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{wikipedia}}<br />
The '''universe''' is generally understood to be everything which physically exists, including all forms of matter and energy, and all events that occur involving the two. It is sometimes contrasted with a supposed "other world" of some metaphysical nature (e.g., other "planes of existence").<br />
<br />
==Scientific description==<br />
<br />
According to the most widely accepted [[scientific theory]], the universe consists of a four-dimensional [[Wikipedia:continuum|continuum]] of [[Wikipedia:spacetime|spacetime]] (three dimensions of space and one of time) that grew out of an incredibly small "ball" of matter/energy (perhaps even a [[Wikipedia:Gravitational singularity|singularity]], a dimensionless point) in an event called the [[Big Bang]] about 13.7 billion years ago.<br />
<br />
It is currently unknown whether the universe extends beyond the ''observable'' universe, that part which we are able to observe (at least theoretically) from our particular vantage point at this particular time (see [[Wikipedia:Light cone]]); many cosmologists assume that there are portions of the universe which we can not presently see. Also there may be a larger [[Wikipedia:Multiverse|Multiverse]]. Still, even the observable universe is (theorized to be) bigger than the 13.7 billion [[Wikipedia:Light year|light years]] that its age would seem to imply. This is because of the curvature of space-time; see Wikipedia's articles on the [[Wikipedia:Observable universe|observable universe]] and the central ideas of [[Wikipedia:Introduction to general relativity|general relativity]] for more information.<br />
<br />
===Did the universe have a beginning?===<br />
<br />
Perhaps. Or perhaps not.<br />
<br />
{{quote|In the beginning, superstrings created higher-dimensional membranes, That's one story I have been told, but there are many others. Some physicists believe it started with a bang, others think it was a bounce, yet again others bet on bubbles. Some say everything began with a network. Some like the idea that it was a collision of sorts, or a timeless phase of absolute silence, or a gas of superstrings, or a five-dimensional black hole, or a new force of nature... These stories reach back so far in time that data are too sparse for astrophysicists to distinguish one tale from another, and this impasse be impossible to overcome.<ref>Sabine Hossenfelder, Existential Physics, 2022</ref>}}<br />
<br />
An informed discussion of these issues is unfortunately beyond almost everyone, since the early universe was quite unlike the currently observed universe. Many of these issues are among the greatest unsolved problems of physics. <ref>Wikipedia, ''List of unsolved problems in physics'' [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics]]</ref><br />
<br />
==Religion and the Universe==<br />
Many religious people, particularly those believing in a theist religion, believe that their god created the universe, with some believing that the Earth is in the center of the Universe. Although many theists believe the Earth to be the center of the universe, for the most part, this is the uneducated minority. The common scientist and theist understand the sun to be the center of our solar system. Thus, the Earth cannot possibly be the center of the universe. In a sense, yes, Earth is in the center, but Earth is in the center only of the '''observable''' universe. Scientists cannot view other parts of the universe because the light waves from those parts have not come to Earth yet since the beginning of the Universe. The earth is not in any special or privileged place, if there are other conscious observers in other parts of the universe their observation point is the center of their subjective observable universe.<br />
<br />
===Old Testament===<br />
<br />
The Old Testament describes God separating light from darkness, the sky from the land on a "formless" Earth. {{Bible|Genesis 1:1-14}} That is not consistent with how we know the universe and the Earth came to be. It is also not how the [[ontological argument]] considers creation to have happened.<br />
<br />
==Equivocation==<br />
<br />
Since "universe" can mean both "the observable universe" and "the set of all things that exist," a common apologetics tactic is to treat the two concepts as if they were identical. This is a form of [[equivocation]]. When someone says "we know that the universe began to exist," as for instance in the [[Kalam]] cosmological argument, be sure to check which term they are using. The observable universe "began to exist" in the sense that it came into its current form during the Big Bang, but statements about the second term are not as clear cut.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Eternalism]]<br />
* [[Philosophy of space and time]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Universe&diff=44079Universe2023-12-29T16:00:28Z<p>TimSC: /* Religion and the Universe */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{wikipedia}}<br />
The '''universe''' is generally understood to be everything which physically exists, including all forms of matter and energy, and all events that occur involving the two. It is sometimes contrasted with a supposed "other world" of some metaphysical nature (e.g., other "planes of existence").<br />
<br />
==Scientific description==<br />
<br />
According to the most widely accepted [[scientific theory]], the universe consists of a four-dimensional [[Wikipedia:continuum|continuum]] of [[Wikipedia:spacetime|spacetime]] (three dimensions of space and one of time) that grew out of an incredibly small "ball" of matter/energy (perhaps even a [[Wikipedia:Gravitational singularity|singularity]], a dimensionless point) in an event called the [[Big Bang]] about 13.7 billion years ago.<br />
<br />
It is currently unknown whether the universe extends beyond the ''observable'' universe, that part which we are able to observe (at least theoretically) from our particular vantage point at this particular time (see [[Wikipedia:Light cone]]); many cosmologists assume that there are portions of the universe which we can not presently see. Also there may be a larger [[Wikipedia:Multiverse|Multiverse]]. Still, even the observable universe is (theorized to be) bigger than the 13.7 billion [[Wikipedia:Light year|light years]] that its age would seem to imply. This is because of the curvature of space-time; see Wikipedia's articles on the [[Wikipedia:Observable universe|observable universe]] and the central ideas of [[Wikipedia:Introduction to general relativity|general relativity]] for more information.<br />
<br />
===Did the universe have a beginning?===<br />
<br />
Perhaps. Or perhaps not.<br />
<br />
{{quote|In the beginning, superstrings created higher-dimensional membranes, That's one story I have been told, but there are many others. Some physicists believe it started with a bang, others think it was a bounce, yet again others bet on bubbles. Some say everything began with a network. Some like the idea that it was a collision of sorts, or a timeless phase of absolute silence, or a gas of superstrings, or a five-dimensional black hole, or a new force of nature... These stories reach back so far in time that data are too sparse for astrophysicists to distinguish one tale from another, and this impasse be impossible to overcome.<ref>Sabine Hossenfelder, Existential Physics, 2022</ref>}}<br />
<br />
An informed discussion of these issues is unfortunately beyond almost everyone, since the early universe was quite unlike the currently observed universe. Many of these issues are among the greatest unsolved problems of physics. <ref>Wikipedia, ''List of unsolved problems in physics'' [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics]]</ref><br />
<br />
==Religion and the Universe==<br />
Many religious people, particularly those believing in a theist religion, believe that their god created the universe, with some believing that the Earth is in the center of the Universe. Although many theists believe the Earth to be the center of the universe, for the most part, this is the uneducated minority. The common scientist and theist understand the sun to be the center of our solar system. Thus, the Earth cannot possibly be the center of the universe. In a sense, yes, Earth is in the center, but Earth is in the center only of the '''observable''' universe. Scientists cannot view other parts of the universe because the light waves from those parts have not come to Earth yet since the beginning of the Universe. The earth is not in any special or privileged place, if there are other conscious observers in other parts of the universe their observation point is the center of their subjective observable universe.<br />
<br />
===Old Testament===<br />
<br />
The Old Testament describes God separating light from darkness, the sky from the land on a "formless" Earth. {{Bible|Genesis 1:1-14}} That is not consistent with how we know the universe and the Earth came to be.<br />
<br />
==Equivocation==<br />
<br />
Since "universe" can mean both "the observable universe" and "the set of all things that exist," a common apologetics tactic is to treat the two concepts as if they were identical. This is a form of [[equivocation]]. When someone says "we know that the universe began to exist," as for instance in the [[Kalam]] cosmological argument, be sure to check which term they are using. The observable universe "began to exist" in the sense that it came into its current form during the Big Bang, but statements about the second term are not as clear cut.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Eternalism]]<br />
* [[Philosophy of space and time]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Universe&diff=44078Universe2023-12-29T15:55:28Z<p>TimSC: Make it a subsection</p>
<hr />
<div>{{wikipedia}}<br />
The '''universe''' is generally understood to be everything which physically exists, including all forms of matter and energy, and all events that occur involving the two. It is sometimes contrasted with a supposed "other world" of some metaphysical nature (e.g., other "planes of existence").<br />
<br />
==Scientific description==<br />
<br />
According to the most widely accepted [[scientific theory]], the universe consists of a four-dimensional [[Wikipedia:continuum|continuum]] of [[Wikipedia:spacetime|spacetime]] (three dimensions of space and one of time) that grew out of an incredibly small "ball" of matter/energy (perhaps even a [[Wikipedia:Gravitational singularity|singularity]], a dimensionless point) in an event called the [[Big Bang]] about 13.7 billion years ago.<br />
<br />
It is currently unknown whether the universe extends beyond the ''observable'' universe, that part which we are able to observe (at least theoretically) from our particular vantage point at this particular time (see [[Wikipedia:Light cone]]); many cosmologists assume that there are portions of the universe which we can not presently see. Also there may be a larger [[Wikipedia:Multiverse|Multiverse]]. Still, even the observable universe is (theorized to be) bigger than the 13.7 billion [[Wikipedia:Light year|light years]] that its age would seem to imply. This is because of the curvature of space-time; see Wikipedia's articles on the [[Wikipedia:Observable universe|observable universe]] and the central ideas of [[Wikipedia:Introduction to general relativity|general relativity]] for more information.<br />
<br />
===Did the universe have a beginning?===<br />
<br />
Perhaps. Or perhaps not.<br />
<br />
{{quote|In the beginning, superstrings created higher-dimensional membranes, That's one story I have been told, but there are many others. Some physicists believe it started with a bang, others think it was a bounce, yet again others bet on bubbles. Some say everything began with a network. Some like the idea that it was a collision of sorts, or a timeless phase of absolute silence, or a gas of superstrings, or a five-dimensional black hole, or a new force of nature... These stories reach back so far in time that data are too sparse for astrophysicists to distinguish one tale from another, and this impasse be impossible to overcome.<ref>Sabine Hossenfelder, Existential Physics, 2022</ref>}}<br />
<br />
An informed discussion of these issues is unfortunately beyond almost everyone, since the early universe was quite unlike the currently observed universe. Many of these issues are among the greatest unsolved problems of physics. <ref>Wikipedia, ''List of unsolved problems in physics'' [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics]]</ref><br />
<br />
==Religion and the Universe==<br />
Many religious people, particularly those believing in a theist religion, believe that their god created the universe, with some believing that the Earth is in the center of the Universe. Although many theists believe the Earth to be the center of the universe, for the most part, this is the uneducated minority. The common scientist and theist understand the sun to be the center of our solar system. Thus, the Earth cannot possibly be the center of the universe. In a sense, yes, Earth is in the center, but Earth is in the center only of the '''observable''' universe. Scientists cannot view other parts of the universe because the light waves from those parts have not come to Earth yet since the beginning of the Universe. The earth is not in any special or privileged place, if there are other conscious observers in other parts of the universe their observation point is the center of their subjective observable universe.<br />
<br />
==Equivocation==<br />
<br />
Since "universe" can mean both "the observable universe" and "the set of all things that exist," a common apologetics tactic is to treat the two concepts as if they were identical. This is a form of [[equivocation]]. When someone says "we know that the universe began to exist," as for instance in the [[Kalam]] cosmological argument, be sure to check which term they are using. The observable universe "began to exist" in the sense that it came into its current form during the Big Bang, but statements about the second term are not as clear cut.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Eternalism]]<br />
* [[Philosophy of space and time]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Universe&diff=44077Universe2023-12-29T15:53:37Z<p>TimSC: Add section on beginning</p>
<hr />
<div>{{wikipedia}}<br />
The '''universe''' is generally understood to be everything which physically exists, including all forms of matter and energy, and all events that occur involving the two. It is sometimes contrasted with a supposed "other world" of some metaphysical nature (e.g., other "planes of existence").<br />
<br />
==Scientific description==<br />
<br />
According to the most widely accepted [[scientific theory]], the universe consists of a four-dimensional [[Wikipedia:continuum|continuum]] of [[Wikipedia:spacetime|spacetime]] (three dimensions of space and one of time) that grew out of an incredibly small "ball" of matter/energy (perhaps even a [[Wikipedia:Gravitational singularity|singularity]], a dimensionless point) in an event called the [[Big Bang]] about 13.7 billion years ago.<br />
<br />
It is currently unknown whether the universe extends beyond the ''observable'' universe, that part which we are able to observe (at least theoretically) from our particular vantage point at this particular time (see [[Wikipedia:Light cone]]); many cosmologists assume that there are portions of the universe which we can not presently see. Also there may be a larger [[Wikipedia:Multiverse|Multiverse]]. Still, even the observable universe is (theorized to be) bigger than the 13.7 billion [[Wikipedia:Light year|light years]] that its age would seem to imply. This is because of the curvature of space-time; see Wikipedia's articles on the [[Wikipedia:Observable universe|observable universe]] and the central ideas of [[Wikipedia:Introduction to general relativity|general relativity]] for more information.<br />
<br />
==Did the universe have a beginning?==<br />
<br />
Perhaps. Or perhaps not.<br />
<br />
{{quote|In the beginning, superstrings created higher-dimensional membranes, That's one story I have been told, but there are many others. Some physicists believe it started with a bang, others think it was a bounce, yet again others bet on bubbles. Some say everything began with a network. Some like the idea that it was a collision of sorts, or a timeless phase of absolute silence, or a gas of superstrings, or a five-dimensional black hole, or a new force of nature... These stories reach back so far in time that data are too sparse for astrophysicists to distinguish one tale from another, and this impasse be impossible to overcome.<ref>Sabine Hossenfelder, Existential Physics, 2022</ref>}}<br />
<br />
An informed discussion of these issues is unfortunately beyond almost everyone, since the early universe was quite unlike the currently observed universe. Many of these issues are among the greatest unsolved problems of physics. <ref>Wikipedia, ''List of unsolved problems in physics'' [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics]]</ref><br />
<br />
==Religion and the Universe==<br />
Many religious people, particularly those believing in a theist religion, believe that their god created the universe, with some believing that the Earth is in the center of the Universe. Although many theists believe the Earth to be the center of the universe, for the most part, this is the uneducated minority. The common scientist and theist understand the sun to be the center of our solar system. Thus, the Earth cannot possibly be the center of the universe. In a sense, yes, Earth is in the center, but Earth is in the center only of the '''observable''' universe. Scientists cannot view other parts of the universe because the light waves from those parts have not come to Earth yet since the beginning of the Universe. The earth is not in any special or privileged place, if there are other conscious observers in other parts of the universe their observation point is the center of their subjective observable universe.<br />
<br />
==Equivocation==<br />
<br />
Since "universe" can mean both "the observable universe" and "the set of all things that exist," a common apologetics tactic is to treat the two concepts as if they were identical. This is a form of [[equivocation]]. When someone says "we know that the universe began to exist," as for instance in the [[Kalam]] cosmological argument, be sure to check which term they are using. The observable universe "began to exist" in the sense that it came into its current form during the Big Bang, but statements about the second term are not as clear cut.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Eternalism]]<br />
* [[Philosophy of space and time]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Big_Bang&diff=44076Big Bang2023-12-29T15:50:41Z<p>TimSC: /* Did the universe have a beginning? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{wikipedia}}<br />
The '''Big Bang''' [[theory]] is the prevailing [[cosmological]] theory describing the evolution of our [[universe]] from a very early stage to the present. Religious acceptance of the concept varies between religions and denominations.<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, [[creationism|requires it]].|Pope Francis, head of the [[Catholic]] church <ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|... some theologians, at least, should be sufficiently well-versed in the sciences to make authentic and creative use of the resources that the best-established theories may offer them. Such an expertise would prevent them from making uncritical and overhasty use for apologetic purposes of such recent theories as that of the “Big Bang” in cosmology.|John Paul II<ref>John Paul II, 1997, pp. M11, M12</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Description==<br />
<br />
The Big Bang theory states that around 13.7 billion years ago the [[universe]] was condensed into an incredibly small, hot, dense "ball" of space and [[time]]. Some have speculated that it emerged from an infinitely dense and small object known as a singularity but most scientists prefer other hypotheses. <ref name="hawking-lecture" /><ref>PBS Space Time, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8gV05nS7mc Did Time Start at the Big Bang?], 18 Jul 2019</ref><br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Physical cosmology}}<br />
The name "Big Bang" is somewhat of a misnomer, since the universe did not expand in a conventional sense and didn't explode or produce sound as we normally understand it. The first fraction of a second saw significant changes in the way forces, matter and energy existed and was very unlike the universe as we currently observe it. The universe expanded very rapidly by a process called "inflation". As the expansion continued, the universe cooled, eventually reaching a point at which long lived particles of matter could "freeze out" of a mixture of mass and energy which was previously in continual flux and collide with each other to form the first simple atoms. Over billions of years, these particles combined to form "clouds" of matter which further condensed, because of gravitational attraction, into stars and planets. Atoms progressively formed "heavier" elements in stars through the process of nuclear fusion.<br />
<br />
{{wikipedia|Planck epoch}}<br />
The history of the universe can be described in some detail back to the instant approximately 10<sup>-43</sup> seconds after the big bang. What precisely occurred in the first 10<sup>-43</sup> seconds (the Planck epoch) is current unknown with many competing theories, due to our incomplete understanding of the interactions between the theories of gravitation and quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
==Did the universe have a beginning?==<br />
<br />
Perhaps. Or perhaps not.<br />
<br />
{{quote|In the beginning, superstrings created higher-dimensional membranes, That's one story I have been told, but there are many others. Some physicists believe it started with a bang, others think it was a bounce, yet again others bet on bubbles. Some say everything began with a network. Some like the idea that it was a collision of sorts, or a timeless phase of absolute silence, or a gas of superstrings, or a five-dimensional black hole, or a new force of nature... These stories reach back so far in time that data are too sparse for astrophysicists to distinguish one tale from another, and this impasse be impossible to overcome.<ref>Sabine Hossenfelder, Existential Physics, 2022</ref>}}<br />
<br />
At one point, the universe emerging from a singularity was a popular hypothesis, but it has since fallen out of favor. The existence of the singularity was only ever speculative. Singularity theorems are proved within the theory of General Relativity, but under the prevailing conditions one has to consider quantum effects. No one knows how to do that rigorously, but it is generally believed that quantum mechanics would not allow a singularity. <ref>[https://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/21/did-the-universe-begin-with-a-singularity/]</ref> The co-author of the universe from singularity model, [[Stephen Hawking]], said: <ref name="hawking-lecture">Stephen Hawking, ''The Origin of the Universe'' [http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html]</ref><br />
<br />
There are several possibilities on what the real structure of existence may be. These include the idea that there are no boundaries at all, or that there is a sort of "fuzzy" boundary which is not a singularity. While a singularity or boundary are still possible, there is no good scientific reason in the present to suppose them. The universe may have pre-existed in some undiscovered state. This undermines the apologist's argument as this means there is no way to prove the existence of an "Unmoved Mover" or "First Event".<br />
<br />
Events are ''[[Not all events necessarily have causes|usually]]'' preceded by earlier events. And yet, the singularity cannot be preceded by anything! How is this possible? Because the singularity isn't an "event" at all. The singularity is the limit of physical events. For an analogy, consider the series of numbers 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4... Each number in this series is followed by a smaller number, just like any event has a preceding event. If we follow the chain of numbers, it is easily seen that "at infinity" we reach the number 0. There is no actual Smallest Number within the series, however, and this is precisely why every given number in it is followed by a smaller one. The same is true for the singularity - it isn't a point in space-time, but rather a boundary of it. The singularity isn't a First State, there isn't a "First State". It isn't a state at all. Rather, it is the limit of states, with each state preceded by an earlier one. In other words, asking what came before the Big Bang could be equivalent to asking "what is north of the North Pole?"<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8gV05nS7mc Did Time Start at the Big Bang?]</ref><br />
<br />
An informed discussion of these issues is unfortunately beyond almost everyone, since the early universe was quite unlike the currently observed universe. Many of these issues are among the greatest unsolved problems of physics. <ref>Wikipedia, ''List of unsolved problems in physics'' [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics]]</ref><br />
<br />
=== No models predict an infinite universe ===<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|The fact is, there is no mathematically and physically tenable model of the universe which is extrapolable to past infinity. If Goldstein thinks otherwise, let her tell us the model. The bottom line is: physics doesn’t deal in possibilities. Possibilities come cheap. What we want to know is where the evidence points.|[[William Lane Craig]]<ref>[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/36-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
No ''known'' physical model has been confirmed to accurately predict the universe's earliest stages or origin. While most existing models appear to imply a finite age, we simply cannot confirm their correctness and known models are ''almost certainly'' incorrect because of the difficulty in reconciling the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics. There may be a correct model that corresponds to the actual universe having an infinite age that we simply has not discovered. We can only know a model is correct after appropriate observations, which are not possible at this time. Before Edwin Hubble’s observations, there were no tenable models of a finite aged universe, so it is quite possible scientific consensus may sift on this matter. Claiming that no known model exists for an infinite universe itself implies a finite universe is an [[argument from ignorance]]. <br />
<br />
The correct course in this case is to [[skepticism|suspend judgement]] until we can validate a model as being correct. The lack of a model does ''not'' imply physical impossibility. If [[William Lane Craig]] bases his arguments on a premise that cannot be feasibly verified, his conclusions should also be considered as tentative (at best).<br />
<br />
==Did the universe come from ''ex nihilo'' "nothing"?==<br />
<br />
There is a common misconception that the Big Bang means that the universe "came from nothing." This is a [[straw man]] argument. What occurred in the very early universe is still a mystery. What, if anything, came before the Big Bang is a mystery.<br />
<br />
Apologists claim that without God, the laws of [[thermodynamics]] would be violated. <ref>Jeff Miller, ''God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective'' [https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106]</ref> At this point, we do not even know if the universe is a close system, which is fundamental assumption of thermodynamics. Also, thermodynamics have not been validated in the very early universe; physicists are still struggling with much more basic problems.<br />
<br />
Since the energy of the universe may be zero, or close to it (gravatational energy is negative), the entire universe may be a long lived quantum fluctuation. <ref>[http://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html]</ref><br />
<br />
==How did the universe get its physical laws and constants?==<br />
<br />
Scientists don't know that either. Many have been traced back to very fundamental principles, such as the laws of physics are invariant of the point of view of the observer, in a field of physics called gauge theory. <ref>[http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3662/]</ref> Physics can only hope to trace physical laws into a simple, unified set of principles called the "theory of everything" or ToE. However, we may never discover the ToE or the ToE might not even exist. If the ToE exists, it might be a "[[Not all events necessarily have causes|brute fact]]". If the ToE exists, and it is not a "brute fact", it is questionable [[What is an "explanation"?"|what we mean]] by an "explanation" for the ToE. <br />
<br />
No doubt, if the ToE is discovered, it will be used as another cosmological argument for God. The existence of natural physical laws is used in the [[natural-law argument]].<br />
<br />
Arguing that the parameters of the universe, such as the strength of gravity, are somehow significant is the [[fine-tuning argument]].<br />
<br />
==Speculations on the pre-Big Bang universe==<br />
{{wikipedia|Cyclic model}}<br />
{{wikipedia|Cosmological natural selection}}<br />
{{wikipedia|Multiverse}}<br />
{{quote|Relating to the big bang theory... Where did the exploding star come from? <ref>[https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio?utm_term=.sq9mKpADKp#2391850 22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution], Buzzfeed, February 5, 2014</ref>}}<br />
<br />
* The '''cyclic model''' or '''oscillatory universe''' is the hypothesis, attributable to Richard Tolman from 1934, that the universe undergoes an infinite series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch. After the big bang, the universe expands for a while before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce. (This theory has declined in popularity since 1998, when astronomers reported evidence that the acceleration of the universe's expansion continues unabated.) <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9802/27/accelerating.universe/]</ref> To support the claim that the age of the universe is finite, [[Second law of thermodynamics implies the universe is of finite age|apologists also point to the second law of thermodynamics]] which seems to imply entropy would continue to rise. <ref name="enough-faith"/> However, there are several speculative theories as to how entropy might be reset in the early universe (and ignoring that makes the entropy argument an [[argument from ignorance]]). <ref>[https://arxiv.org/abs/0803.4484 Recollapsing quantum cosmologies and the question of entropy], 2008</ref> <br />
* The universe existed forever but somehow eventually developed into a Big Bang. Some models predict a beginning-less universe with no singularity but still featuring a Big Bang. <ref>[http://earthsky.org/space/what-if-the-universe-had-no-beginning]</ref><br />
* '''Cosmological natural selection''' is a speculative hypothesis proposed by Lee Smolin. Smolin speculates that every [[black hole]] might contain another universe inside it. Thus, our universe might be a black hole inside another universe. Each universe shares properties and fundamental constants with its "parent" universe, but may be slightly different. Thus--according to this theory--universes [[evolve]] over time, and the ones that are particularly well suited to produce black holes are the ones that thrive.<br />
* The '''multiverse''' hypothesis suggests that there are already multiple parallel universes, generated in a meta-universe. [[Chris Hedges]] called the multiverse "in its own way, a form of mysticism."<ref>[[I Don't Believe in Atheists]]</ref><br />
* There may be no such thing as a pre-Big Bang universe.<br />
**Our intuition about time is based on the environment we live in (and evolved in), with small accelerations and a relatively flat spacetime. In highly curved regions of spacetime, those intuitions break down.<br />
**As an analogy, "north" is a direction that is more or less constant in most cities. But the direction "north" in Los Angeles is not parallel to the direction "north" in Berlin because of the curvature of the earth. In fact, going north from any point will eventually lead to the north pole because the earth is a [[Circle means sphere|sphere]]. At the north pole itself there is no direction of "north" because every point around it is farther south than it is.<br />
**Similarly, "towards the past" is not a direction that is the same for every point in spacetime, but rather going back in time from any point leads back to the big bang. If there is no previous universe from which our universe sprung, it may be that there is a "past pole", or a finite region of spacetime around which every other point is farther in the future. It would be meaningless to talk about what happened before this time, because there would be no such thing as a "before" that. The universe would either be uncaused or the "cause" would be something that did not precede it in time.<br />
<br />
{{wikipedia|Cosmogony}}<br />
None of these concepts have been conclusively demonstrated, but they do illustrate that God isn't the only possible answer.<br />
<br />
==Apologetics==<br />
<br />
[[Creationist]]s often object to the Big Bang theory on the grounds that it removes [[God]]'s hand from [[creation]]. A common Creationist argument against it is the question "What caused the Big Bang?" and the closely related question "What happened before the Big Bang?". Various arguments rely on the universe having a beginning. This includes:<br />
<br />
* [[Cosmological argument]]<br />
* [[Kalam]]<br />
* [[Why is there something rather than nothing?]]<br />
* [[Fine tuning argument]]<br />
<br />
===Natural laws came into being at the Big Bang===<br />
<br />
{{quote|Now why would Jastrow and Eddington admit that there are “supernatural” forces at work? Why couldn’t natural forces have produced the universe? Because these scientists know as well as anyone that natural forces-indeed all of nature-were created at the Big Bang. <ref name="enough-faith">[[I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist]]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
No, scientists say that space and time were (probably) created in the Big Bang but they don't know what, if anything, came before. Saying that "supernatural forces" account for the Big Bang is wild speculation and an [[argument from ignorance]]. There could have been the same or even unknown natural forces that brought about the Big Bang. Apologists are falsely conflating "natural" with "the post-Big Bang universe".<br />
<br />
Apologists continue to apply the law of causality to the origin of universe. It is therefore inconsistent to say the natural laws came into effect at the Big Bang.<br />
<br />
{{quote|that is precisely why we can’t depend on the law of causality when it comes to the cause of the universe.<ref>[http://stevelikescurse.livejournal.com/560571.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===Counter-arguments===<br />
<br />
Apologist arguments assume far more than is currently known by science. Without their premises being established with any confidence, their conclusions are unreliable.<br />
<br />
As a historical note, it is interesting to see very obscure areas of reality being used for an argument for God. This is a sign of [[God of the gaps]] in that earlier arguments for God from natural phenomena where discarded as science found a naturalistic explanation.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Not all events necessarily have causes]]<br />
* [[The first cause implies God exists]]<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.livescience.com/1774-greatest-mysteries-universe.html Live science, ''Greatest Mysteries: How Did the Universe Begin?'']<br />
<br />
{{Science}}<br />
[[Category: Science]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Big_Bang&diff=44075Big Bang2023-12-29T15:47:34Z<p>TimSC: /* Did the universe have a beginning? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{wikipedia}}<br />
The '''Big Bang''' [[theory]] is the prevailing [[cosmological]] theory describing the evolution of our [[universe]] from a very early stage to the present. Religious acceptance of the concept varies between religions and denominations.<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, [[creationism|requires it]].|Pope Francis, head of the [[Catholic]] church <ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|... some theologians, at least, should be sufficiently well-versed in the sciences to make authentic and creative use of the resources that the best-established theories may offer them. Such an expertise would prevent them from making uncritical and overhasty use for apologetic purposes of such recent theories as that of the “Big Bang” in cosmology.|John Paul II<ref>John Paul II, 1997, pp. M11, M12</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Description==<br />
<br />
The Big Bang theory states that around 13.7 billion years ago the [[universe]] was condensed into an incredibly small, hot, dense "ball" of space and [[time]]. Some have speculated that it emerged from an infinitely dense and small object known as a singularity but most scientists prefer other hypotheses. <ref name="hawking-lecture" /><ref>PBS Space Time, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8gV05nS7mc Did Time Start at the Big Bang?], 18 Jul 2019</ref><br />
<br />
{{Wikipedia|Physical cosmology}}<br />
The name "Big Bang" is somewhat of a misnomer, since the universe did not expand in a conventional sense and didn't explode or produce sound as we normally understand it. The first fraction of a second saw significant changes in the way forces, matter and energy existed and was very unlike the universe as we currently observe it. The universe expanded very rapidly by a process called "inflation". As the expansion continued, the universe cooled, eventually reaching a point at which long lived particles of matter could "freeze out" of a mixture of mass and energy which was previously in continual flux and collide with each other to form the first simple atoms. Over billions of years, these particles combined to form "clouds" of matter which further condensed, because of gravitational attraction, into stars and planets. Atoms progressively formed "heavier" elements in stars through the process of nuclear fusion.<br />
<br />
{{wikipedia|Planck epoch}}<br />
The history of the universe can be described in some detail back to the instant approximately 10<sup>-43</sup> seconds after the big bang. What precisely occurred in the first 10<sup>-43</sup> seconds (the Planck epoch) is current unknown with many competing theories, due to our incomplete understanding of the interactions between the theories of gravitation and quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
==Did the universe have a beginning?==<br />
<br />
Perhaps. Or perhaps not.<br />
<br />
The existence of the singularity is speculative. Singularity theorems are proved within the theory of General Relativity, but under the prevailing conditions one has to consider quantum effects. No one knows how to do that rigorously, but it is generally believed that quantum mechanics would not allow a singularity. <ref>[https://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/21/did-the-universe-begin-with-a-singularity/]</ref> The co-author of the universe from singularity model, [[Stephen Hawking]], said: <ref name="hawking-lecture">Stephen Hawking, ''The Origin of the Universe'' [http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html]</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|[An] interpretation of our results, which is favored by most scientists, is that it indicates that the General Theory of Relativity breaks down in the very strong gravitational fields in the early universe. It has to be replaced by a more complete theory.}}<br />
<br />
There are several possibilities on what the real structure of existence may be. These include the idea that there are no boundaries at all, or that there is a sort of "fuzzy" boundary which is not a singularity. While a singularity or boundary are still possible, there is no good scientific reason in the present to suppose them. The universe may have pre-existed in some undiscovered state. This undermines the apologist's argument as this means there is no way to prove the existence of an "Unmoved Mover" or "First Event".<br />
<br />
{{quote|In the beginning, superstrings created higher-dimensional membranes, That's one story I have been told, but there are many others. Some physicists believe it started with a bang, others think it was a bounce, yet again others bet on bubbles. Some say everything began with a network. Some like the idea that it was a collision of sorts, or a timeless phase of absolute silence, or a gas of superstrings, or a five-dimensional black hole, or a new force of nature... These stories reach back so far in time that data are too sparse for astrophysicists to distinguish one tale from another, and this impasse be impossible to overcome.<ref>Sabine Hossenfelder, Existential Physics, 2022</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Events are ''[[Not all events necessarily have causes|usually]]'' preceded by earlier events. And yet, the singularity cannot be preceded by anything! How is this possible? Because the singularity isn't an "event" at all. The singularity is the limit of physical events. For an analogy, consider the series of numbers 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4... Each number in this series is followed by a smaller number, just like any event has a preceding event. If we follow the chain of numbers, it is easily seen that "at infinity" we reach the number 0. There is no actual Smallest Number within the series, however, and this is precisely why every given number in it is followed by a smaller one. The same is true for the singularity - it isn't a point in space-time, but rather a boundary of it. The singularity isn't a First State, there isn't a "First State". It isn't a state at all. Rather, it is the limit of states, with each state preceded by an earlier one. In other words, asking what came before the Big Bang could be equivalent to asking "what is north of the North Pole?"<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8gV05nS7mc Did Time Start at the Big Bang?]</ref><br />
<br />
An informed discussion of these issues is unfortunately beyond almost everyone, since the early universe was quite unlike the currently observed universe. Many of these issues are among the greatest unsolved problems of physics. <ref>Wikipedia, ''List of unsolved problems in physics'' [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics]]</ref><br />
<br />
=== No models predict an infinite universe ===<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|The fact is, there is no mathematically and physically tenable model of the universe which is extrapolable to past infinity. If Goldstein thinks otherwise, let her tell us the model. The bottom line is: physics doesn’t deal in possibilities. Possibilities come cheap. What we want to know is where the evidence points.|[[William Lane Craig]]<ref>[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/36-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
No ''known'' physical model has been confirmed to accurately predict the universe's earliest stages or origin. While most existing models appear to imply a finite age, we simply cannot confirm their correctness and known models are ''almost certainly'' incorrect because of the difficulty in reconciling the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics. There may be a correct model that corresponds to the actual universe having an infinite age that we simply has not discovered. We can only know a model is correct after appropriate observations, which are not possible at this time. Before Edwin Hubble’s observations, there were no tenable models of a finite aged universe, so it is quite possible scientific consensus may sift on this matter. Claiming that no known model exists for an infinite universe itself implies a finite universe is an [[argument from ignorance]]. <br />
<br />
The correct course in this case is to [[skepticism|suspend judgement]] until we can validate a model as being correct. The lack of a model does ''not'' imply physical impossibility. If [[William Lane Craig]] bases his arguments on a premise that cannot be feasibly verified, his conclusions should also be considered as tentative (at best).<br />
<br />
==Did the universe come from ''ex nihilo'' "nothing"?==<br />
<br />
There is a common misconception that the Big Bang means that the universe "came from nothing." This is a [[straw man]] argument. What occurred in the very early universe is still a mystery. What, if anything, came before the Big Bang is a mystery.<br />
<br />
Apologists claim that without God, the laws of [[thermodynamics]] would be violated. <ref>Jeff Miller, ''God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective'' [https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106]</ref> At this point, we do not even know if the universe is a close system, which is fundamental assumption of thermodynamics. Also, thermodynamics have not been validated in the very early universe; physicists are still struggling with much more basic problems.<br />
<br />
Since the energy of the universe may be zero, or close to it (gravatational energy is negative), the entire universe may be a long lived quantum fluctuation. <ref>[http://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html]</ref><br />
<br />
==How did the universe get its physical laws and constants?==<br />
<br />
Scientists don't know that either. Many have been traced back to very fundamental principles, such as the laws of physics are invariant of the point of view of the observer, in a field of physics called gauge theory. <ref>[http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3662/]</ref> Physics can only hope to trace physical laws into a simple, unified set of principles called the "theory of everything" or ToE. However, we may never discover the ToE or the ToE might not even exist. If the ToE exists, it might be a "[[Not all events necessarily have causes|brute fact]]". If the ToE exists, and it is not a "brute fact", it is questionable [[What is an "explanation"?"|what we mean]] by an "explanation" for the ToE. <br />
<br />
No doubt, if the ToE is discovered, it will be used as another cosmological argument for God. The existence of natural physical laws is used in the [[natural-law argument]].<br />
<br />
Arguing that the parameters of the universe, such as the strength of gravity, are somehow significant is the [[fine-tuning argument]].<br />
<br />
==Speculations on the pre-Big Bang universe==<br />
{{wikipedia|Cyclic model}}<br />
{{wikipedia|Cosmological natural selection}}<br />
{{wikipedia|Multiverse}}<br />
{{quote|Relating to the big bang theory... Where did the exploding star come from? <ref>[https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio?utm_term=.sq9mKpADKp#2391850 22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution], Buzzfeed, February 5, 2014</ref>}}<br />
<br />
* The '''cyclic model''' or '''oscillatory universe''' is the hypothesis, attributable to Richard Tolman from 1934, that the universe undergoes an infinite series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch. After the big bang, the universe expands for a while before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce. (This theory has declined in popularity since 1998, when astronomers reported evidence that the acceleration of the universe's expansion continues unabated.) <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9802/27/accelerating.universe/]</ref> To support the claim that the age of the universe is finite, [[Second law of thermodynamics implies the universe is of finite age|apologists also point to the second law of thermodynamics]] which seems to imply entropy would continue to rise. <ref name="enough-faith"/> However, there are several speculative theories as to how entropy might be reset in the early universe (and ignoring that makes the entropy argument an [[argument from ignorance]]). <ref>[https://arxiv.org/abs/0803.4484 Recollapsing quantum cosmologies and the question of entropy], 2008</ref> <br />
* The universe existed forever but somehow eventually developed into a Big Bang. Some models predict a beginning-less universe with no singularity but still featuring a Big Bang. <ref>[http://earthsky.org/space/what-if-the-universe-had-no-beginning]</ref><br />
* '''Cosmological natural selection''' is a speculative hypothesis proposed by Lee Smolin. Smolin speculates that every [[black hole]] might contain another universe inside it. Thus, our universe might be a black hole inside another universe. Each universe shares properties and fundamental constants with its "parent" universe, but may be slightly different. Thus--according to this theory--universes [[evolve]] over time, and the ones that are particularly well suited to produce black holes are the ones that thrive.<br />
* The '''multiverse''' hypothesis suggests that there are already multiple parallel universes, generated in a meta-universe. [[Chris Hedges]] called the multiverse "in its own way, a form of mysticism."<ref>[[I Don't Believe in Atheists]]</ref><br />
* There may be no such thing as a pre-Big Bang universe.<br />
**Our intuition about time is based on the environment we live in (and evolved in), with small accelerations and a relatively flat spacetime. In highly curved regions of spacetime, those intuitions break down.<br />
**As an analogy, "north" is a direction that is more or less constant in most cities. But the direction "north" in Los Angeles is not parallel to the direction "north" in Berlin because of the curvature of the earth. In fact, going north from any point will eventually lead to the north pole because the earth is a [[Circle means sphere|sphere]]. At the north pole itself there is no direction of "north" because every point around it is farther south than it is.<br />
**Similarly, "towards the past" is not a direction that is the same for every point in spacetime, but rather going back in time from any point leads back to the big bang. If there is no previous universe from which our universe sprung, it may be that there is a "past pole", or a finite region of spacetime around which every other point is farther in the future. It would be meaningless to talk about what happened before this time, because there would be no such thing as a "before" that. The universe would either be uncaused or the "cause" would be something that did not precede it in time.<br />
<br />
{{wikipedia|Cosmogony}}<br />
None of these concepts have been conclusively demonstrated, but they do illustrate that God isn't the only possible answer.<br />
<br />
==Apologetics==<br />
<br />
[[Creationist]]s often object to the Big Bang theory on the grounds that it removes [[God]]'s hand from [[creation]]. A common Creationist argument against it is the question "What caused the Big Bang?" and the closely related question "What happened before the Big Bang?". Various arguments rely on the universe having a beginning. This includes:<br />
<br />
* [[Cosmological argument]]<br />
* [[Kalam]]<br />
* [[Why is there something rather than nothing?]]<br />
* [[Fine tuning argument]]<br />
<br />
===Natural laws came into being at the Big Bang===<br />
<br />
{{quote|Now why would Jastrow and Eddington admit that there are “supernatural” forces at work? Why couldn’t natural forces have produced the universe? Because these scientists know as well as anyone that natural forces-indeed all of nature-were created at the Big Bang. <ref name="enough-faith">[[I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist]]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
No, scientists say that space and time were (probably) created in the Big Bang but they don't know what, if anything, came before. Saying that "supernatural forces" account for the Big Bang is wild speculation and an [[argument from ignorance]]. There could have been the same or even unknown natural forces that brought about the Big Bang. Apologists are falsely conflating "natural" with "the post-Big Bang universe".<br />
<br />
Apologists continue to apply the law of causality to the origin of universe. It is therefore inconsistent to say the natural laws came into effect at the Big Bang.<br />
<br />
{{quote|that is precisely why we can’t depend on the law of causality when it comes to the cause of the universe.<ref>[http://stevelikescurse.livejournal.com/560571.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===Counter-arguments===<br />
<br />
Apologist arguments assume far more than is currently known by science. Without their premises being established with any confidence, their conclusions are unreliable.<br />
<br />
As a historical note, it is interesting to see very obscure areas of reality being used for an argument for God. This is a sign of [[God of the gaps]] in that earlier arguments for God from natural phenomena where discarded as science found a naturalistic explanation.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Not all events necessarily have causes]]<br />
* [[The first cause implies God exists]]<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.livescience.com/1774-greatest-mysteries-universe.html Live science, ''Greatest Mysteries: How Did the Universe Begin?'']<br />
<br />
{{Science}}<br />
[[Category: Science]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Explanation&diff=44074Explanation2023-12-29T01:36:08Z<p>TimSC: /* God as an explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{wikipedia}}<br />
{{talk-origins|http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH001.html|Creationism is explanatory}}<br />
{{talk-origins|http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI002.html|Intelligent design has explanatory power}}<br />
[[Image:Fixion.png|thumb|The spoof "fixion" particle is not a good explanation because it does not make any testable predictions or say any state of affairs is impossible. It has equal validity as saying "God did it".]]<br />
An '''explanation''' is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts.<br />
<br />
The requirement that an explanation actually ''clarify'' the phenomenon under consideration is an important one: simply stated, an explanation of a given phenomenon must be based on ''better understood'' phenomena, not less understood ones. An explanation based on known phenomena usually allows for it to be tested and [[Falsifiability|potentially falsified]].<br />
<br />
==Teleological explanations==<br />
{{wikipedia|Teleology}}<br />
<br />
Teleological explanations of phenomena are based on its goal, purpose or intention by some intelligent agent. This is often problematic because an intelligent agent is often a complex system that is difficult to observe and understand. Good explanations are based on ''known'' entities. Of course, many things can be explained in terms of intentions, such as human relationships. However, other phenomena like gravity, [[evolution]], radioactivity and optics are better understood by physical laws rather than teleology. <br />
<br />
As far as can be determined, intelligent agents are subject to uniform physical laws. For this reason, physical laws are more fundamental and are to be preferred as explanations, when they are available.<br />
<br />
Teleological explanations are generally human inventions and are subjective.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Seven and eight-year olds agree with teleological statements such as “Rocks are jagged so animals can scratch themselves” and “Birds exist to make nice music”. <ref>[https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16687-humans-may-be-primed-to-believe-in-creation/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|When you go to a car mechanic, do you go to one that does a séance to rid your car of evil spirits? Or do you go to a car mechanic that looks for real and physical reasons that your car doesn't work? <ref>[http://www.christianforums.com/threads/what-is-love.7890742/#post-68042102]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|For the heathen Scandinavians, [...] lightning was the embodiment of [Thor's] hammer slaying giants <ref>[http://norse-mythology.org/gods-and-creatures/the-aesir-gods-and-goddesses/thor/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===God as an explanation===<br />
<br />
The lack of a clear human comprehension of God, including his nature, attributes and existence, is why "God did it" is not a sound explanation of anything. For example, to explain the origin of [[human being]]s with the account in [[Genesis]] is to assume many entities and occurrences that are poorly understood, cannot be investigated further and provides no testable predictions. A non-predictive explanation is irrelevant to human existence. On the other hand, biology and [[evolution]] is relatively well understood and provides an explanation that can make future predictions. Because an explanation is predictive, it is also potentially useful.<br />
<br />
God as an explanation also suffers from [[infinite regress]] because the explanation is more mysterious than the original phenomena and therefore requires a further explanation.<ref>Secular Talk, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQESa88NIjU The Best Argument For Atheism]</ref> This is the basis for the [[ultimate 747 gambit]]. An true explanation for something needs to be in terms of ''known'' entities, not unknown entities.<br />
<br />
If God is an acceptable explanation for any phenomena, [[Broken compass argument|then so is]] [[Thor]], fairies and the Easter bunny.<br />
<br />
{{quote|How does saying “God did it” explain any of these things? How does “God did it” offer a solution to any of the problems that philosophers and scientists are working on? When you’re confronted with a difficult problem, you can’t just say “Well, I guess it was magic.” That doesn’t solve anything! <ref>[http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8854]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|God is a too palpably clumsy answer; an answer which shows a lack of delicacy towards us thinkers—fundamentally, even a crude prohibition to us: you shall not think!|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|One question was “Why is phosphorus trichloride (PhCl3) polar?” The answer, given by a student who appears devout but too lazy to study for a chemistry exam, was “Because God made it that way.” Presumably, the answer was marked wrong. But just why was it wrong? If “Because God made it that way” is wrong on a chemistry exam, why should it be an acceptable answer to ANY empirical question? <ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2010/01/19/because-god-made-it-that-way/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|For example, if you say, if I ask you "how did the universe come [into existence]" and you say "God created it," that doesn't answer the question. The question is "how did God create it". And I defy any theist to define how God created it.<ref>Gordon Stein in [https://web.archive.org/web/20060212052032/http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf The Great Debate: Does God Exist? Dr. Greg Bahnsen versus Dr. Gordon Stein], At the University of California, Irvine, 1985</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|... the God hypothesis has no quantifiable explanatory power. You can't calculate anything from it. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it unscientific.<ref>Sabine Hossenfelder, Existential Physics, 2022</ref>}}<br />
<br />
A claim that "a phenomenon requests X to explain it" that simply "pushes the question of origin up a level" fails to address that if -- on one level -- a certain observable set of rules is in effect, that other level is required to circumvent these rules and therefore is a necessary addition to the theory.<br />
<br />
===Physical laws as explanations===<br />
{{wikipedia|Four causes}}<br />
Some apologists claim that physical laws do not explain anything because they do not address the "[[efficient cause]]" or the "[[final cause]]"/teleological basis. This argument goes back at least to [[Francis Bacon]] in his ''Advancement of Learning'' (1605).<br />
<br />
{{quote|in no way does it follow that merely ''describing how something was made'' amounts to an ''explanation'' of the cause for that something. Atheists here confuse ''scientific description'' with ''explanation''. Bold declarations from atheists that “science explains things without the need for God” therefore amount to a category error. <ref>[http://godevidence.com/2015/12/secular-myth/?utm_content=buffercd25c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This attempts to separate physical causes from explanations based on intelligent agents. However, intelligent agents are also explainable, at least to an extent, by social sciences and psychology. Ultimately, everything seems to depend on universal physical laws and, as far as can be determined, are explainable in these terms.<br />
<br />
Final causes and teleological explanations are generally human inventions and are subjective. They do not represent any reality that is not ultimately explainable by physical laws, because humans are also subject to the same physical laws.<br />
<br />
"Efficient cause" is concept developed by [[Aristotle]] that usually points to the intelligent agent that triggered the phenomena in question. It suffers from similar shortcomings as "final cause" explanations.<br />
<br />
==Explanations as predictive systems==<br />
<br />
[[Karl Popper]] argued that explanations should be ''predictive'' to be considered as scientific. Since God can allegedly do anything, he is a poor explanation since it does not rule out any possibilities and provides no predictions that can be practically verified.<br />
<br />
==Tautological explanations==<br />
<br />
Some explanations simply restate the problem they try to explain. Such explanations are not meaningfully helpful.<br />
<br />
{{quote|opium induces sleep by virtue of its soporific power}}<br />
<br />
Since they are examples of [[circular reasoning]], they may be [[Validity vs. soundness|valid but not necessarily sound]] explanations.<br />
<br />
==Principle of sufficient reason==<br />
{{main article|Principle of sufficient reason}}<br />
<br />
It is often assumed that everything has an explanation, at least in principle. However, this is only an assertion and is not easy to demonstrate. It is possible that [[brute facts]] exist that have no explanation.<br />
<br />
==Auxiliary hypothesises==<br />
{{main article|The Dragon In My Garage}}<br />
<br />
A good explanation should not require repeated modification to avoid its refutation. [[Karl Popper]] argued that potential [[falsifiability]] is a requirement of any scientific explanation. Apologists are often advancing new [[ad hoc]] arguments to justify the untestability of God.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Scientific method]]<br />
* [[Argument from ignorance]]<br />
* [[Not all events necessarily have causes]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
* [http://xkcd.com/1621/ Xkcd's "Fixion" explains everything] - satire on bad explanations.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Philosophy]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Jesus_Christ&diff=44073Jesus Christ2023-12-25T19:03:12Z<p>TimSC: /* External links */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{wikipedia}}<br />
{{sab|http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/JesusHChrist.html|What was Jesus H. Christ's real name?}}<br />
{{RationalWiki|http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ|Jesus}}<br />
[[Image:CompositeJesus.JPG|thumb|right|upright|There is little agreement as to what Jesus looked like.]]<br />
According to the Bible, '''Jesus Christ''' (6–4 BCE to 30–33 CE) was a religious teacher and [[Judaism|Jewish]] reformer. His name literally means "The Anointed Savior".<ref name="jesuspuzzle">[https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity], 2002</ref> There are [[The Bible is not a reliable historical source|no primary sources]] that record his biographic information or teachings. His life and death is recorded in the [[Gospel]]s, written several decades after his death. Historians generally consider the stories about Jesus to be partially or largely fictitious, while other historians argue that [[Existence of Jesus|Jesus is entirely mythical]]. If he existed, his influence gave rise to [[Christianity]].<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|For God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten son, so that whosoever believe in him will have everlasting life|{{bible|John 3:16}}}}<br />
<br />
According to the [[Bible]], Jesus performed [[miracle]]s, such as walking on water, curing the blind, and [[resurrection|raising the dead]]. He also commanded great respect from his disciples. The [[Bible]] claims he was crucified by the Romans and was [[Resurrection|resurrected]] on the third day after. According to [[Christian]] doctrine, Jesus is both "Only [[begotten]] Son of [[God]]" and an incarnation of [[God]], who came to [[Jesus died for your sins|die for the sins of man]], so that all people may have everlasting life in [[heaven]]. The Bible states that Jesus was a craftsman or carpenter. {{Bible|Mark 6:3}}<br />
<br />
==Historical Jesus==<br />
{{main article|Existence of Jesus}}<br />
Today, there exists no historical documentation for Jesus' life beyond the Biblical [[Gospel]], [[Acts]] and the [[epistles]], and it is likely that these accounts were not written by eyewitnesses. This lack of evidence makes it very difficult to discern actual historical facts behind the Christian stories that describe him. This, however, has not stopped scholars from defending the existence of a historical Jesus, as well as specific views of who Jesus was.<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. <ref name="5reasons"/>|[[Bart Ehrman]]}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons. <ref name="5reasons">[http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/here-are-5-reasons-to-suspect-jesus-never-existed/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|So this is the state of the Gospels: Four contradictory, convoluted and reworked writings set down decades after the supposed events by unknown author or authors falsely being passed off as eyewitnesses<ref name="fitz">[[David Fitzgerald]], [http://www.nazarethmyth.info/Fitzgerald2010HM.pdf]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Some [[atheist]]s consider discussion of a historical Jesus to be a [[red herring]] and argue that, while a person named Jesus may or may not have existed, there is clearly no reason to believe that he had special powers, was the son of God, or performed miracles. Even if it could be firmly established that Jesus, the man, existed, this would not be evidence for the extraordinary claims that make up the foundation of the Christian religion.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Jesus was a guy who was a peaceful, radical, nonviolent revolutionary, who hung around with lepers, hookers, and criminals, who never spoke English, was not an American citizen, a man who was anti-capitalism, anti-wealth, anti-public prayer (YES HE WAS {{Bible|Matthew 6:5}}), anti-death penalty but never once remotely anti-gay, didn’t mention abortion, didn’t mention premarital sex, a man who never justified torture, who never called the poor ‘lazy’, who never asked a leper for a co-pay, who never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes, who was a long haired, brown skinned (that’s in revelations), homeless, middle eastern Jew?<ref>[https://on-this-rock.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/a-reply-to-john-fugelsang.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
We don't know the exact dates for most biographical events from the life of Jesus, unlike many other events in ancient history.<ref name="fitz"/> We also don't know many of the locations in the narrative, some of which are only mentioned in the Gospels.<ref name="fitz"/><br />
<br />
===Mythic Jesus===<br />
{{main article|Mythicism}}<br />
A few well-publicized writers have argued that Jesus probably never existed. Although, these scholars are in a minority amid Biblical scholarship circles. Examples include G. A. Wells and Earl Doherty. A major argument against the historicity of Jesus is that Paul's letters seem to show no awareness of such an individual (see {{Bible|Hebrews 8:4}}). This is disputed by other scholars, however, who argue that Paul's letters contain clear references to a historical Jesus.<br />
<br />
==Actions==<br />
===Miracles===<br />
[[Image:FeedingMultitudes Bernardo.jpg|right|thumb|upright|Jesus and the miracle of the feeding of the multitudes]]<br />
{{main article|Argument from scriptural miracles}}<br />
There is almost no evidence for the [[miracle]]s of Jesus outside the hearsay reports of the Gospels. For this reason, there is no basis for accepting that he worked actual miracles. On the other hand, [[faith healing|faith healings]] and exorcisms happen today, though investigations show there is no reason to regard them as actual supernatural events. This suggests a possibility that Jesus was a fraudulent or self-deceived wonder worker and there were witnesses who really believed they had seen him work miracles.<br />
<br />
Unlike Jesus' other miracles, Paul mentions post-[[resurrection]] appearances of Jesus in I Corinthians. Unlike the Gospels, I Corinthians probably was written by its traditionally assigned author. However, the reference provides no better evidence for the resurrection than the evidence for angelical authentication of the Book of the Mormon. It is also not the sort of evidence that many psychical researchers would demand for the existence of ghosts or telepathy.<br />
<br />
===Jesus died for our sins===<br />
{{main article|Jesus died for your sins}}<br />
[[File:RabulaGospelsCrucifixion.jpg|thumb|upright|right|Depiction of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus in a 6th century illuminated manuscript]]<br />
{{wikipedia|substitutionary atonement}}<br />
[[Christianity|Christians]] believe that Jesus died for our sins by [[human sacrifice]] as a form of replacement sacrifice {{Bible|Romans 4:25}}. [[Sin]] is said to carry a penalty or punishment. Jesus took on that punishment for the sins of mankind on himself. Exactly how a replacement sacrifice is in any way just is difficult to explain.<br />
<br />
Why did Jesus wait so long to arrive? If Jesus truly is the only path to [[salvation]], then people lived and died for thousands of years with no chance to escape hell.<br />
<br />
===Resurrection and possible claim of divinity===<br />
{{sab|http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/firstborn.html|Who was God's firstborn son?}}<br />
{{main article|Christological argument}}<br />
Perhaps the most fundamental belief of Christianity is the [[resurrection]] of Jesus. There are no reliable testimony of the resurrection.<br />
<br />
Jesus claimed to be [[King of the Jews]] {{Bible|Mark 15:2}}, [[Son of Man]] {{Bible|Mark 14:62}} and [[son of God]] {{Bible|John 10:36}}. However, Jesus not explicitly claim to ''be'' God or divine in the [[New Testament]]. Arguably, the clearest claim was {{Bible|John 8:58}} saying "Before [[Abraham]] was, I am". Even this could be interpreted as Jesus "merely" claiming to be superior to Abraham and his words only have a passing resemblance to "I am what I am" {{Bible|Exodus 3:14}} which would imply divinity. <ref>[http://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/john-858-did-jesus-really-say-i-am.html]</ref> Apologists claim that Jesus often implied that he was God, particularly by allowing believers to worship him and his forgiveness of sins. <ref>[http://www.gotquestions.org/is-Jesus-God.html]</ref> However, the outrage caused by Jesus may have been simply due to his claim that he was Son of God rather than actually being God. At the trial at [[Caiaphas]]'s house, Jesus was accused of claiming to be "son of God" not "God". The sign put on the cross was "King of the Jews" not "God" {{Bible|John 19:19}}. The lack of an explicit claim of Godhood by Jesus and the lack of accusations of this specific claim by his critics in most or all [[gospel]]s is a rather striking omission. One theory is that the concept of the [[divinity of Jesus]] was added by later interpreters and authors. This manipulation of the New Testament may have occurred progressively and begin in the 1st century <ref>Peter Cresswell, ''The Invention of Jesus: How the Church Rewrote the New Testament'', 2013</ref>. <br />
<br />
Even the [[epistles]] do not clearly address the issue but certainly begin to imply the divinity of Jesus. In a handful of cases, early Christians proclaiming Jesus is God and Jesus does not comment further on the matter {{Bible|John 20:28}} {{Bible|Hebrews 1:8}}, which is hardly a compelling or unequivocal message.<br />
<br />
Apologists attempt to reconcile the lack of a divinity claim with their beliefs by pointing out that if Jesus was divine, he may have not known his own divinity or he only realised his divinity later in life. <ref>[http://carm.org/when-did-jesus-know-that-he-was-god]</ref> It is unclear how Jesus could be unaware of being God, given that God is supposedly [[omniscient]].<br />
<br />
Jesus did not even claim to be the ''only'' son of God. This idea was added later and incorporated into the concept of the [[Trinity]]. The term "son of God" is mentioned in several other places in the [[Bible]] and refers to various holy people <ref>[http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess037.htm]</ref> Therefore, being a "son of God" (or claiming to be one) does not automatically imply being God.<br />
<br />
==Teachings==<br />
<br />
Many Christian apologists have claimed that the high quality of Jesus' moral teachings is undisputed and is [[Christological argument|evidence of his divinity]]. However, Jesus' status as a moral teacher has been disputed on many occasions. <br />
<br />
===Good stuff===<br />
<br />
The teachings of Jesus on forgiveness, tolerance, charity, non-violence and anti-materialism are arguably more relevant than ever.<br />
<br />
It should be noted that some secularists hold very positive views of Jesus' ethics. For example, there is a website called Atheists for Jesus <ref>[http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/]</ref> whose stated mission is "to provide a method of communication between religious and nonreligious people who believe in the message of love and kindness put forth by Jesus". It also argues that Jesus' actual teachings were at odds with the stance of modern Christian fundamentalists.<br />
<br />
In chapter 7 of his book ''[[The God Delusion]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] praised Jesus because:<br />
<br />
{{quote|[he] was not content to derive his ethics from the scriptures of his upbringing. [...] Since a principle thesis of this chapter is that we do not, and should not, derive our morals from scripture, Jesus has to be honoured as a model for that very thesis.}}<br />
<br />
However, this is questionable since Jesus said he did not come to abolish Old Testament law. {{Bible|Matthew 5:18}}<br />
<br />
===Criticism===<br />
<br />
Jesus taught that evil should not be resisted, which is grossly negligent. {{Bible|Matthew 5:39}}<br />
<br />
[[Friedrich Nietzsche]] was critical of his teaching on weakness and [[Christian victimhood|victimhood]] being virtues, as Jesus taught in the [[Beatitudes]]. He also criticised Jesus for waging war against human instincts:<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|And if your right eye offend you, pluck it out|{{Bible|Matthew 5:29}}}}<br />
<br />
In [[Why I Am Not a Christian]], [[Bertrand Russell]] argued that while many of Jesus' teachings were good, the Gospels clearly portray him as believing in [[Problem of Hell|eternal punishment]], and this is [[The scriptural God is unworthy of worship|unbecoming of a truly humane person]]. Jesus taught that [[hell]] existed and people are sent there {{Bible|Luke 16:22-28}}. This is [[Problem of Hell|eternal punishment after death]] for finite crimes. In contrast, the Old Testament refers to [[Sheol]] which does not imply eternal punishment.<br />
<br />
Dawkins criticizes New Testament ethics on the issues of [[original sin]] and Jesus' demand that people must abandon their families to follow him.<br />
<br />
Jesus teaches to take no thought for the future ({{Bible|Matthew 6:25-34}} {{Bible|Luke 12:22-31}}), which is a very reckless attitude. He also taught that what is esteemed among men (strength, wisdom, etc.) is of little worth:<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.|{{Bible|Luke 16:15}}}}<br />
<br />
Jesus also praised being child-like {{Bible|Matthew 19:14}}. Many of these difficult teachings are [[Selective use of the New Testament|ignored by Christians]].<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Oh, that some one would save them from their Saviour!|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]}}<br />
<br />
===Omissions===<br />
<br />
Since Jesus focused a great deal on individual behaviour in the context of his time, he neglected to provide guidance on important issues of our age. He did not teach many of the principles that are now usually considered fundamental to modern life: <ref>God is imaginary, [http://godisimaginary.com/i35.htm Proof #35 - Notice Jesus' myopia]</ref><br />
<br />
* He did not abolish [[slavery]].<br />
* He did not explicitly support racial or gender equality.<br />
* Nothing on education, science policy, health care, child labour or employment.<br />
* Nothing on human rights, fair trials or free speech.<br />
* He seemed disinterested in politics, governmental systems, earthly justice systems, personal weapon ownership and macro-economics.<br />
* Nothing on toleration of [[homosexuality]].<br />
* Very little on [[Christian attitudes to sexuality|sexuality]]. Nothing on [[contraception]].<br />
* No special knowledge on relativity, [[evolution]], the [[big bang]], atomic theory or even world geography.<br />
* No view on art and culture.<br />
* Very little advice on inter-personal relationships (beyond loving everyone) and child raising.<br />
* No guidance on alcohol or recreational drugs.<br />
* Next to nothing on medical ethics, [[abortion]] or [[stem cell research]].<br />
* Nothing explicit on the [[Trinity]].<br />
* Little on the organisation and operation of the institutional church. (It's almost as if Jesus did not intend there to be any such institution!)<br />
<br />
If the [[Bible]] was intended to be a useful guide to life, it is spectacularly deficient in many areas. We should have a higher expectation of a book that was supposedly divinely inspired. Christians often try to extrapolate from the teachings of Jesus to justify their views on contemporary issues but this is of questionable validity. In terms of guidance for the modern age, the [[epistles]] strangely have more to say than Jesus of the [[gospel]]s, although they [[Differences between the Gospels and the epistles|differ from Jesus in a number of areas]].<br />
<br />
===Teachings compared to other thinkers===<br />
<br />
[[Richard Carrier]] has argued that the Roman Stoic philosopher [[Musonius Rufus]] (born 20 AD–30 AD, died as late as 101 AD) was a better moral teacher than Jesus. <ref>[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/musonius.html]</ref> Among other things, Carrier cites Rufus' belief in equality for slaves and his belief that "freedom of speech means not suppressing whatever one chances to think."<br />
<br />
===Jesus only came for Jews===<br />
<br />
Jesus claimed he was only interested in reforming Judaism and therefore he was not interested in non-Jewish (gentile) believers, who he compared to "dogs". {{Bible|Matthew 15:21-28}} {{Bible|Matthew 10:5-6}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|it is clear that Jesus’ focus was on reforming Israel, not bringing his kingdom message to the rest of the world <ref>[http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2013/01/28/why-did-jesus-say-he-came-only-for-israel/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Based on this, Jesus was not interested in non-Jewish believers, which means the entirety of Christianity is based on a lie!<br />
<br />
The contradictory idea that Jesus came for non-Jews was an invention in the later chapters, primarily [[Acts]] and the epistles {{Bible|1 John 2:2}}. The accounts of Jesus changing his mind after his resurrection to teach his message to the whole world ({{Bible|Matthew 28:18-20}}) were probably added to the story by the early Christian church to suit their agenda. Modern apologists claim that the later writings in the [[New Testament]] are valid and justify their belief that [[Jesus]] is relevant to gentiles and Christians. <ref>[http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Jews-only.html]</ref><br />
<br />
===Imminent end of the world===<br />
<br />
Jesus believed the world would end within his lifetime, and is based on numerous passages within the Gospels, such as {{Bible|Mark 13}}, where Jesus at least seems to express such a view. It makes sense within the context of the general apocalyptic fervor of the time, as well as the beliefs of [[John the baptist]] and early Christians such as [[Paul]] and the author of the [[book of Revelation]]. Its most famous proponent was Albert Schweitzer. Since the publication of Schweitzer's book ''The Quest of the Historical Jesus'' in 1906, it has been embraced by a large number of Biblical scholars. Modern proponents include Dale Allison, Bart Ehrman, Gerd Ludemann, and E. P. Sanders.<br />
<br />
The [[Jesus Seminar]] argued that there are passages in the Gospels where Jesus expressed the view that the Kingdom of Heaven was not something that was coming through radical future changes but existed at the time in a [[spiritual]] sense. An apocalyptic interpretation of Jesus may have been invented by later Christians.<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, He certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove that. He says, for instance: ‘Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come.’ Then He says: ‘There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom’; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of His earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching. When He said, ‘Take no thought for the morrow,’ and things of that sort, it was very largely because He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count. I have, as a matter of fact, known some Christians who did believe that the second coming was imminent. I knew a parson who frightened his congregation terribly by telling them that the second coming was very imminent indeed, but they were much consoled when they found that he was planting trees in his garden. The early Christians did really believe it, and they did abstain from such things as planting trees in their gardens, because they did accept from Christ the belief that the second coming was imminent. In that respect clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and he was certainly not superlatively wise.|[[Bertrand Russell]]<ref>[https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (1927)]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Identity==<br />
<br />
According to the Bible, Jesus was raised by [[Joseph]] and [[Mary (mother of Jesus)|Mary]]. Many historians consider [[James the Just]] to be Jesus's full or half brother. The Bible mentions other brothers and sisters but these may or may not have been referring to their status in the religious community.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Matthew, Mark, Paul, Josephus, and Hegesippus all appear to say that James was a full brother, and most modern scholars have reached the same conclusion. <ref>[http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/james-the-just.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===Naming===<br />
<br />
"Jesus" is the anglicised version of the Latin ''Iesus'', from the Greek ''Iesous'', from the Hebrew ''Yeshua'' (which translates 'salvation'), from which we get the modern westernised name Joshua (in Hebrew, Yehoshua, derived from same root as Yeshua; translates 'YHWH is salvation').<br />
<br />
"Christ" is the anglicised version of the Greek word ''christos'', which is a translation of the Hebrew word ''Mashiach'' (Messiah), meaning "[one who is] anointed". Contrary to the popular opinion, Christ isn't a reference to Jesus' family or surname in the modern western tradition. ''Christ'' refers to the state of being "annointed" (a common reference to being a teacher or priest or some form of authority). Many Christian sects refer to him as Christ Jesus.<br />
<br />
More precisely, he should be referred to as ''Jesus the Christ''. As a person, he is normally referred to as ''Jesus of Nazareth''.<br />
<br />
===Birth===<br />
[[Image:Encaustic Virgin.jpg|right|thumb|upright|Mary and Jesus, icon dated to around 600 C.E.]]<br />
Jesus was the son of [[Mary (mother of Jesus)]], who according to the Bible was a virgin. {{Bible|Matthew 1:18-23}} This was likely invented to fulfil the prophesy in {{Bible|Isaiah 7:14}}.<br />
<br />
====Year of birth====<br />
{{sab|http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/jesus_born.html|When was Jesus born?}}<br />
Jesus was from [[Nazareth]] {{Bible|Luke 4:16}}. However, prophecy required that Jesus should be associated with the royal house of [[David]] and Jesus's birth in [[Bethlehem]] needed to be added to the myth. The Bible claims that Jesus's parents travelled to Bethlehem as part of a [[Census of Quirinius|mandatory Roman census]] that required men to return to the town of their birth (which is itself absurd). The Bible says Jesus was born in the reign of Herod the Great {{Bible|Matthew 2:1}}, i.e. before Herod the Death's death in 4 BC. The census was conducted in 6/7 CE when Quirinius was governor of Syria {{Bible|Luke 2:2}}. Therefore the census could not have been the reason for Joseph to return to Bethlehem since it occurred 10 years after the birth of Jesus! A common apologetic response to the discrepancy is to suppose that perhaps Quirinius served as legate to Syria twice, thus allowing his earlier service to coincide with the life of Herod the Great. This is unlikely, however because:<br />
<br />
* Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was fighting some two provinces to the east from 12 BCE to 1 BC so he could not have effectively done a census during this time.<br />
<br />
* Publius Quinctilius Varus oversaw the area covered by Herod the Great's kingdom from c. 8 BCE to 4 BCE as documented by Josephus.<br />
<br />
* In ''Antiquities'' chapter 17 verse 27 Josephus expressly stated as long as Herod the Great lived the province of Judea was exempt from Roman taxation. Ergo Luke's taxation census ''must'' have occurred after Herod's death while Matthew requires it to have happened before.<br />
<br />
Based on these three facts there is [[The Bible is not a reliable historical source|no way to reconcile Luke and Matthew]].<br />
<br />
====Time of year====<br />
<br />
Traditionally on [[December 25th]], although the [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] refuse to celebrate Christmas for the reason that the gospels suggest that sheep were still out in the fields suggesting that it wasn't the start of winter (among other reasons). In fact, the December 25 date was by Emperor decree to compete with the popular Sol Invictus worship and first appears on a Roman calendar in 334 CE. Before the decree there was much debate regarding when Jesus was born. Tertullian (c 160–220 CE) and Hippolytus (c 170-235 CE) said March 25; Clement (c 150-215 CE) said May 20, some were saying January 6 (the birthday of [[Osiris]]), and still others pointed to the Essenes whose couples had sex in December so their child would be born September (the holy month of Atonement).<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20100804025628/http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=2 "Born on December 25th" Jesus Police (Internet Archive)]</ref><br />
<br />
===Jesus' Race and Ancestry===<br />
{{wikipedia|Race and appearance of Jesus}}<br />
{{sab|http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/jesus_dad.html|Was Joseph the father of Jesus?}}<br />
[[Image:Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) - The Last Supper (1495-1498) Jesus cutout.jpg|thumb|right|A traditional but inaccurate depiction of Jesus in Leonado da Vinci's painting "The Last Supper"]]<br />
<br />
Jesus, if he existed, would have been a dark/olive skinned Jew with short hair. According to the Bible, Jesus was descended from King [[David]] via Joseph (however, Joseph is not claimed to be Jesus's biological father). The exact ancestry is debatable because the [[Biblical genealogies|genealogies in the Bible]] are inconsistent.<br />
<br />
The debate about the appearance of Jesus has continued for centuries. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3958241.stm So what colour was Jesus?]</ref> Traditionally, white skinned people represent Jesus with Leonado da Vinci's painting being typical in Western countries. He is often shown as white, long haired and blue eyed. However, other churches around the world depict him differently, such as having black skin in the early Ethiopian church.<br />
<br />
{{quote|The first images of Jesus as an adult date back to the fourth century, showing him with short hair, a beard and “melanated” skin, [Franchesa] Ramsey said.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jesus-wasnt-white-and-heres-why-that-matters_us_567968c9e4b014efe0d6bea5]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Jesus was a white man too.|Megyn Kelly <ref>[https://youtu.be/DBn2wIQWoB8?t=3m58s]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|The scholarly consensus is actually that Jesus was, like most first-century Jews, probably a dark-skinned man.<ref>[http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/insisting-jesus-was-white-is-bad-history-and-bad-theology/282310/ Insisting Jesus Was White Is Bad History and Bad Theology]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Islamic view==<br />
<br />
Jesus is mentioned many times in the [[Qur'an]] in which he is referred to by the name '''Isa'''. Islam affirms some of the conventional Christian beliefs, such his miracles and being the son of [[Mary (mother of Jesus)|Mary]], but denies he was anything other than a prophet or that he was crucified {{quran|4:157}}.<br />
<br />
Apologists claim that Jesus was a prophet and taught a message that was supportive of Islam. This was allegedly distorted by the later Christian church.<br />
<br />
{{quote|[Jesus] taught, for example, that only those who submitted would inherit paradise. <ref>[http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/448/viewall/true-religion/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Jesus himself did what a sincere Muslim would have done. He submitted to the will of God. He, further, prophesied the corning of Prophet Muhammad.<ref>[https://www.alislam.org/library/books/true-christianity-leads-to-islam.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This is largely explained by Islamic apologists [[cherry picking]] parts of the [[Bible]] they accept and ignoring the parts they find objectionable.<br />
<br />
===Death===<br />
<br />
According to the Bible, Jesus was crucified by the Romans. On the third day, he was [[resurrected]] and appeared to many people. He then ascended to heaven.<br />
<br />
According to the [[Gospel of John]], Jesus is killed on the day before [[Passover]], rather than on the day of Passover according to the other Gospels.<ref>[https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-do-we-explain-the-passover-discrepancy]</ref><br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Existence of Jesus]]<br />
*[[Argument from biblical miracles]]<br />
*[[Liar, Lunatic or Lord]]<br />
*[[Jesus lived a sinless life]]<br />
*[[Jesusism]]<br />
*[[Burial of Jesus]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html New Testament Contradictions] by Paul Carlson (infidels.org)<br />
* [http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel.html Choking on the Camel: The historical evidence for Jesus] by Adam Lee/Ebonmuse (based on Earl Doherty's work)<br />
* [http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ] - Rationalwiki page detailing the usefulness of the evidence often presented for the existence of Jesus<br />
* [https://dorseteye.com/will-you-be-celebrating-the-birth-day-of-a-left-wing-woke-jesus-christmas/ Will you be celebrating the birth day of a left-wing woke?], Dorset Eye, 23rd December 2023<br />
<br />
==Footnotes==<br />
*Funk, Robert W., Roy Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. ''The Five Gospels: the Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus.'' MacMillian 1993<br />
*Miller, Roberet J. (editor). ''The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate.'' Polebridge Press 2001<br />
*Smith, M. (2000, April). Of Jesus and Quirinius. Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 62(2), 278<br />
<br />
{{Religion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Christianity]]<br />
[[Category:Characters in the Bible]]<br />
[[Category:Jesus]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Argument_from_mathematical_realism&diff=44072Argument from mathematical realism2023-12-18T21:45:29Z<p>TimSC: /* Background */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
Various mathematicians have observed that mathematics is very often useful in modelling observed reality.<br />
<br />
{{quote|The first point is that the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and that there is no rational explanation for it. <ref>Eugene Wigner , [https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences], 1960</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Some mathematicians argue that mathematics exist [[metaphysics|metaphysically]]:<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Might mathematical entities inhabit their own world, the abstract Platonic world of mathematical forms? It is an idea that many mathematicians are comfortable with. In this scheme, the truths that mathematicians seek are, in a clear sense, already ''there'', and mathematical research can be compared with archaeology; the mathematicians' job is to seek out these truths as a task of discovery rather than one of invention.|Roger Penrose <ref>Roger Penrose, [https://www.maths.tcd.ie/~fionn/reality.pdf What is Reality?], New Scientist, November 18-24 2006</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that usefulness of mathematics and mathematical realism implies God exists:<br />
<br />
{{quote|Once thiesm is dropped, it is difficult for realism to explain (1) where objective mathematical truths exist and (2) how we have access to them. [...] The existence of eternal, ideal mathematical thoughts seems to require the existence of something actual in which they exist. [...] If mathematics is merely a human invention, why is it that relatively simple mathematical theories yield such accurate representations of the physical world? <ref>[http://www.acmsonline.org/journal/2004/Byl-realism.pdf]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This is rather similar to the [[argument from comprehensibility]] and the [[natural-law argument]]. Claiming that mathematics is beautiful implies God exists<ref>[https://www.biola.edu/blogs/think-biblically/2019/seeing-god-and-his-beauty-in-math Seeing God and His Beauty in Math]</ref> is an [[argument from aesthetic experience]].<br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
There are many branches of mathematics, the majority of which most people do not encounter in their daily lives. In fact there is probably an infinite number of forms of mathematics, based on the exact assumptions used in underpinning the mathematical system. Only a few forms of mathematics are used in our current scientific theories to describe the universe, in a currently incomplete way.<br />
<br />
{{quote|We clearly don't need all of mathematics to describe our observations-the universe is one way and not any other, so describing it requires only very specific math. ... Postulating that all math is real is such an unscientific, superfluous assumption- it doesn't help use describe nature any better ... Postulating that it doesn't exist is also superfluous to describing our observations.<ref name="sabine"/>}}<br />
<br />
==Counter arguments==<br />
<br />
===Not explanatory===<br />
God is not a good [[explanation]] because it does not add to our understanding, is not [[falsifiable]] and not predictive. It is also an [[argument from ignorance]].<br />
<br />
{{quote|Mathematical reality — if indeed it exists — is, admittedly, mysterious. But invoking God does not dispel this puzzlement; it is an instance of "The Fallacy of Using One Mystery to Pseudo-Explain Another." The mystery of God's existence is often used, by those who assert it, as an explanatory sink hole. <ref name="fiction">Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, [http://edge.org/conversation/36-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction], 2011</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===An axiomatic basis===<br />
{{wikipedia|Foundations of mathematics}}<br />
{{wikipedia|Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory}}<br />
Not all mathematicians accept mathematical realism. Most mathematicians use ZFC (Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory) axioms as a basis for their work. However, there are many other axiomatic systems that are used for special purposes or for the sake of simplicity. There are an infinite number of possible mathematical systems but most of them are not useful. The choice of an axiomatic system is based largely on its utility in that it corresponds with observed reality. <br />
<br />
{{quote|The traditional realist view of mathematics as a description of how the world was had to be superseded by a more sophisticated view the recognized mathematics to be an unlimited system of patterns that arise from the infinite numer of possible axiomatic systems that can be defined. Some of these patterns appear to be made use of in nature, but most are not.<ref>John D. Barrow, [http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612253.pdf Godel and Physics], 2006</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The question "why is mathematics so useful" becomes "why is this set of axioms, and their implications, so useful among the other possible choices?" and can be answered simply by "because this set of axioms was chosen because they ''were useful''". There is really nothing to explain since "Mathematics is useful" is a [[tautology]] - there is no branch of mathematics that is not useful while still supporting this argument.<br />
<br />
Claiming a subset of mathematics is useful in describing the universe while ignoring the non-descriptive maths commits the [[Texas sharpshooter fallacy]].<br />
<br />
===Problems of interaction===<br />
<br />
If mathematics exists metaphysically, it is unclear how the physical world interacts with this seemingly separate mathematical reality. (This problem is also suffered by [[dualism]].)<br />
<br />
{{quote|What sort of mechanism could convey information of the sort bodily movement requires, between ontologically autonomous realms? To suppose that non-physical minds can move bodies is like supposing that imaginary locomotives can pull real boxcars. <ref>[http://www.iep.utm.edu/dualism/#SH7c]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===Alternative descriptions===<br />
<br />
We also need to beware of making an [[argument from ignorance]]:<br />
<br />
{{quote|It strikes me as presumptuous to think that humans have already discovered the language in which nature speaks, basically on our first try and right after we appeared on the surface of the planet. Who is to say there may not be a better way to understand our universe than mathematics, one that might take us millions of years to figure out? Call it the ''principle of finite imagination''.<ref name="sabine">Sabine Hossenfelder, Existential Physics, 2022</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUWbe5KGaQY Sabine Hossenfelder - Why the ‘Unreasonable Effectiveness’ of Mathematics?], 30 Apr 2020<br />
<br />
[[Category:Mathematics]]<br />
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Argument_from_mathematical_realism&diff=44071Argument from mathematical realism2023-12-18T15:52:52Z<p>TimSC: /* Background */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
Various mathematicians have observed that mathematics is very often useful in modelling observed reality.<br />
<br />
{{quote|The first point is that the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and that there is no rational explanation for it. <ref>Eugene Wigner , [https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences], 1960</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Some mathematicians argue that mathematics exist [[metaphysics|metaphysically]]:<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Might mathematical entities inhabit their own world, the abstract Platonic world of mathematical forms? It is an idea that many mathematicians are comfortable with. In this scheme, the truths that mathematicians seek are, in a clear sense, already ''there'', and mathematical research can be compared with archaeology; the mathematicians' job is to seek out these truths as a task of discovery rather than one of invention.|Roger Penrose <ref>Roger Penrose, [https://www.maths.tcd.ie/~fionn/reality.pdf What is Reality?], New Scientist, November 18-24 2006</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that usefulness of mathematics and mathematical realism implies God exists:<br />
<br />
{{quote|Once thiesm is dropped, it is difficult for realism to explain (1) where objective mathematical truths exist and (2) how we have access to them. [...] The existence of eternal, ideal mathematical thoughts seems to require the existence of something actual in which they exist. [...] If mathematics is merely a human invention, why is it that relatively simple mathematical theories yield such accurate representations of the physical world? <ref>[http://www.acmsonline.org/journal/2004/Byl-realism.pdf]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This is rather similar to the [[argument from comprehensibility]] and the [[natural-law argument]]. Claiming that mathematics is beautiful implies God exists<ref>[https://www.biola.edu/blogs/think-biblically/2019/seeing-god-and-his-beauty-in-math Seeing God and His Beauty in Math]</ref> is an [[argument from aesthetic experience]].<br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
There are many branches of mathematics, of which there is a significant quantity that most people do not encounter in their daily lives. In fact there is probably an infinite number of forms of mathematics, based on the exact assumptions used in underpinning the mathematical system. Only a few forms of mathematics are used in our current scientific theories to describe the universe, in a currently incomplete way.<br />
<br />
{{quote|We clearly don't need all of mathematics to describe our observations-the universe is one way and not any other, so describing it requires only very specific math. ... Postulating that all math is real is such an unscientific, superfluous assumption- it doesn't help use describe nature any better ... Postulating that it doesn't exist is also superfluous to describing our observations.<ref name="sabine"/>}}<br />
<br />
==Counter arguments==<br />
<br />
===Not explanatory===<br />
God is not a good [[explanation]] because it does not add to our understanding, is not [[falsifiable]] and not predictive. It is also an [[argument from ignorance]].<br />
<br />
{{quote|Mathematical reality — if indeed it exists — is, admittedly, mysterious. But invoking God does not dispel this puzzlement; it is an instance of "The Fallacy of Using One Mystery to Pseudo-Explain Another." The mystery of God's existence is often used, by those who assert it, as an explanatory sink hole. <ref name="fiction">Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, [http://edge.org/conversation/36-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction], 2011</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===An axiomatic basis===<br />
{{wikipedia|Foundations of mathematics}}<br />
{{wikipedia|Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory}}<br />
Not all mathematicians accept mathematical realism. Most mathematicians use ZFC (Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory) axioms as a basis for their work. However, there are many other axiomatic systems that are used for special purposes or for the sake of simplicity. There are an infinite number of possible mathematical systems but most of them are not useful. The choice of an axiomatic system is based largely on its utility in that it corresponds with observed reality. <br />
<br />
{{quote|The traditional realist view of mathematics as a description of how the world was had to be superseded by a more sophisticated view the recognized mathematics to be an unlimited system of patterns that arise from the infinite numer of possible axiomatic systems that can be defined. Some of these patterns appear to be made use of in nature, but most are not.<ref>John D. Barrow, [http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612253.pdf Godel and Physics], 2006</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The question "why is mathematics so useful" becomes "why is this set of axioms, and their implications, so useful among the other possible choices?" and can be answered simply by "because this set of axioms was chosen because they ''were useful''". There is really nothing to explain since "Mathematics is useful" is a [[tautology]] - there is no branch of mathematics that is not useful while still supporting this argument.<br />
<br />
Claiming a subset of mathematics is useful in describing the universe while ignoring the non-descriptive maths commits the [[Texas sharpshooter fallacy]].<br />
<br />
===Problems of interaction===<br />
<br />
If mathematics exists metaphysically, it is unclear how the physical world interacts with this seemingly separate mathematical reality. (This problem is also suffered by [[dualism]].)<br />
<br />
{{quote|What sort of mechanism could convey information of the sort bodily movement requires, between ontologically autonomous realms? To suppose that non-physical minds can move bodies is like supposing that imaginary locomotives can pull real boxcars. <ref>[http://www.iep.utm.edu/dualism/#SH7c]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===Alternative descriptions===<br />
<br />
We also need to beware of making an [[argument from ignorance]]:<br />
<br />
{{quote|It strikes me as presumptuous to think that humans have already discovered the language in which nature speaks, basically on our first try and right after we appeared on the surface of the planet. Who is to say there may not be a better way to understand our universe than mathematics, one that might take us millions of years to figure out? Call it the ''principle of finite imagination''.<ref name="sabine">Sabine Hossenfelder, Existential Physics, 2022</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUWbe5KGaQY Sabine Hossenfelder - Why the ‘Unreasonable Effectiveness’ of Mathematics?], 30 Apr 2020<br />
<br />
[[Category:Mathematics]]<br />
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Argument_from_mathematical_realism&diff=44070Argument from mathematical realism2023-12-18T15:45:37Z<p>TimSC: /* Alternative descriptions */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
Various mathematicians have observed that mathematics is very often useful in modelling observed reality.<br />
<br />
{{quote|The first point is that the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and that there is no rational explanation for it. <ref>Eugene Wigner , [https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences], 1960</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Some mathematicians argue that mathematics exist [[metaphysics|metaphysically]]:<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Might mathematical entities inhabit their own world, the abstract Platonic world of mathematical forms? It is an idea that many mathematicians are comfortable with. In this scheme, the truths that mathematicians seek are, in a clear sense, already ''there'', and mathematical research can be compared with archaeology; the mathematicians' job is to seek out these truths as a task of discovery rather than one of invention.|Roger Penrose <ref>Roger Penrose, [https://www.maths.tcd.ie/~fionn/reality.pdf What is Reality?], New Scientist, November 18-24 2006</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that usefulness of mathematics and mathematical realism implies God exists:<br />
<br />
{{quote|Once thiesm is dropped, it is difficult for realism to explain (1) where objective mathematical truths exist and (2) how we have access to them. [...] The existence of eternal, ideal mathematical thoughts seems to require the existence of something actual in which they exist. [...] If mathematics is merely a human invention, why is it that relatively simple mathematical theories yield such accurate representations of the physical world? <ref>[http://www.acmsonline.org/journal/2004/Byl-realism.pdf]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This is rather similar to the [[argument from comprehensibility]] and the [[natural-law argument]]. Claiming that mathematics is beautiful implies God exists<ref>[https://www.biola.edu/blogs/think-biblically/2019/seeing-god-and-his-beauty-in-math Seeing God and His Beauty in Math]</ref> is an [[argument from aesthetic experience]].<br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
There are many branches of mathematics, of which there is a significant quality that most people do not encounter in their daily lives unless they study mathematics at an advanced level. In fact there is probably an infinite number of forms of mathematics, based on the exact assumptions used in underpinning the mathematical system. Only a few forms of mathematics are used in our current scientific theories to describe the universe, in a currently incomplete way.<br />
<br />
{{quote|We clearly don't need all of mathematics to describe our observations-the universe is one way and not any other, so describing it requires only very specific math. ... Postulating that all math is real is such an unscientific, superfluous assumption- it doesn't help use describe nature any better ... Postulating that it doesn't exist is also superfluous to describing our observations.<ref name="sabine"/>}}<br />
<br />
==Counter arguments==<br />
<br />
===Not explanatory===<br />
God is not a good [[explanation]] because it does not add to our understanding, is not [[falsifiable]] and not predictive. It is also an [[argument from ignorance]].<br />
<br />
{{quote|Mathematical reality — if indeed it exists — is, admittedly, mysterious. But invoking God does not dispel this puzzlement; it is an instance of "The Fallacy of Using One Mystery to Pseudo-Explain Another." The mystery of God's existence is often used, by those who assert it, as an explanatory sink hole. <ref name="fiction">Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, [http://edge.org/conversation/36-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction], 2011</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===An axiomatic basis===<br />
{{wikipedia|Foundations of mathematics}}<br />
{{wikipedia|Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory}}<br />
Not all mathematicians accept mathematical realism. Most mathematicians use ZFC (Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory) axioms as a basis for their work. However, there are many other axiomatic systems that are used for special purposes or for the sake of simplicity. There are an infinite number of possible mathematical systems but most of them are not useful. The choice of an axiomatic system is based largely on its utility in that it corresponds with observed reality. <br />
<br />
{{quote|The traditional realist view of mathematics as a description of how the world was had to be superseded by a more sophisticated view the recognized mathematics to be an unlimited system of patterns that arise from the infinite numer of possible axiomatic systems that can be defined. Some of these patterns appear to be made use of in nature, but most are not.<ref>John D. Barrow, [http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612253.pdf Godel and Physics], 2006</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The question "why is mathematics so useful" becomes "why is this set of axioms, and their implications, so useful among the other possible choices?" and can be answered simply by "because this set of axioms was chosen because they ''were useful''". There is really nothing to explain since "Mathematics is useful" is a [[tautology]] - there is no branch of mathematics that is not useful while still supporting this argument.<br />
<br />
Claiming a subset of mathematics is useful in describing the universe while ignoring the non-descriptive maths commits the [[Texas sharpshooter fallacy]].<br />
<br />
===Problems of interaction===<br />
<br />
If mathematics exists metaphysically, it is unclear how the physical world interacts with this seemingly separate mathematical reality. (This problem is also suffered by [[dualism]].)<br />
<br />
{{quote|What sort of mechanism could convey information of the sort bodily movement requires, between ontologically autonomous realms? To suppose that non-physical minds can move bodies is like supposing that imaginary locomotives can pull real boxcars. <ref>[http://www.iep.utm.edu/dualism/#SH7c]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===Alternative descriptions===<br />
<br />
We also need to beware of making an [[argument from ignorance]]:<br />
<br />
{{quote|It strikes me as presumptuous to think that humans have already discovered the language in which nature speaks, basically on our first try and right after we appeared on the surface of the planet. Who is to say there may not be a better way to understand our universe than mathematics, one that might take us millions of years to figure out? Call it the ''principle of finite imagination''.<ref name="sabine">Sabine Hossenfelder, Existential Physics, 2022</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUWbe5KGaQY Sabine Hossenfelder - Why the ‘Unreasonable Effectiveness’ of Mathematics?], 30 Apr 2020<br />
<br />
[[Category:Mathematics]]<br />
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Argument_from_mathematical_realism&diff=44069Argument from mathematical realism2023-12-18T15:41:49Z<p>TimSC: Add quotes</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
Various mathematicians have observed that mathematics is very often useful in modelling observed reality.<br />
<br />
{{quote|The first point is that the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and that there is no rational explanation for it. <ref>Eugene Wigner , [https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences], 1960</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Some mathematicians argue that mathematics exist [[metaphysics|metaphysically]]:<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Might mathematical entities inhabit their own world, the abstract Platonic world of mathematical forms? It is an idea that many mathematicians are comfortable with. In this scheme, the truths that mathematicians seek are, in a clear sense, already ''there'', and mathematical research can be compared with archaeology; the mathematicians' job is to seek out these truths as a task of discovery rather than one of invention.|Roger Penrose <ref>Roger Penrose, [https://www.maths.tcd.ie/~fionn/reality.pdf What is Reality?], New Scientist, November 18-24 2006</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that usefulness of mathematics and mathematical realism implies God exists:<br />
<br />
{{quote|Once thiesm is dropped, it is difficult for realism to explain (1) where objective mathematical truths exist and (2) how we have access to them. [...] The existence of eternal, ideal mathematical thoughts seems to require the existence of something actual in which they exist. [...] If mathematics is merely a human invention, why is it that relatively simple mathematical theories yield such accurate representations of the physical world? <ref>[http://www.acmsonline.org/journal/2004/Byl-realism.pdf]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This is rather similar to the [[argument from comprehensibility]] and the [[natural-law argument]]. Claiming that mathematics is beautiful implies God exists<ref>[https://www.biola.edu/blogs/think-biblically/2019/seeing-god-and-his-beauty-in-math Seeing God and His Beauty in Math]</ref> is an [[argument from aesthetic experience]].<br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
There are many branches of mathematics, of which there is a significant quality that most people do not encounter in their daily lives unless they study mathematics at an advanced level. In fact there is probably an infinite number of forms of mathematics, based on the exact assumptions used in underpinning the mathematical system. Only a few forms of mathematics are used in our current scientific theories to describe the universe, in a currently incomplete way.<br />
<br />
{{quote|We clearly don't need all of mathematics to describe our observations-the universe is one way and not any other, so describing it requires only very specific math. ... Postulating that all math is real is such an unscientific, superfluous assumption- it doesn't help use describe nature any better ... Postulating that it doesn't exist is also superfluous to describing our observations.<ref name="sabine"/>}}<br />
<br />
==Counter arguments==<br />
<br />
===Not explanatory===<br />
God is not a good [[explanation]] because it does not add to our understanding, is not [[falsifiable]] and not predictive. It is also an [[argument from ignorance]].<br />
<br />
{{quote|Mathematical reality — if indeed it exists — is, admittedly, mysterious. But invoking God does not dispel this puzzlement; it is an instance of "The Fallacy of Using One Mystery to Pseudo-Explain Another." The mystery of God's existence is often used, by those who assert it, as an explanatory sink hole. <ref name="fiction">Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, [http://edge.org/conversation/36-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction], 2011</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===An axiomatic basis===<br />
{{wikipedia|Foundations of mathematics}}<br />
{{wikipedia|Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory}}<br />
Not all mathematicians accept mathematical realism. Most mathematicians use ZFC (Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory) axioms as a basis for their work. However, there are many other axiomatic systems that are used for special purposes or for the sake of simplicity. There are an infinite number of possible mathematical systems but most of them are not useful. The choice of an axiomatic system is based largely on its utility in that it corresponds with observed reality. <br />
<br />
{{quote|The traditional realist view of mathematics as a description of how the world was had to be superseded by a more sophisticated view the recognized mathematics to be an unlimited system of patterns that arise from the infinite numer of possible axiomatic systems that can be defined. Some of these patterns appear to be made use of in nature, but most are not.<ref>John D. Barrow, [http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612253.pdf Godel and Physics], 2006</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The question "why is mathematics so useful" becomes "why is this set of axioms, and their implications, so useful among the other possible choices?" and can be answered simply by "because this set of axioms was chosen because they ''were useful''". There is really nothing to explain since "Mathematics is useful" is a [[tautology]] - there is no branch of mathematics that is not useful while still supporting this argument.<br />
<br />
Claiming a subset of mathematics is useful in describing the universe while ignoring the non-descriptive maths commits the [[Texas sharpshooter fallacy]].<br />
<br />
===Problems of interaction===<br />
<br />
If mathematics exists metaphysically, it is unclear how the physical world interacts with this seemingly separate mathematical reality. (This problem is also suffered by [[dualism]].)<br />
<br />
{{quote|What sort of mechanism could convey information of the sort bodily movement requires, between ontologically autonomous realms? To suppose that non-physical minds can move bodies is like supposing that imaginary locomotives can pull real boxcars. <ref>[http://www.iep.utm.edu/dualism/#SH7c]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===Alternative descriptions===<br />
<br />
We also need to beware of making an [[argument from ignorance]]:<br />
<br />
{{quote|It strikes me as presumptuous to think that humans have already discovered the language in which nature speaks, basically on our first try and right after we appeared on the surface of the planet. Who is to say there nay not be a better way to understand our universe than mathematics, one that might take us millions of years to figure out? Call it the ''principle of finite imagination''.<ref name="sabine">Sabine Hossenfelder, Existential Physics, 2022</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUWbe5KGaQY Sabine Hossenfelder - Why the ‘Unreasonable Effectiveness’ of Mathematics?], 30 Apr 2020<br />
<br />
[[Category:Mathematics]]<br />
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Empiricism&diff=44068Empiricism2023-12-16T15:04:11Z<p>TimSC: typo</p>
<hr />
<div>{{philosophy-stub}}<br />
{{wikipedia}}<br />
<br />
'''Empiricism''' is a [[philosophical]] approach to [[knowledge]] and [[Epistemology]] that emphasizes reliance on [[evidence]] gained through the senses and [[experimentation]], as opposed to [[intuition]] or purely [[theoretical]] considerations. Something described as '''empirical''' is generally based on direct observation or experience, with emphasis on those experiences being [[objective]]. It is contrast with [[idealism]], [[rationalism]], and [[historicism]]. It is classified as a [[phenomenology|phenomenological]] theory of thought.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Science has limits, and yet humanity has always sought meaning beyond those limits. Some do it by studying holy scripture, some meditate, some dig philosophy, some smoke funny things. That's all fine with me, really. Except that-and here is the crux-your search for meaning respects scientific fact. If your belief conflicts with empirically confirmed knowledge, then you are not seeking meaning; you are delusional.<ref>Sabine Hossenfelder, Existential Physics, 2022</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Typically, empirical research results in gathering quantitative measurements. Several examples of this are:<br />
* Measuring the position of a star beside the sun during a solar eclipse to verify [[Albert Einstein]]'s [[Theory of relativity]].<br />
* Measuring the voltage across the terminals of a capacitor over time, at regular intervals.<br />
* Keeping statistics regarding the effects of a new medicine versus the [[placebo effect]].<br />
<br />
<br />
==Implications to Apologetics==<br />
<br />
One of the primary failures of the [[God]] [[hypothesis]], as well as most [[supernatural]] claims, is that they are not empirical, [[testable]] or even [[falsifiable]]. Most supernatural claims are subjective in nature. Subjective arguments for God and the supernatural usually have open-ended interpretations of events, especially in regards to meaning.<br />
<br />
A large portion of the [[arguments for the existence of God]] attempt to [[reason God into existence]], devoid of any empirical experimentation. These logical arguments for God's existence are theoretical in nature and are not based empirical evidence. Philosopher [[Rene Descartes]]' arguments can be seen as non-empirical.<br />
<br />
An empirical phenomenon manifests in some physical way. If the phenomenon does not manifest physically, then it is impossible to determine its existence by physical (empirical) means. Empiricism is the final confirmation for hypothesis, which most apologetic claims cannot do.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Philosophy]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]<br />
[[Category:Epistemology]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Empiricism&diff=44067Empiricism2023-12-16T15:03:36Z<p>TimSC: Add a quote</p>
<hr />
<div>{{philosophy-stub}}<br />
{{wikipedia}}<br />
<br />
'''Empiricism''' is a [[philosophical]] approach to [[knowledge]] and [[Epistemology]] that emphasizes reliance on [[evidence]] gained through the senses and [[experimentation]], as opposed to [[intuition]] or purely [[theoretical]] considerations. Something described as '''empirical''' is generally based on direct observation or experience, with emphasis on those experiences being [[objective]]. It is contrast with [[idealism]], [[rationalism]], and [[historicism]]. It is classified as a [[phenomenology|phenomenological]] theory of thought.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Science has limits, and yet humanity has always sought meaning beyond those limits. Some do it by studying holy scripture, some meditate, some dig philosophy, some smoke funny things. That's all fine with me, really. Except that-and here is the crux-your search for meaning respects scientific fact. If your belief conflicts with empirically confirmed knowledge, the you are not seeking meaning; you are delusional.<ref>Sabine Hossenfelder, Existential Physics, 2022</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Typically, empirical research results in gathering quantitative measurements. Several examples of this are:<br />
* Measuring the position of a star beside the sun during a solar eclipse to verify [[Albert Einstein]]'s [[Theory of relativity]].<br />
* Measuring the voltage across the terminals of a capacitor over time, at regular intervals.<br />
* Keeping statistics regarding the effects of a new medicine versus the [[placebo effect]].<br />
<br />
<br />
==Implications to Apologetics==<br />
<br />
One of the primary failures of the [[God]] [[hypothesis]], as well as most [[supernatural]] claims, is that they are not empirical, [[testable]] or even [[falsifiable]]. Most supernatural claims are subjective in nature. Subjective arguments for God and the supernatural usually have open-ended interpretations of events, especially in regards to meaning.<br />
<br />
A large portion of the [[arguments for the existence of God]] attempt to [[reason God into existence]], devoid of any empirical experimentation. These logical arguments for God's existence are theoretical in nature and are not based empirical evidence. Philosopher [[Rene Descartes]]' arguments can be seen as non-empirical.<br />
<br />
An empirical phenomenon manifests in some physical way. If the phenomenon does not manifest physically, then it is impossible to determine its existence by physical (empirical) means. Empiricism is the final confirmation for hypothesis, which most apologetic claims cannot do.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Philosophy]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]<br />
[[Category:Epistemology]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Absolute_certainty&diff=44063Absolute certainty2023-09-05T11:55:20Z<p>TimSC: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Wikipedia|Certainty|color=#F0FFD5;}}<br />
{{Wiktionary|certainty|color=#F0FFD5;}}<br />
'''Absolute certainty''' is [[belief]] beyond any possible doubt (not just reasonable doubt or the balance of probabilities). The only propositions that someone could be absolutely certain about are those [[a priori]] proven within a rigorous [[logical system]] — and even those would typically have to be [[conditional]] statements, since they would necessarily rest on unproven assumptions ([[axiom]]s or postulates), which one may not be absolutely certain of. <br />
<br />
On the other hand, apologists claim that absolute knowledge of ''a posteriori'' statements can be discovered:<br />
<br />
{{quote|Contrary to what is being taught in many public schools, truth is not relative but absolute. If something is true, it’s true for all people, at all times, in all places. All truth claims are absolute, narrow, and exclusive.<ref name="enough-faith">[[I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist]]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
A poll in 2015 found that 63% of people in the [[United States]] where "absolutely certain" that God exists. <ref>[http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/212038/number-of-americans-certain-about-god-falls-to-63/]</ref><br />
<br />
The 17th-century philosopher [[René Descartes]] imaged the possibility of an [[Descartes' evil demon|evil demon]]: a powerful entity that attempts to deceive us. This is a strong argument for [[fallibilism]] and [[skepticism]] - the position that no absolute certainty is possible. To avoid this conclusion, Descartes argued that he could be absolutely certain of his own existence (summed up in his famous epigram, "''Cogito ergo sum''" — "I think, therefore I am"). He then tried to use this as the basis for all his beliefs, with questionable success. <br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one.|Voltaire}}<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|[I] am finally compelled to admit that there is not one of my former beliefs about which a doubt may not properly be raised|[[René Descartes]]<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Intolerance is the natural concomitant of strong faith; tolerance grows only when faith loses certainty; certainty is murderous.<ref>Will Durant, The Age of Faith</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Example of an ''a priori'' proof==<br />
<br />
Consider the statement:<br />
{{quote|1 + 1 {{=}} 2}}<br />
Given the usual definitions of the symbols <tt>1</tt>, <tt>+</tt>, <tt>=</tt>, and <tt>2</tt>, one can be absolutely certain that 1 + 1 = 2.<br />
<br />
But is it really so simple? What ''are'' the "usual definitions" of these symbols? What are the "real" definitions (i.e., that mathematicians use)? Does anything in the statement rest on unproven assumptions? What are they? The answers to these questions are actually extremely complicated. In fact, when [[Wikipedia:Alfred North Whitehead|Alfred North Whitehead]] and [[Wikipedia:Bertrand Russell|Bertrand Russell]] tried to place all of mathematics on a rigorous logical foundation in the early 20th century, eventually producing the three-volume work ''[[Wikipedia:Principia Mathematica|Principia Mathematica]]'', it took over 700 pages of dense logical argumentation to get to the point where they could prove that 1&nbsp;+&nbsp;1&nbsp;=&nbsp;2. (Granted, if they were ''only'' trying to prove that statement, they probably could have done it more quickly.)<br />
<br />
Incidentally, in the [[Wikipedia:Binary numeral system|base-2 number system]], 1&nbsp;+&nbsp;1&nbsp;=&nbsp;10, not 2, because there is no symbol <tt>2</tt> defined in such a system. Thus, one "hidden assumption" underlying the original statement is that we are working in a base-3 or larger number system. Although this might seem like some kind of irrelevant "semantic trick", it is important to realize that all statements are made within a particular context and that altering the context can change the truth value of a statement (or, more to the point in the present discussion, the degree of belief associated with it).<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too.|''Notes from Underground'', Fyodor Dostoyevsky}}<br />
<br />
==Absolute certainty and apologetics==<br />
A [[theist]] who claims absolute certainty about an element of his or her [[religious]] beliefs is likely revealing more about the method by which they came to the belief (namely, uncritical acceptance or simple assumption) than the actual strength of the belief itself.<br />
<br />
The argument that [[strong atheism]] is an untenable position because [[You can't prove God doesn't exist|one cannot know for sure that God does not exist]] is based in part on the idea that for an atheist to believe no gods exist they have to have absolute certainty about it. However, [[belief]] is not the same thing as [[certainty]]. In fact, many people will say they "believe" something precisely when they don't feel certain enough to say they "know" it. In any case, one who claims certainty about the nonexistence of any gods would more accurately be called a [[gnostic atheist]] (a much stronger position than what is usually meant by strong atheism).<br />
<br />
It can then be asserted that in the realm of religion, absolute certainty plays no part. Depending on the definition one has of a god, it could be that one cannot know whether a god does or does not exist, let alone have enough reason to have an absolute certainty.<br />
<br />
As [[Matt Dillahunty]] of the [[Wikipedia:Austin, Texas|Austin]] television show ''[[The Atheist Experience]]'' points out, "absolute certainty is a [[red herring]]" because there are so few things (perhaps none) that can rise to that degree of belief.<br />
<br />
==Absolute truth cannot be denied==<br />
<br />
Some apologists argue that because there is apparently no way to disprove the possibility of absolute truth, that makes the existence of "absolute truth" true. <br />
<br />
{{quote|So we’ve established that truth can be known. In fact, it’s undeniable.<ref name="enough-faith"/>}}<br />
<br />
This is an [[argument from ignorance]]. We still don't know if the existence of absolute truth is true or false!<br />
<br />
==God could grant absolutely certain knowledge==<br />
<br />
If God could grant knowledge to humans that was absolutely certain, the human could never know it was knowledge of absolute certainty. There could be some being impersonating God or something manipulating your thinking. In fact, being able to validate if something is absolutely certain, you would need God like knowledge that there is no contradictory evidence, which is practically impossible.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCTHpjQXqrc Atheism is the WEAKEST worldview?]</ref><br />
<br />
==Absolute knowledge is a form of faith==<br />
<br />
{{quote|Any form of knowledge that claims to be absolute cease to be knowledge. It becomes a form of faith.}}<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Fallibilism]]<br />
* [[Skepticism]]<br />
* [[Münchhausen trilemma]]<br />
* [[Basic belief]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Philosophy}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Philosophy]]<br />
[[Category:Epistemology]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Stalin_was_an_atheist&diff=44062Stalin was an atheist2023-08-30T05:22:48Z<p>TimSC: Reorder</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Wikipedia|Stalin}}<br />
{{talk-origins|http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_2.html|Stalin's policies were influenced by Darwin}}<br />
Joseph Stalin was an incredibly complex person who made understanding him even more difficult by suppressing information about himself. The claim that Stalin was X, is extremely difficult to establish as there exist so few documents.<br />
<br />
==Beliefs==<br />
<br />
He attended an Eastern Orthodox primary school. This was not out of the ordinary as nearly all primary schools were administered by the church. Then he attended seminary at Tbilisi. There are many stories about him leaving seminary, some with scandal, some with conspiracy. Regardless, he "left" seminary at the end of his final year. There are accounts that he was ordained as a priest, and others that he was not. These accounts are so specious because Stalin silenced many of his former classmates and teachers, in fact he did not like it known that he came from Georgia at all. Little is known about Stalin's life until the age of 44 when he became the head of the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
Once he joined with the Bolsheviks and Lenin, Stalin abandoned all of his religious beliefs. He never again planned on becoming a priest and he hated religion deeply. Religion was banned under Stalin until after WWII, as he was afraid of losing power if he kept oppressing religion. Nevertheless, USSR was never officially a religious nation, always an atheist one, until it fell apart in 1991 and the religious capitalists came in power. Putin's Russia, for example, is religious, nationalistic and homophobic.<br />
<br />
==Argument==<br />
<br />
Apologists often point to people like Stalin, trying to make a point about [[atheism]]:<br />
<br />
* Stalin was an evil murderer. <br />
* Stalin was an [[atheist]].<br />
* Thus, Stalin's atheism has something to do with him being an evil murderer.<br />
* Therefore, [[atheism causes evil]].<br />
<br />
The point of the argument is to try establish that it's wrong to be an atheist, because if too many people are atheists, bad things will happen.<br />
<br />
==Counter apologetics==<br />
<br />
===Association fallacy===<br />
<br />
While it is certainly arguable that communism would be untenable in a theistic climate - making atheism ''necessary'' for communism - the apologetic fails because atheism isn't ''sufficient'' for communism; fires only start in the presence of oxygen, but no fire has ever said to have been ''caused'' by the presence of oxygen. Indeed, (weak) atheism can't be considered sufficient for ''any'' action. For this reason, this argument is an instance of the [[association fallacy]] being employed between atheism and Stalin.<br />
<br />
===Factual problems===<br />
<br />
To claim that he was an atheist is overly simplistic. As the de facto ruler of the USSR, he initiated many purges. Many clergy were killed and this is often cited as Stalin's anti-christian mark. However, like Henry VIII he did not simply remove clergy, he replaced them. He established a new national church of Russia, which of course answered to him. He considered the church very important to extending control from Moscow to the satellite nations. Stalin's church was called the Russian Orthodox Church or The Moscow Patriarchate; and the suppressed church was called the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. They have a bitter history.<br />
<br />
Stalin was many things, a former theologian, the head of the national church, and one of the most brutal dictators in history. His own views on religion are difficult to guess. Many scholars think of Stalin as a ruler who envisioned himself as a god. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, there is the concurrent claim that the USSR was an atheist nation. While the Communist Party suppressed religious fervor, it did so only out of jealously of loyalties. The Communist Party demanded loyalty to itself above all others, even above God. Russia has always been an intensely religious nation. They consider the leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church to be equal to the Vatican's Pope; or even above the Pope. To claim that Russia became atheistic overnight in 1917 only to emerge deeply religious in 1989 is incredibly ignorant.<br />
<br />
===Other Russian atheist leaders did not suppress religion===<br />
<br />
One may also note that almost all of the leaders of the USSR, from Lenin to Gorbachev, except for Malenkov, were atheist or non-religious or did not have their religion documented. Yet only Stalin committed such historic atrocities. Gorbachev explicitly affirmed his atheism, but he nonetheless campaigned for religious freedom and was very friendly toward believers.<br />
<br />
===Scriptural arguments===<br />
<br />
According to Christianity, God supposedly places those in authority in power {{Bible|Romans 13:1}}, including corrupt and psychotic leaders. This makes God responsible for the actions of Stalin and shows that [[God is capable of evil]].<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Pol Pot was an atheist]]<br />
* [[Adolf Hitler]]<br />
* [[Mao was an atheist]]<br />
* [[You are a communist]]<br />
* [[Atheism leads to subjective morality]]<br />
* [[Atheists cannot objectively condemn evil]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Stalin_was_an_atheist&diff=44061Stalin was an atheist2023-08-28T18:47:44Z<p>TimSC: /* Stalin's religion */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Wikipedia|Stalin}}<br />
{{talk-origins|http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_2.html|Stalin's policies were influenced by Darwin}}<br />
Joseph Stalin was an incredibly complex person who made understanding him even more difficult by suppressing information about himself. The claim that Stalin was X, is extremely difficult to establish as there exist so few documents.<br />
<br />
He attended an Eastern Orthodox primary school. This was not out of the ordinary as nearly all primary schools were administered by the church. Then he attended seminary at Tbilisi. There are many stories about him leaving seminary, some with scandal, some with conspiracy. Regardless, he "left" seminary at the end of his final year. There are accounts that he was ordained as a priest, and others that he was not. These accounts are so specious because Stalin silenced many of his former classmates and teachers, in fact he did not like it known that he came from Georgia at all. Little is known about Stalin's life until the age of 44 when he became the head of the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
==Argument==<br />
<br />
Apologists often point to people like Stalin, trying to make a point about [[atheism]]:<br />
<br />
* Stalin was an evil murderer. <br />
* Stalin was an [[atheist]].<br />
* Thus, Stalin's atheism has something to do with him being an evil murderer.<br />
* Therefore, [[atheism causes evil]].<br />
<br />
The point of the argument is to try establish that it's wrong to be an atheist, because if too many people are atheists, bad things will happen.<br />
<br />
==Counter apologetics==<br />
<br />
===Association fallacy===<br />
<br />
While it is certainly arguable that communism would be untenable in a theistic climate - making atheism ''necessary'' for communism - the apologetic fails because atheism isn't ''sufficient'' for communism; fires only start in the presence of oxygen, but no fire has ever said to have been ''caused'' by the presence of oxygen. Indeed, (weak) atheism can't be considered sufficient for ''any'' action. For this reason, this argument is an instance of the [[association fallacy]] being employed between atheism and Stalin.<br />
<br />
===Factual problems===<br />
<br />
To claim that he was an atheist is overly simplistic. As the de facto ruler of the USSR, he initiated many purges. Many clergy were killed and this is often cited as Stalin's anti-christian mark. However, like Henry VIII he did not simply remove clergy, he replaced them. He established a new national church of Russia, which of course answered to him. He considered the church very important to extending control from Moscow to the satellite nations. Stalin's church was called the Russian Orthodox Church or The Moscow Patriarchate; and the suppressed church was called the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. They have a bitter history.<br />
<br />
Stalin was many things, a former theologian, the head of the national church, and one of the most brutal dictators in history. His own views on religion are difficult to guess. Many scholars think of Stalin as a ruler who envisioned himself as a god. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, there is the concurrent claim that the USSR was an atheist nation. While the Communist Party suppressed religious fervor, it did so only out of jealously of loyalties. The Communist Party demanded loyalty to itself above all others, even above God. Russia has always been an intensely religious nation. They consider the leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church to be equal to the Vatican's Pope; or even above the Pope. To claim that Russia became atheistic overnight in 1917 only to emerge deeply religious in 1989 is incredibly ignorant.<br />
<br />
===Other Russian atheist leaders did not suppress religion===<br />
<br />
One may also note that almost all of the leaders of the USSR, from Lenin to Gorbachev, except for Malenkov, were atheist or non-religious or did not have their religion documented. Yet only Stalin committed such historic atrocities. Gorbachev explicitly affirmed his atheism, but he nonetheless campaigned for religious freedom and was very friendly toward believers.<br />
<br />
===Scriptural arguments===<br />
<br />
According to Christianity, God supposedly places those in authority in power {{Bible|Romans 13:1}}, including corrupt and psychotic leaders. This makes God responsible for the actions of Stalin and shows that [[God is capable of evil]].<br />
<br />
==Stalin's religion==<br />
Once he joined with the Bolsheviks and Lenin, Stalin abandoned all of his religious beliefs. He never again planned on becoming a priest and he hated religion deeply. Religion was banned under Stalin until after WWII, as he was afraid of losing power if he kept oppressing religion. Nevertheless, USSR was never a religious nation, always an atheist one, until it fell apart in 1991 and the religious capitalists came in power. Putin's Russia, for example, is religious, nationalistic and homophobic.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Pol Pot was an atheist]]<br />
* [[Adolf Hitler]]<br />
* [[Mao was an atheist]]<br />
* [[You are a communist]]<br />
* [[Atheism leads to subjective morality]]<br />
* [[Atheists cannot objectively condemn evil]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:JaneDoe&diff=44057User talk:JaneDoe2023-08-27T01:42:15Z<p>TimSC: Add feedback</p>
<hr />
<div>Thanks for your contribution. Of course some views expressed are crank minority historical theories but that is still a popular form of apologetics. They should be included and discussed. --[[User:TimSC|TimSC]] ([[User talk:TimSC|talk]]) 01:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=The_Bible_is_not_a_reliable_historical_source&diff=44056The Bible is not a reliable historical source2023-08-27T01:36:08Z<p>TimSC: /* Evidence of Jesus was suppressed */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{sab|http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html|Science and History in the Bible}}<br />
{{wikipedia|Historicity of the Bible}}<br />
[[Image:Bible.jpg|right|thumb|The Bible with annotations by the reader.]]<br />
The [[Bible]] is not a reliable historical source because it does not meet the standard criteria of source reliability used by historians. The Bible is not, as many believers assume, [[The Bible was written by eyewitnesses|eye witness testimony]]. Reliable sources are generally based on authors who were eye witnesses to an event (i.e. it is a primary source). Since any particular source may be fabricating their story, multiple independent sources are usually required for confidence. Establishing the lack of author biases, including religious motivations, is also necessary if a work is to be read at face value. The Bible satisfies none of these requirements.<br />
<br />
Based on historical and archaeological research, there are known historical inaccuracies in the Bible. The Bible is considered mythological by most historians. Historians know the Gospels are largely or entirely myths because they share the same characteristics in that they are an apparently normal story except:<br />
<br />
* the text is structured to convey an underlying meaning, usually to convey some political or value system,<ref name="edmonds">Radcliffe G. Edmonds III, <br />
''Myths of the Underworld Journey: Plato, Aristophanes, and the 'Orphic' Gold Tablets'', 20 Sep 2004</ref><br />
* using symbols that are familiar the intended audience,<ref name="edmonds"/><br />
* refers to or retells other myths and stories but often some aspects are changed to make a specific point,<ref name="edmonds"/><br />
* historical improbabilities, occurrence of miracles or people acting unrealistically,<ref name="rc"/><br />
* lack of corroborating evidence.<ref name="rc"/><br />
<br />
Because of this, the [[Bible]] cannot itself be used as an [[argument from scripture]] that the events it describes actually occurred, including [[Argument from miracle testimony|scriptural miracles]]. This contrasts with the view held by many apologists that the Bible is a reliable source:<br />
<br />
{{quote|The Old Testament affords us the same historical evidence of the miracles of Moses and of the prophets, as of the common civil history of Moses and the kings of Israel; or, as of the affairs of the Jewish nation. And the ''Gospels'' and ''the Acts'' afford us the same historical evidence of the miracles of Christ and the apostles, as of the common matters related in them. [...] But the facts, both miraculous and natural, in Scripture, are related in plain unadorned narratives, and both of them appear, in all respects, to stand upon the same foot of historical evidence. <ref name="butler">Joseph Butler, [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/53346/53346-h/53346-h.htm The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed], 1736</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Authorship of the Bible==<br />
<br />
The [[authorship of the Old Testament]] has been studied by academics and is generally considered to be the work of multiple authors over many centuries, with many different stages of rewriting, censoring and editing. One popular theory is the [[documentary hypothesis]] which considers the Old Testament to be largely written by four anonymous authors, each with different agendas and priorities.<br />
<br />
According to some historians, the New Testament was based on oral traditions and stories that were passed down in the early church and were written down several decades after Jesus's crucifixion. The gospels are not primary or even second hand accounts but more likely many times removed from the original events. <ref>Chris Hallquist, [http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/07/why-atheists-dont-think-the-bibl-is-historically-reliable/ Why atheists don’t think the Bible is historically reliable], July 12, 2012</ref> Other historians reject the idea that an oral tradition existed, since the earliest epistles do not make any reference to it.<ref name="rc"/> The Gospels could be a mid to late 1st century fiction.<br />
<br />
While many of the books of the Bible are named or attributed to [[Moses]] or the [[Apostles]], they were probably not the actual authors. The books of the Bible are almost entirely by anonymous authors, which makes them poor historial sources. The exception is [[Paul the Apostle]] who actually did write many (but not all) of letters attributed to him. However, Paul was not an [[The Bible was written by eyewitnesses|eye witness]] to the events described in the gospels but claimed he received his knowledge by revelation, which is not a way to preserve historical facts. <br />
<br />
Also, as part of a religion, the authors of the Bible had an obvious religious motivation to invent or enlarge stories that suited their purposes. We cannot assume they were interested in recording historical information.<br />
<br />
==Influences==<br />
<br />
According to historians like [[Richard Carrier]], the Gospels could be mostly or entirely fictional, certainly to the point that historical facts could not be distinguished from fictional ones. He notes that the text ''Eugnostos the Blessed'' was used as the basis for quotes allegedly said by Jesus in the ''Wisdom of Jesus Christ''. This was a common practice as students were taught to weave a narrative around collections of proverbs while adding a symbolic meaning. Carrier argues that the canonical Gospels were produced by similar means from works like [[1 Clement]], the epistles, well known myths, the Old Testament and other lost scriptures.<ref name="rc">[[Richard Carrier]], [[On the Historicity of Jesus]], 2014</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|Inventing historical narratives in which to place or adapt sayings was commonplace in ancient biography, even in general, but especially in faith literature [...] That was actually the norm.<ref name="rc"/>}}<br />
<br />
* The [[custom of releasing a prisoner before Passover]] is a retelling of the scapegoat ritual performed at Yom Kippur.<ref name="rc"/><br />
<br />
==Lack of corroborating evidence==<br />
Lack of evidence for an event does not automatically imply its non-occurence. However, in cases where evidence would be expected to be found and a search for evidence is conducted, lack of evidence ''does'' imply non-occurence. This is true for both the Old and [[lack of evidence for the events described in the New Testament|New Testaments]].<br />
<br />
===Old Testament===<br />
<br />
There is no reliable evidence of [[Noah's ark|a global flood or an ark]], apart from the Bible. There is no archaeological remains of the [[Tower of Babel]] and it fails to explain linguistic patterns. <ref>[http://cranberryletters.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/breaking-down-creationist-bad.html]</ref><br />
<br />
The story of the tribe of Joseph being held as slaves in Egypt and wandering in the Sinai for 40 years lead by Moses as told in [[Exodus]] <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a027.html]</ref> is false. There is also no evidence of the [[Plagues of Egypt|ten plagues]]. Archaeologists now consider the evidence to be overwhelming and further searches for evidence are "a fruitless pursuit". <ref>William G. Dever, ''What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It?'', 2001</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|If you go to St Mark's cathedral in Venice, there's a medieval depiction showing people using the three great pyramids of Giza as granaries in Joseph's story<ref>John Darnell quoted in [https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34741010 Why do some people think the pyramids were grain stores?]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids in order to store grain. <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2015/11/05/archaeologists-to-ben-carson-ancient-egyptians-wrote-down-why-the-pyramids-were-built/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
However, the ancient Egyptians made records about the purpose of the pyramids: they were tombs not grain stores. Also, the mummified bodies found in the pyramids seems to corroborate the written claims.<br />
<br />
Some apologists have told the story of NASA discovering a "lost day" in astronomical observations, which would agree with {{Bible|Joshua 10:12-13}}. However, this story is false. NASA released a statement saying these events never took place. This does not stop the tale being circulated among credulous believers. <ref>[http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp]</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|The mainstream consensus in fact has decided almost nothing in the Pentateuch is reliably reported; that in fact most of it is myth. And even much after that is not wholly trustworthy either. The events of the Exodus did not happen. Jews never emigrated from Egypt to conquer Israel but in fact were a native tribe of Canaanites who had never left the place. The forged book of Daniel gets the sequence of foreign kings wrong. And so on.[...] All claims of “archaeological confirmation” of facts in the NT are of this type: merely mundane facts unrelated to Christianity, that anyone could learn from histories and reference books or other assorted non-Christian lore.<ref name="carrier5reasons">[[Richard Carrier]], [https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14441 Five Bogus Reasons to Trust the Bible]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===New Testament===<br />
{{main article|Lack of evidence for the events described in the New Testament}}<br />
There is hardly any independent evidence for the biographical details of Jesus. <ref>[Scott Oser, [http://infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html Historicity Of Jesus FAQ], 1994]</ref> If the events described really occurred, we would expect first hand accounts. Despite thorough searching, non have been found and it is likely first hand accounts do not exist. Therefore, the events described in the gospels did not occur or occurred very differently than described.<br />
<br />
There is no record of a [[Custom of releasing a prisoner before Passover|Roman tradition of releasing a prisoner]] at the [[Passover]] feast. <ref>Charles B. Chavel, [http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3262626 The Releasing of a Prisoner on the Eve of Passover in Ancient Jerusalem], Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 60, No. 3 (Sep., 1941), pp. 273-278]</ref> {{Bible|John 18:39}}<br />
<br />
There is no evidence of Herod's slaughter of the innocent. {{Bible|Matthew 2:16–18}} <ref>[http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/historical_errors_in_the_gospels-3.htm]</ref><br />
<br />
The Bible says that when Jesus died there was an earthquake {{Bible|Matthew 27:51}}, a [[Crucifixion darkness|great darkness]] {{Bible|Matthew 27:45}}, and the dead rose and wandered into Jerusalem {{Bible|Matthew 27:52-53}}. We would expect first hand accounts of such extraordinary events. However, there is no evidence they occurred apart from the Bible.<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that [[other historical figures are accepted on weaker evidence than Jesus]], however:<br />
<br />
{{quote|In fact, when we compare [the evidence of the resurrection to that of Caesar crossed the Rubicon], we see that in four of the five proofs of an event's historicity, the resurrection has no evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it has not the best, but the very worst kind of evidence--a handful of biased, uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses.<ref>[[Richard Carrier]], [https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Known inaccuracies==<br />
<br />
Apologists like to claim the Bible is no shortcomings:<br />
<br />
{{quote|there isn't a single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way. <ref name="slick"/>}}<br />
<br />
However, there are many historical inaccuracies in the Bible. The Bible mentions the reason that Joseph returned to Bethlehem for the [[census of Quirinius]], directly before the birth of Jesus, as described in {{Bible|Luke 2:1–7}}. The Bible says Jesus was born in the reign of [[Herod the Great]], i.e. before Herod the Great's death in 4 BC. The census was conducted in 6/7 CE when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Therefore the census could not have been the reason for Joseph to return to Bethlehem since it occurred 10 years after the birth of Jesus! A more probable explanation is that the authors of the Bible wanted to find a pretext for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem and the census was a convenient fictional device.<br />
<br />
* The [[custom of releasing a prisoner before Passover]] is historically implausible.<br />
* Mark has a weak understanding of the geography of Palestine.<ref>[https://vridar.org/2010/08/06/mark-failed-geography-but-great-bible-student/]</ref><br />
<br />
Also, [[Scientific inaccuracies in the Bible|the Bible contains many scientific inaccuracies]].<br />
<br />
===Exodus from Egypt===<br />
<br />
There is no evidence that the Jews were slaves in Egypt or departed as described in [[Exodus]]. If that happened, we would expect the events described to leave a significant amount of evidence.<br />
<br />
One theory is the Great Pyramids of Egypt were grain stores constructed at the time of [[Joseph]] to ensure enough food was available in a famine he predicted though dream interpretation {{Bible|Genesis 41}}. Expert archaeologists totally reject this theory, saying the pyramids were pharaonic tombs and do not have large storage areas.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/10/egypt-to-ben-carson-no-the-pyramids-were-not-for-storing-grain]</ref><br />
<br />
===Existence of Nazareth===<br />
<br />
It is quite likely that the early Christians were called the Nazorians. Most likely, the Gospel writers chose a suitable town name (Nazareth) to fit the title Nazorian, but Jesus (if he existed) probably had no connection to the place (if it existed).<ref name="rc"/><br />
<br />
==Contradictions==<br />
{{Sab|http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html|Contradictions in the Bible}}<br />
{{main article|Biblical contradictions}}<br />
<br />
The Bible contains many clear contradictions, which makes its truth an impossibility.<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|It seems to me that [the death of [[Judas Iscariot|Judas]]] and [inclusion of some unhistorical narratives] rule out the view that every statement in Scripture must be historical truth.| [[C. S. Lewis]] <ref>Quoted in Michael J. Christensen, C. S. Lewis on Scripture, Abingdon, 1979, Appendix A.</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Style==<br />
<br />
Because the texts do not discuss their sources or provide any critical analysis, they are more like ancient fiction rather than a history of their times:<br />
<br />
{{quote|These texts instead read like ancient prose novels. In all but Luke, we do not hear anything about the written sources that the authors consulted (and even the author of Luke does not name them, explain their contents, or discuss how they are relevant as sources), the authors of the Gospels do not discuss how they learned their stories or what their personal relations are to these events, and even when John claims to have an eyewitness disciple “whom Jesus loved,” the gospel does not even bother to name or identify this mysterious figure (most likely an invention of the author). Instead, the Gospels provide story-like narratives, where the authors omnisciently narrate everything that occurs rather than engage in any form of critical analysis. <ref>[https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/ancient-historical-writing-compared-to-the-gospels-of-the-new-testament/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|At no point do the Gospels name their sources or discuss their relative merits or why they are relying on them; at no point do the Gospels exhibit any historiographical consciousness (such as discussing methods, or the possibility of information being incorrect, or the existence of non-polemical alternative accounts); they don't even express amazement at anything they report, no matter how incredible it is (unlike a more rational historian); and they never explain why they changed what their sources said, nor do they even acknowledge the fact that they did (as when, e.g. Luke or Matthew alters what they derive from Mark).<ref name="rc"/>}}<br />
<br />
==Counter arguments==<br />
<br />
===There were many accurate copies of the Bible===<br />
{{main article|Many accurate copies of my holy book exist}}<br />
<br />
Apologists claim the Bible, and particularly the [[New Testament]], was accurately preserved when compared to other ancient sources. <ref name="slick">Matt Slick, [http://carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-historical-document Can We Trust the New Testament as a Historical Document?]</ref> This is a [[red herring]] because the primary issue is with the reliability of ''the first complete copy''. If that was a work of fiction, no amount of accurate copying would make it true.<br />
<br />
===The Bible says the Bible is true===<br />
<br />
{{quote|What does Jesus say about God's Word? He says, "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35, NIV), thus testifying to the authority of the Bible.<ref>Robert Velarde, [https://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/the-study-of-god/how-do-we-know-the-bible-is-true/how-do-we-know-bible-is-true How Do We Know the Bible Is True?], 2009</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Claiming the Bible is true based on any verse or section of the Bible is a [[circular argument]].<br />
<br />
===The gospels are independent sources===<br />
<br />
{{quote|He noted that the type of eyewitness accounts given in the four Gospels—accounts which agree, but with each writer choosing to omit or add details different from the others—is typical of reliable, independent sources that would be accepted in a court of law as strong evidence. [...] Thus, the independent nature of the four Gospel accounts, agreeing in their information but differing in perspective, amount of detail, and which events were recorded, indicate that the record that we have of Christ's life and ministry as presented in the Gospels is factual and reliable <ref>[http://www.gotquestions.org/four-Gospels.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
None of the New Testament is eye witness testimony (and probably none of the Old Testament too). There are many obvious borrowings between the gospels, particularly the synoptic gospels, and they are therefore not independent sources. Differences in style and content are based on different editing decisions rather than on different recollection.<br />
<br />
===The Bible gets some details right===<br />
<br />
Apologists claim that many archaeological finds or present day locations confirm the Bible. Tablets discovered in Ebla, in Syria, allegedly contain references to cities mentioned in [[Genesis]], including [[Sodom and Gomorrah]].<br />
<br />
{{quote|If you open to almost any page in the Bible you will find a name of a place and/or a person. Much of this can be verified from archaeology <ref name="slick"/>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|And, as common history, when called in question in any instance, may often be greatly confirmed by contemporary or subsequent events more known and acknowledged; and as the common Scripture history, like many others, is thus confirmed; so likewise is the miraculous history of it, not only in particular instances, but in general.<ref name="butler"/>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Something else that helps solidify the truthfulness of eyewitness testimony is the use of archaeology or external evidence. In his book The Reliability of John’s Gospel, Craig Blomberg has identified 59 people, events, or places that have been confirmed by archaeology <ref>[https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/the-8-es-of-testimony-in-the-new-testament/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|If the text shows itself to be reliable in matters of history including statements of fact as well as geography, etc., then we may conclude that it is a reliable source regarding other matters that it affirms<ref>[http://www.xenos.org/essays/christ-and-scriptural-interpretation]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Although the Bible is not a history book it does contain a great deal of historical data and ''whenever it has been possible to check this against contemporary evidence the Bible has been found to be accurate''. [...] With its impeccable track record, it is unreasonable and illogical to charge it with making thousands of false and blasphemous statements about its own authorship [...]<ref name="blanchard">John Blanchard, Why believe the Bible?, 2004</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The argument goes:<br />
<br />
#The Bible describes events and places.<br />
#Some of these events are independently verified.<br />
#Therefore, all the events are accurately described in the Bible.<br />
<br />
Such discoveries are in agreement with parts of the Bible. However, we must be careful not to commit what might be called the "Spider-Man fallacy": just because some facts in a holy book are correct, such as "Jerusalem exists", it does not follow that the entire book is factually correct. That is a [[hasty generalization]]. Suppose that a few thousand years from now, an archaeologist discovers a cache of Spider-Man comic books. Judging by the backgrounds, the stories are clearly set in New York. New York is a real place, as confirmed by archaeology. However, this does not mean that Spider-Man exists. Similarly, the fact that Bible stories are set in real places does not mean that the stories themselves are real. The Red Sea is a real sea, but that does not mean that [[Moses]] parted it.<br />
<br />
Most of the findings are of nobles or locations that featured in the Bible are fairly trivial. The tomb of a person may establish that person's existence. Ruins indicate a location may have existed. However, it does not validate the specific events that are described, which have no corroboration. No amount of correct trivia validates the overall narrative of the Bible. Independent sources of ''the events'' described would validate it. <br />
<br />
Similarly, Homer's ''Odyssey'' describes the travels of Odysseus throughout the Greek Islands. The epic describes, in detail, many locations that existed in history. But should we take Odysseus, the Greek gods and goddesses, one-eyed giants and monsters as literal fact simply because the story depicts geographic locations accurately? Of course not. Since accepting myths as true if they reference real places leads to multiple contradictory conclusions and is therefore a [[broken compass argument]]. A similar fallacious argument could be made:<br />
<br />
*Homer's Iliad mentions Greece and [[Zeus]].<br />
*Based on archaeological finds, the ancient Greek civilisation existed.<br />
*Therefore Zeus exists.<br />
<br />
Apologists ignore the lack of evidence in several important areas and are [[cherry picking]] the evidence.<br />
<br />
===Objections to the Bible are an excuse to ignore it===<br />
{{main article|You just want to sin}}<br />
{{quote|Faced with demand for an ethical commitment (and having a natural aversion to authority), some people feign intellectual objections, claiming alleged contradictions in the Bible, and generally questioning its reliability. <ref>[http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This is an [[ad hominem]] and therefore [[Red herring|irrelevant]]. The reliability of the Bible must be established by evidence.<br />
<br />
===Innocent until proven guilty===<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] Scripture history in general is to be admitted as an authentic genuine history, till something positive be alleged sufficient to invalidate it.<ref name="butler"/>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Many evangelical Christians would try to sidestep this entire discussion by arguing that historical texts, like their authors, should be presumed 'innocent until proven guilty'; thus until someone can prove that the New Testament is unreliable, we should a priori accept its claims. <ref name="lowder">Jeffery Jay Lowder, [http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/indconf.html Independent Confirmation and the Historicity of Jesus], 2007</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This is [[shifting the burden of proof]] without justification; a positive claim that the Bible is reliable requires evidence. It is also a [[broken compass argument]] since many wild hypotheses could be accepted as true on this basis.<br />
<br />
===Minimal facts approach===<br />
{{main article|Most scholars accepts the basic facts of the resurrection}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...]I believe because I find the Bible to be authoritative and historically accurate. [...] I find it historically accurate because the life, crucifixion, empty tomb and eye witness testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus are all recognised as historical facts. These core beliefs are defended by historians.<ref>[http://www.bethinking.org/atheism/the-end-of-faith-by-sam-harris-a-review]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The minimal facts approach recognises the difficulty in justifying all the claims in the [[New Testament]] as historical fact. Instead, it focuses on a few instances that are useful for converting non-believers, such as the [[resurrection]] of Jesus. <ref>[https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/knocking-out-the-pillars-of-the-minimal-facts-apologetic/]</ref><br />
<br />
===Criterion of embarrassment===<br />
{{main article|Embarrassing testimony}}<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that facts that were embarrassing were unlikely to be recorded by the Biblical authors unless they were factually true. This is the so called "criterion of embarrassment".<br />
<br />
The problem is the argument is it is factually incorrect: myth and legends often include embarrassing testimony and that does not support their reliability.<br />
<br />
===The Bible is either entirely true or entirely false===<br />
<br />
This is a [[false dichotomy]] and contrary to historical evidence. Of course there is some truth in the Bible. For instance, Jerusalem is a real place. However, there are also some historical inaccuracies. The Bible is therefore not entirely true or entirely false.<br />
<br />
===Evidence of Jesus was suppressed===<br />
<br />
{{quote|The Roman emperor Hadrian (117 to 138 AD) arrived in Jerusalem in 129 to 130 AD, some 60 years after the Roman Emperor Titus had destroyed Jerusalem and the Second Jewish Temple. In a vain effort to erase the recent memory of Jesus Christ, whom Hadrian saw as a threat and competitor to the Roman way of life, Hadrian built a temple and planted a grove honouring the Roman god Adonis over the cave where Jesus was born in Bethlehem.<ref>[https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1374416/archaeology-news-romans-evidence-jesus-christ-birth-place-church-nativity-evg Archaeology news: Romans tried to erase evidence of Christ's birth place 'in vain' - claim]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|In the early days of Christianity Christians were persecuted and many Christians were martyred so the Romans tried to destroy any record of Jesus <ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210421185615/https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100715133735AABoeww]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This seems to contradict other apologists that claim there is good evidence that Jesus existed.<br />
<br />
===Noah's Ark===<br />
<br />
[[Image:Johans Ark.jpg|thumb|right|Full scale replica of [[Noah's ark]], based on the description in the Bible.]]<br />
The final location and remains of [[Noah's ark]] has been of interest to pseudo-archaeologists of centuries. Apologists have argued that various sites have evidence of the ark, such as the Durupınar site <ref>[http://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/470/noah-s-ark-has-been-found-why-are-they-keeping-us-in-the-dark]</ref>, but no conclusive evidence has been found. These findings are probably explained by [[pareidolia]]. Even if a large ancient ship was discovered, it would be difficult to establish it was specifically Noah's ark.<br />
<br />
==Additional arguments==<br />
<br />
===Other holy books have better support===<br />
<br />
If we accept that the Bible can be authenticated by historical sources, we face the problem that other holy books have better historical support. For instance, the [[Qur'an]] was actually written (or transmitted) by eyewitnesses.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Biblical inerrancy]]<br />
* [[Outsider test]]<br />
* [[Biblical genealogies]]<br />
* [[The Bible was written by eyewitnesses]]<br />
* [[Testimonium Flavian]]<br />
* [[Argument from relics]]<br />
* [[Biblical minimalism]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
* Vati Leaks, [http://www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati_Leaks/post/The_Bible_is_fiction;_PART_1/ The Bible is fiction; PART 1 ], August 10, 2012<br />
* [http://www.reasonablefaith.org/scholarly-articles/historical-jesus Historical Jesus], Reasonable faith<br />
* [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible?], christiananswers.net<br />
* [https://youtu.be/pgxTvGPEwaY?t=27m8s Explaining charring around Mount Sinai], a typical [[argument from ignorance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Bible]]<br />
[[Category:History]]<br />
[[Category:Arguments against belief]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=The_Bible_is_not_a_reliable_historical_source&diff=44055The Bible is not a reliable historical source2023-08-27T01:30:29Z<p>TimSC: /* Old Testament */ Add another reference for grain storage in pyramids</p>
<hr />
<div>{{sab|http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html|Science and History in the Bible}}<br />
{{wikipedia|Historicity of the Bible}}<br />
[[Image:Bible.jpg|right|thumb|The Bible with annotations by the reader.]]<br />
The [[Bible]] is not a reliable historical source because it does not meet the standard criteria of source reliability used by historians. The Bible is not, as many believers assume, [[The Bible was written by eyewitnesses|eye witness testimony]]. Reliable sources are generally based on authors who were eye witnesses to an event (i.e. it is a primary source). Since any particular source may be fabricating their story, multiple independent sources are usually required for confidence. Establishing the lack of author biases, including religious motivations, is also necessary if a work is to be read at face value. The Bible satisfies none of these requirements.<br />
<br />
Based on historical and archaeological research, there are known historical inaccuracies in the Bible. The Bible is considered mythological by most historians. Historians know the Gospels are largely or entirely myths because they share the same characteristics in that they are an apparently normal story except:<br />
<br />
* the text is structured to convey an underlying meaning, usually to convey some political or value system,<ref name="edmonds">Radcliffe G. Edmonds III, <br />
''Myths of the Underworld Journey: Plato, Aristophanes, and the 'Orphic' Gold Tablets'', 20 Sep 2004</ref><br />
* using symbols that are familiar the intended audience,<ref name="edmonds"/><br />
* refers to or retells other myths and stories but often some aspects are changed to make a specific point,<ref name="edmonds"/><br />
* historical improbabilities, occurrence of miracles or people acting unrealistically,<ref name="rc"/><br />
* lack of corroborating evidence.<ref name="rc"/><br />
<br />
Because of this, the [[Bible]] cannot itself be used as an [[argument from scripture]] that the events it describes actually occurred, including [[Argument from miracle testimony|scriptural miracles]]. This contrasts with the view held by many apologists that the Bible is a reliable source:<br />
<br />
{{quote|The Old Testament affords us the same historical evidence of the miracles of Moses and of the prophets, as of the common civil history of Moses and the kings of Israel; or, as of the affairs of the Jewish nation. And the ''Gospels'' and ''the Acts'' afford us the same historical evidence of the miracles of Christ and the apostles, as of the common matters related in them. [...] But the facts, both miraculous and natural, in Scripture, are related in plain unadorned narratives, and both of them appear, in all respects, to stand upon the same foot of historical evidence. <ref name="butler">Joseph Butler, [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/53346/53346-h/53346-h.htm The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed], 1736</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Authorship of the Bible==<br />
<br />
The [[authorship of the Old Testament]] has been studied by academics and is generally considered to be the work of multiple authors over many centuries, with many different stages of rewriting, censoring and editing. One popular theory is the [[documentary hypothesis]] which considers the Old Testament to be largely written by four anonymous authors, each with different agendas and priorities.<br />
<br />
According to some historians, the New Testament was based on oral traditions and stories that were passed down in the early church and were written down several decades after Jesus's crucifixion. The gospels are not primary or even second hand accounts but more likely many times removed from the original events. <ref>Chris Hallquist, [http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/07/why-atheists-dont-think-the-bibl-is-historically-reliable/ Why atheists don’t think the Bible is historically reliable], July 12, 2012</ref> Other historians reject the idea that an oral tradition existed, since the earliest epistles do not make any reference to it.<ref name="rc"/> The Gospels could be a mid to late 1st century fiction.<br />
<br />
While many of the books of the Bible are named or attributed to [[Moses]] or the [[Apostles]], they were probably not the actual authors. The books of the Bible are almost entirely by anonymous authors, which makes them poor historial sources. The exception is [[Paul the Apostle]] who actually did write many (but not all) of letters attributed to him. However, Paul was not an [[The Bible was written by eyewitnesses|eye witness]] to the events described in the gospels but claimed he received his knowledge by revelation, which is not a way to preserve historical facts. <br />
<br />
Also, as part of a religion, the authors of the Bible had an obvious religious motivation to invent or enlarge stories that suited their purposes. We cannot assume they were interested in recording historical information.<br />
<br />
==Influences==<br />
<br />
According to historians like [[Richard Carrier]], the Gospels could be mostly or entirely fictional, certainly to the point that historical facts could not be distinguished from fictional ones. He notes that the text ''Eugnostos the Blessed'' was used as the basis for quotes allegedly said by Jesus in the ''Wisdom of Jesus Christ''. This was a common practice as students were taught to weave a narrative around collections of proverbs while adding a symbolic meaning. Carrier argues that the canonical Gospels were produced by similar means from works like [[1 Clement]], the epistles, well known myths, the Old Testament and other lost scriptures.<ref name="rc">[[Richard Carrier]], [[On the Historicity of Jesus]], 2014</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|Inventing historical narratives in which to place or adapt sayings was commonplace in ancient biography, even in general, but especially in faith literature [...] That was actually the norm.<ref name="rc"/>}}<br />
<br />
* The [[custom of releasing a prisoner before Passover]] is a retelling of the scapegoat ritual performed at Yom Kippur.<ref name="rc"/><br />
<br />
==Lack of corroborating evidence==<br />
Lack of evidence for an event does not automatically imply its non-occurence. However, in cases where evidence would be expected to be found and a search for evidence is conducted, lack of evidence ''does'' imply non-occurence. This is true for both the Old and [[lack of evidence for the events described in the New Testament|New Testaments]].<br />
<br />
===Old Testament===<br />
<br />
There is no reliable evidence of [[Noah's ark|a global flood or an ark]], apart from the Bible. There is no archaeological remains of the [[Tower of Babel]] and it fails to explain linguistic patterns. <ref>[http://cranberryletters.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/breaking-down-creationist-bad.html]</ref><br />
<br />
The story of the tribe of Joseph being held as slaves in Egypt and wandering in the Sinai for 40 years lead by Moses as told in [[Exodus]] <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a027.html]</ref> is false. There is also no evidence of the [[Plagues of Egypt|ten plagues]]. Archaeologists now consider the evidence to be overwhelming and further searches for evidence are "a fruitless pursuit". <ref>William G. Dever, ''What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It?'', 2001</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|If you go to St Mark's cathedral in Venice, there's a medieval depiction showing people using the three great pyramids of Giza as granaries in Joseph's story<ref>John Darnell quoted in [https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34741010 Why do some people think the pyramids were grain stores?]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids in order to store grain. <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2015/11/05/archaeologists-to-ben-carson-ancient-egyptians-wrote-down-why-the-pyramids-were-built/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
However, the ancient Egyptians made records about the purpose of the pyramids: they were tombs not grain stores. Also, the mummified bodies found in the pyramids seems to corroborate the written claims.<br />
<br />
Some apologists have told the story of NASA discovering a "lost day" in astronomical observations, which would agree with {{Bible|Joshua 10:12-13}}. However, this story is false. NASA released a statement saying these events never took place. This does not stop the tale being circulated among credulous believers. <ref>[http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp]</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|The mainstream consensus in fact has decided almost nothing in the Pentateuch is reliably reported; that in fact most of it is myth. And even much after that is not wholly trustworthy either. The events of the Exodus did not happen. Jews never emigrated from Egypt to conquer Israel but in fact were a native tribe of Canaanites who had never left the place. The forged book of Daniel gets the sequence of foreign kings wrong. And so on.[...] All claims of “archaeological confirmation” of facts in the NT are of this type: merely mundane facts unrelated to Christianity, that anyone could learn from histories and reference books or other assorted non-Christian lore.<ref name="carrier5reasons">[[Richard Carrier]], [https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14441 Five Bogus Reasons to Trust the Bible]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===New Testament===<br />
{{main article|Lack of evidence for the events described in the New Testament}}<br />
There is hardly any independent evidence for the biographical details of Jesus. <ref>[Scott Oser, [http://infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html Historicity Of Jesus FAQ], 1994]</ref> If the events described really occurred, we would expect first hand accounts. Despite thorough searching, non have been found and it is likely first hand accounts do not exist. Therefore, the events described in the gospels did not occur or occurred very differently than described.<br />
<br />
There is no record of a [[Custom of releasing a prisoner before Passover|Roman tradition of releasing a prisoner]] at the [[Passover]] feast. <ref>Charles B. Chavel, [http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3262626 The Releasing of a Prisoner on the Eve of Passover in Ancient Jerusalem], Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 60, No. 3 (Sep., 1941), pp. 273-278]</ref> {{Bible|John 18:39}}<br />
<br />
There is no evidence of Herod's slaughter of the innocent. {{Bible|Matthew 2:16–18}} <ref>[http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/historical_errors_in_the_gospels-3.htm]</ref><br />
<br />
The Bible says that when Jesus died there was an earthquake {{Bible|Matthew 27:51}}, a [[Crucifixion darkness|great darkness]] {{Bible|Matthew 27:45}}, and the dead rose and wandered into Jerusalem {{Bible|Matthew 27:52-53}}. We would expect first hand accounts of such extraordinary events. However, there is no evidence they occurred apart from the Bible.<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that [[other historical figures are accepted on weaker evidence than Jesus]], however:<br />
<br />
{{quote|In fact, when we compare [the evidence of the resurrection to that of Caesar crossed the Rubicon], we see that in four of the five proofs of an event's historicity, the resurrection has no evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it has not the best, but the very worst kind of evidence--a handful of biased, uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses.<ref>[[Richard Carrier]], [https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Known inaccuracies==<br />
<br />
Apologists like to claim the Bible is no shortcomings:<br />
<br />
{{quote|there isn't a single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way. <ref name="slick"/>}}<br />
<br />
However, there are many historical inaccuracies in the Bible. The Bible mentions the reason that Joseph returned to Bethlehem for the [[census of Quirinius]], directly before the birth of Jesus, as described in {{Bible|Luke 2:1–7}}. The Bible says Jesus was born in the reign of [[Herod the Great]], i.e. before Herod the Great's death in 4 BC. The census was conducted in 6/7 CE when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Therefore the census could not have been the reason for Joseph to return to Bethlehem since it occurred 10 years after the birth of Jesus! A more probable explanation is that the authors of the Bible wanted to find a pretext for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem and the census was a convenient fictional device.<br />
<br />
* The [[custom of releasing a prisoner before Passover]] is historically implausible.<br />
* Mark has a weak understanding of the geography of Palestine.<ref>[https://vridar.org/2010/08/06/mark-failed-geography-but-great-bible-student/]</ref><br />
<br />
Also, [[Scientific inaccuracies in the Bible|the Bible contains many scientific inaccuracies]].<br />
<br />
===Exodus from Egypt===<br />
<br />
There is no evidence that the Jews were slaves in Egypt or departed as described in [[Exodus]]. If that happened, we would expect the events described to leave a significant amount of evidence.<br />
<br />
One theory is the Great Pyramids of Egypt were grain stores constructed at the time of [[Joseph]] to ensure enough food was available in a famine he predicted though dream interpretation {{Bible|Genesis 41}}. Expert archaeologists totally reject this theory, saying the pyramids were pharaonic tombs and do not have large storage areas.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/10/egypt-to-ben-carson-no-the-pyramids-were-not-for-storing-grain]</ref><br />
<br />
===Existence of Nazareth===<br />
<br />
It is quite likely that the early Christians were called the Nazorians. Most likely, the Gospel writers chose a suitable town name (Nazareth) to fit the title Nazorian, but Jesus (if he existed) probably had no connection to the place (if it existed).<ref name="rc"/><br />
<br />
==Contradictions==<br />
{{Sab|http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html|Contradictions in the Bible}}<br />
{{main article|Biblical contradictions}}<br />
<br />
The Bible contains many clear contradictions, which makes its truth an impossibility.<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|It seems to me that [the death of [[Judas Iscariot|Judas]]] and [inclusion of some unhistorical narratives] rule out the view that every statement in Scripture must be historical truth.| [[C. S. Lewis]] <ref>Quoted in Michael J. Christensen, C. S. Lewis on Scripture, Abingdon, 1979, Appendix A.</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Style==<br />
<br />
Because the texts do not discuss their sources or provide any critical analysis, they are more like ancient fiction rather than a history of their times:<br />
<br />
{{quote|These texts instead read like ancient prose novels. In all but Luke, we do not hear anything about the written sources that the authors consulted (and even the author of Luke does not name them, explain their contents, or discuss how they are relevant as sources), the authors of the Gospels do not discuss how they learned their stories or what their personal relations are to these events, and even when John claims to have an eyewitness disciple “whom Jesus loved,” the gospel does not even bother to name or identify this mysterious figure (most likely an invention of the author). Instead, the Gospels provide story-like narratives, where the authors omnisciently narrate everything that occurs rather than engage in any form of critical analysis. <ref>[https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/ancient-historical-writing-compared-to-the-gospels-of-the-new-testament/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|At no point do the Gospels name their sources or discuss their relative merits or why they are relying on them; at no point do the Gospels exhibit any historiographical consciousness (such as discussing methods, or the possibility of information being incorrect, or the existence of non-polemical alternative accounts); they don't even express amazement at anything they report, no matter how incredible it is (unlike a more rational historian); and they never explain why they changed what their sources said, nor do they even acknowledge the fact that they did (as when, e.g. Luke or Matthew alters what they derive from Mark).<ref name="rc"/>}}<br />
<br />
==Counter arguments==<br />
<br />
===There were many accurate copies of the Bible===<br />
{{main article|Many accurate copies of my holy book exist}}<br />
<br />
Apologists claim the Bible, and particularly the [[New Testament]], was accurately preserved when compared to other ancient sources. <ref name="slick">Matt Slick, [http://carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-historical-document Can We Trust the New Testament as a Historical Document?]</ref> This is a [[red herring]] because the primary issue is with the reliability of ''the first complete copy''. If that was a work of fiction, no amount of accurate copying would make it true.<br />
<br />
===The Bible says the Bible is true===<br />
<br />
{{quote|What does Jesus say about God's Word? He says, "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35, NIV), thus testifying to the authority of the Bible.<ref>Robert Velarde, [https://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/the-study-of-god/how-do-we-know-the-bible-is-true/how-do-we-know-bible-is-true How Do We Know the Bible Is True?], 2009</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Claiming the Bible is true based on any verse or section of the Bible is a [[circular argument]].<br />
<br />
===The gospels are independent sources===<br />
<br />
{{quote|He noted that the type of eyewitness accounts given in the four Gospels—accounts which agree, but with each writer choosing to omit or add details different from the others—is typical of reliable, independent sources that would be accepted in a court of law as strong evidence. [...] Thus, the independent nature of the four Gospel accounts, agreeing in their information but differing in perspective, amount of detail, and which events were recorded, indicate that the record that we have of Christ's life and ministry as presented in the Gospels is factual and reliable <ref>[http://www.gotquestions.org/four-Gospels.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
None of the New Testament is eye witness testimony (and probably none of the Old Testament too). There are many obvious borrowings between the gospels, particularly the synoptic gospels, and they are therefore not independent sources. Differences in style and content are based on different editing decisions rather than on different recollection.<br />
<br />
===The Bible gets some details right===<br />
<br />
Apologists claim that many archaeological finds or present day locations confirm the Bible. Tablets discovered in Ebla, in Syria, allegedly contain references to cities mentioned in [[Genesis]], including [[Sodom and Gomorrah]].<br />
<br />
{{quote|If you open to almost any page in the Bible you will find a name of a place and/or a person. Much of this can be verified from archaeology <ref name="slick"/>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|And, as common history, when called in question in any instance, may often be greatly confirmed by contemporary or subsequent events more known and acknowledged; and as the common Scripture history, like many others, is thus confirmed; so likewise is the miraculous history of it, not only in particular instances, but in general.<ref name="butler"/>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Something else that helps solidify the truthfulness of eyewitness testimony is the use of archaeology or external evidence. In his book The Reliability of John’s Gospel, Craig Blomberg has identified 59 people, events, or places that have been confirmed by archaeology <ref>[https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/the-8-es-of-testimony-in-the-new-testament/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|If the text shows itself to be reliable in matters of history including statements of fact as well as geography, etc., then we may conclude that it is a reliable source regarding other matters that it affirms<ref>[http://www.xenos.org/essays/christ-and-scriptural-interpretation]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Although the Bible is not a history book it does contain a great deal of historical data and ''whenever it has been possible to check this against contemporary evidence the Bible has been found to be accurate''. [...] With its impeccable track record, it is unreasonable and illogical to charge it with making thousands of false and blasphemous statements about its own authorship [...]<ref name="blanchard">John Blanchard, Why believe the Bible?, 2004</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The argument goes:<br />
<br />
#The Bible describes events and places.<br />
#Some of these events are independently verified.<br />
#Therefore, all the events are accurately described in the Bible.<br />
<br />
Such discoveries are in agreement with parts of the Bible. However, we must be careful not to commit what might be called the "Spider-Man fallacy": just because some facts in a holy book are correct, such as "Jerusalem exists", it does not follow that the entire book is factually correct. That is a [[hasty generalization]]. Suppose that a few thousand years from now, an archaeologist discovers a cache of Spider-Man comic books. Judging by the backgrounds, the stories are clearly set in New York. New York is a real place, as confirmed by archaeology. However, this does not mean that Spider-Man exists. Similarly, the fact that Bible stories are set in real places does not mean that the stories themselves are real. The Red Sea is a real sea, but that does not mean that [[Moses]] parted it.<br />
<br />
Most of the findings are of nobles or locations that featured in the Bible are fairly trivial. The tomb of a person may establish that person's existence. Ruins indicate a location may have existed. However, it does not validate the specific events that are described, which have no corroboration. No amount of correct trivia validates the overall narrative of the Bible. Independent sources of ''the events'' described would validate it. <br />
<br />
Similarly, Homer's ''Odyssey'' describes the travels of Odysseus throughout the Greek Islands. The epic describes, in detail, many locations that existed in history. But should we take Odysseus, the Greek gods and goddesses, one-eyed giants and monsters as literal fact simply because the story depicts geographic locations accurately? Of course not. Since accepting myths as true if they reference real places leads to multiple contradictory conclusions and is therefore a [[broken compass argument]]. A similar fallacious argument could be made:<br />
<br />
*Homer's Iliad mentions Greece and [[Zeus]].<br />
*Based on archaeological finds, the ancient Greek civilisation existed.<br />
*Therefore Zeus exists.<br />
<br />
Apologists ignore the lack of evidence in several important areas and are [[cherry picking]] the evidence.<br />
<br />
===Objections to the Bible are an excuse to ignore it===<br />
{{main article|You just want to sin}}<br />
{{quote|Faced with demand for an ethical commitment (and having a natural aversion to authority), some people feign intellectual objections, claiming alleged contradictions in the Bible, and generally questioning its reliability. <ref>[http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This is an [[ad hominem]] and therefore [[Red herring|irrelevant]]. The reliability of the Bible must be established by evidence.<br />
<br />
===Innocent until proven guilty===<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] Scripture history in general is to be admitted as an authentic genuine history, till something positive be alleged sufficient to invalidate it.<ref name="butler"/>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Many evangelical Christians would try to sidestep this entire discussion by arguing that historical texts, like their authors, should be presumed 'innocent until proven guilty'; thus until someone can prove that the New Testament is unreliable, we should a priori accept its claims. <ref name="lowder">Jeffery Jay Lowder, [http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/indconf.html Independent Confirmation and the Historicity of Jesus], 2007</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This is [[shifting the burden of proof]] without justification; a positive claim that the Bible is reliable requires evidence. It is also a [[broken compass argument]] since many wild hypotheses could be accepted as true on this basis.<br />
<br />
===Minimal facts approach===<br />
{{main article|Most scholars accepts the basic facts of the resurrection}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...]I believe because I find the Bible to be authoritative and historically accurate. [...] I find it historically accurate because the life, crucifixion, empty tomb and eye witness testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus are all recognised as historical facts. These core beliefs are defended by historians.<ref>[http://www.bethinking.org/atheism/the-end-of-faith-by-sam-harris-a-review]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The minimal facts approach recognises the difficulty in justifying all the claims in the [[New Testament]] as historical fact. Instead, it focuses on a few instances that are useful for converting non-believers, such as the [[resurrection]] of Jesus. <ref>[https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/knocking-out-the-pillars-of-the-minimal-facts-apologetic/]</ref><br />
<br />
===Criterion of embarrassment===<br />
{{main article|Embarrassing testimony}}<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that facts that were embarrassing were unlikely to be recorded by the Biblical authors unless they were factually true. This is the so called "criterion of embarrassment".<br />
<br />
The problem is the argument is it is factually incorrect: myth and legends often include embarrassing testimony and that does not support their reliability.<br />
<br />
===The Bible is either entirely true or entirely false===<br />
<br />
This is a [[false dichotomy]] and contrary to historical evidence. Of course there is some truth in the Bible. For instance, Jerusalem is a real place. However, there are also some historical inaccuracies. The Bible is therefore not entirely true or entirely false.<br />
<br />
===Evidence of Jesus was suppressed===<br />
<br />
{{quote|In the early days of Christianity Christians were persecuted and many Christians were martyred so the Romans tried to destroy any record of Jesus <ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210421185615/https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100715133735AABoeww]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This seems to contradict other apologists that claim there is good evidence that Jesus existed.<br />
<br />
===Noah's Ark===<br />
<br />
[[Image:Johans Ark.jpg|thumb|right|Full scale replica of [[Noah's ark]], based on the description in the Bible.]]<br />
The final location and remains of [[Noah's ark]] has been of interest to pseudo-archaeologists of centuries. Apologists have argued that various sites have evidence of the ark, such as the Durupınar site <ref>[http://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/470/noah-s-ark-has-been-found-why-are-they-keeping-us-in-the-dark]</ref>, but no conclusive evidence has been found. These findings are probably explained by [[pareidolia]]. Even if a large ancient ship was discovered, it would be difficult to establish it was specifically Noah's ark.<br />
<br />
==Additional arguments==<br />
<br />
===Other holy books have better support===<br />
<br />
If we accept that the Bible can be authenticated by historical sources, we face the problem that other holy books have better historical support. For instance, the [[Qur'an]] was actually written (or transmitted) by eyewitnesses.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Biblical inerrancy]]<br />
* [[Outsider test]]<br />
* [[Biblical genealogies]]<br />
* [[The Bible was written by eyewitnesses]]<br />
* [[Testimonium Flavian]]<br />
* [[Argument from relics]]<br />
* [[Biblical minimalism]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
* Vati Leaks, [http://www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati_Leaks/post/The_Bible_is_fiction;_PART_1/ The Bible is fiction; PART 1 ], August 10, 2012<br />
* [http://www.reasonablefaith.org/scholarly-articles/historical-jesus Historical Jesus], Reasonable faith<br />
* [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible?], christiananswers.net<br />
* [https://youtu.be/pgxTvGPEwaY?t=27m8s Explaining charring around Mount Sinai], a typical [[argument from ignorance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Bible]]<br />
[[Category:History]]<br />
[[Category:Arguments against belief]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=The_Bible_is_not_a_reliable_historical_source&diff=44054The Bible is not a reliable historical source2023-08-27T01:25:20Z<p>TimSC: Fix link</p>
<hr />
<div>{{sab|http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html|Science and History in the Bible}}<br />
{{wikipedia|Historicity of the Bible}}<br />
[[Image:Bible.jpg|right|thumb|The Bible with annotations by the reader.]]<br />
The [[Bible]] is not a reliable historical source because it does not meet the standard criteria of source reliability used by historians. The Bible is not, as many believers assume, [[The Bible was written by eyewitnesses|eye witness testimony]]. Reliable sources are generally based on authors who were eye witnesses to an event (i.e. it is a primary source). Since any particular source may be fabricating their story, multiple independent sources are usually required for confidence. Establishing the lack of author biases, including religious motivations, is also necessary if a work is to be read at face value. The Bible satisfies none of these requirements.<br />
<br />
Based on historical and archaeological research, there are known historical inaccuracies in the Bible. The Bible is considered mythological by most historians. Historians know the Gospels are largely or entirely myths because they share the same characteristics in that they are an apparently normal story except:<br />
<br />
* the text is structured to convey an underlying meaning, usually to convey some political or value system,<ref name="edmonds">Radcliffe G. Edmonds III, <br />
''Myths of the Underworld Journey: Plato, Aristophanes, and the 'Orphic' Gold Tablets'', 20 Sep 2004</ref><br />
* using symbols that are familiar the intended audience,<ref name="edmonds"/><br />
* refers to or retells other myths and stories but often some aspects are changed to make a specific point,<ref name="edmonds"/><br />
* historical improbabilities, occurrence of miracles or people acting unrealistically,<ref name="rc"/><br />
* lack of corroborating evidence.<ref name="rc"/><br />
<br />
Because of this, the [[Bible]] cannot itself be used as an [[argument from scripture]] that the events it describes actually occurred, including [[Argument from miracle testimony|scriptural miracles]]. This contrasts with the view held by many apologists that the Bible is a reliable source:<br />
<br />
{{quote|The Old Testament affords us the same historical evidence of the miracles of Moses and of the prophets, as of the common civil history of Moses and the kings of Israel; or, as of the affairs of the Jewish nation. And the ''Gospels'' and ''the Acts'' afford us the same historical evidence of the miracles of Christ and the apostles, as of the common matters related in them. [...] But the facts, both miraculous and natural, in Scripture, are related in plain unadorned narratives, and both of them appear, in all respects, to stand upon the same foot of historical evidence. <ref name="butler">Joseph Butler, [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/53346/53346-h/53346-h.htm The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed], 1736</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Authorship of the Bible==<br />
<br />
The [[authorship of the Old Testament]] has been studied by academics and is generally considered to be the work of multiple authors over many centuries, with many different stages of rewriting, censoring and editing. One popular theory is the [[documentary hypothesis]] which considers the Old Testament to be largely written by four anonymous authors, each with different agendas and priorities.<br />
<br />
According to some historians, the New Testament was based on oral traditions and stories that were passed down in the early church and were written down several decades after Jesus's crucifixion. The gospels are not primary or even second hand accounts but more likely many times removed from the original events. <ref>Chris Hallquist, [http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/07/why-atheists-dont-think-the-bibl-is-historically-reliable/ Why atheists don’t think the Bible is historically reliable], July 12, 2012</ref> Other historians reject the idea that an oral tradition existed, since the earliest epistles do not make any reference to it.<ref name="rc"/> The Gospels could be a mid to late 1st century fiction.<br />
<br />
While many of the books of the Bible are named or attributed to [[Moses]] or the [[Apostles]], they were probably not the actual authors. The books of the Bible are almost entirely by anonymous authors, which makes them poor historial sources. The exception is [[Paul the Apostle]] who actually did write many (but not all) of letters attributed to him. However, Paul was not an [[The Bible was written by eyewitnesses|eye witness]] to the events described in the gospels but claimed he received his knowledge by revelation, which is not a way to preserve historical facts. <br />
<br />
Also, as part of a religion, the authors of the Bible had an obvious religious motivation to invent or enlarge stories that suited their purposes. We cannot assume they were interested in recording historical information.<br />
<br />
==Influences==<br />
<br />
According to historians like [[Richard Carrier]], the Gospels could be mostly or entirely fictional, certainly to the point that historical facts could not be distinguished from fictional ones. He notes that the text ''Eugnostos the Blessed'' was used as the basis for quotes allegedly said by Jesus in the ''Wisdom of Jesus Christ''. This was a common practice as students were taught to weave a narrative around collections of proverbs while adding a symbolic meaning. Carrier argues that the canonical Gospels were produced by similar means from works like [[1 Clement]], the epistles, well known myths, the Old Testament and other lost scriptures.<ref name="rc">[[Richard Carrier]], [[On the Historicity of Jesus]], 2014</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|Inventing historical narratives in which to place or adapt sayings was commonplace in ancient biography, even in general, but especially in faith literature [...] That was actually the norm.<ref name="rc"/>}}<br />
<br />
* The [[custom of releasing a prisoner before Passover]] is a retelling of the scapegoat ritual performed at Yom Kippur.<ref name="rc"/><br />
<br />
==Lack of corroborating evidence==<br />
Lack of evidence for an event does not automatically imply its non-occurence. However, in cases where evidence would be expected to be found and a search for evidence is conducted, lack of evidence ''does'' imply non-occurence. This is true for both the Old and [[lack of evidence for the events described in the New Testament|New Testaments]].<br />
<br />
===Old Testament===<br />
<br />
There is no reliable evidence of [[Noah's ark|a global flood or an ark]], apart from the Bible. There is no archaeological remains of the [[Tower of Babel]] and it fails to explain linguistic patterns. <ref>[http://cranberryletters.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/breaking-down-creationist-bad.html]</ref><br />
<br />
The story of the tribe of Joseph being held as slaves in Egypt and wandering in the Sinai for 40 years lead by Moses as told in [[Exodus]] <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a027.html]</ref> is false. There is also no evidence of the [[Plagues of Egypt|ten plagues]]. Archaeologists now consider the evidence to be overwhelming and further searches for evidence are "a fruitless pursuit". <ref>William G. Dever, ''What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It?'', 2001</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids in order to store grain. <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2015/11/05/archaeologists-to-ben-carson-ancient-egyptians-wrote-down-why-the-pyramids-were-built/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
However, the ancient Egyptians made records about the purpose of the pyramids: they were tombs not grain stores. Also, the mummified bodies found in the pyramids seems to corroborate the written claims.<br />
<br />
Some apologists have told the story of NASA discovering a "lost day" in astronomical observations, which would agree with {{Bible|Joshua 10:12-13}}. However, this story is false. NASA released a statement saying these events never took place. This does not stop the tale being circulated among credulous believers. <ref>[http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp]</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|The mainstream consensus in fact has decided almost nothing in the Pentateuch is reliably reported; that in fact most of it is myth. And even much after that is not wholly trustworthy either. The events of the Exodus did not happen. Jews never emigrated from Egypt to conquer Israel but in fact were a native tribe of Canaanites who had never left the place. The forged book of Daniel gets the sequence of foreign kings wrong. And so on.[...] All claims of “archaeological confirmation” of facts in the NT are of this type: merely mundane facts unrelated to Christianity, that anyone could learn from histories and reference books or other assorted non-Christian lore.<ref name="carrier5reasons">[[Richard Carrier]], [https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14441 Five Bogus Reasons to Trust the Bible]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===New Testament===<br />
{{main article|Lack of evidence for the events described in the New Testament}}<br />
There is hardly any independent evidence for the biographical details of Jesus. <ref>[Scott Oser, [http://infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html Historicity Of Jesus FAQ], 1994]</ref> If the events described really occurred, we would expect first hand accounts. Despite thorough searching, non have been found and it is likely first hand accounts do not exist. Therefore, the events described in the gospels did not occur or occurred very differently than described.<br />
<br />
There is no record of a [[Custom of releasing a prisoner before Passover|Roman tradition of releasing a prisoner]] at the [[Passover]] feast. <ref>Charles B. Chavel, [http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3262626 The Releasing of a Prisoner on the Eve of Passover in Ancient Jerusalem], Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 60, No. 3 (Sep., 1941), pp. 273-278]</ref> {{Bible|John 18:39}}<br />
<br />
There is no evidence of Herod's slaughter of the innocent. {{Bible|Matthew 2:16–18}} <ref>[http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/historical_errors_in_the_gospels-3.htm]</ref><br />
<br />
The Bible says that when Jesus died there was an earthquake {{Bible|Matthew 27:51}}, a [[Crucifixion darkness|great darkness]] {{Bible|Matthew 27:45}}, and the dead rose and wandered into Jerusalem {{Bible|Matthew 27:52-53}}. We would expect first hand accounts of such extraordinary events. However, there is no evidence they occurred apart from the Bible.<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that [[other historical figures are accepted on weaker evidence than Jesus]], however:<br />
<br />
{{quote|In fact, when we compare [the evidence of the resurrection to that of Caesar crossed the Rubicon], we see that in four of the five proofs of an event's historicity, the resurrection has no evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it has not the best, but the very worst kind of evidence--a handful of biased, uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses.<ref>[[Richard Carrier]], [https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Known inaccuracies==<br />
<br />
Apologists like to claim the Bible is no shortcomings:<br />
<br />
{{quote|there isn't a single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way. <ref name="slick"/>}}<br />
<br />
However, there are many historical inaccuracies in the Bible. The Bible mentions the reason that Joseph returned to Bethlehem for the [[census of Quirinius]], directly before the birth of Jesus, as described in {{Bible|Luke 2:1–7}}. The Bible says Jesus was born in the reign of [[Herod the Great]], i.e. before Herod the Great's death in 4 BC. The census was conducted in 6/7 CE when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Therefore the census could not have been the reason for Joseph to return to Bethlehem since it occurred 10 years after the birth of Jesus! A more probable explanation is that the authors of the Bible wanted to find a pretext for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem and the census was a convenient fictional device.<br />
<br />
* The [[custom of releasing a prisoner before Passover]] is historically implausible.<br />
* Mark has a weak understanding of the geography of Palestine.<ref>[https://vridar.org/2010/08/06/mark-failed-geography-but-great-bible-student/]</ref><br />
<br />
Also, [[Scientific inaccuracies in the Bible|the Bible contains many scientific inaccuracies]].<br />
<br />
===Exodus from Egypt===<br />
<br />
There is no evidence that the Jews were slaves in Egypt or departed as described in [[Exodus]]. If that happened, we would expect the events described to leave a significant amount of evidence.<br />
<br />
One theory is the Great Pyramids of Egypt were grain stores constructed at the time of [[Joseph]] to ensure enough food was available in a famine he predicted though dream interpretation {{Bible|Genesis 41}}. Expert archaeologists totally reject this theory, saying the pyramids were pharaonic tombs and do not have large storage areas.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/10/egypt-to-ben-carson-no-the-pyramids-were-not-for-storing-grain]</ref><br />
<br />
===Existence of Nazareth===<br />
<br />
It is quite likely that the early Christians were called the Nazorians. Most likely, the Gospel writers chose a suitable town name (Nazareth) to fit the title Nazorian, but Jesus (if he existed) probably had no connection to the place (if it existed).<ref name="rc"/><br />
<br />
==Contradictions==<br />
{{Sab|http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html|Contradictions in the Bible}}<br />
{{main article|Biblical contradictions}}<br />
<br />
The Bible contains many clear contradictions, which makes its truth an impossibility.<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|It seems to me that [the death of [[Judas Iscariot|Judas]]] and [inclusion of some unhistorical narratives] rule out the view that every statement in Scripture must be historical truth.| [[C. S. Lewis]] <ref>Quoted in Michael J. Christensen, C. S. Lewis on Scripture, Abingdon, 1979, Appendix A.</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Style==<br />
<br />
Because the texts do not discuss their sources or provide any critical analysis, they are more like ancient fiction rather than a history of their times:<br />
<br />
{{quote|These texts instead read like ancient prose novels. In all but Luke, we do not hear anything about the written sources that the authors consulted (and even the author of Luke does not name them, explain their contents, or discuss how they are relevant as sources), the authors of the Gospels do not discuss how they learned their stories or what their personal relations are to these events, and even when John claims to have an eyewitness disciple “whom Jesus loved,” the gospel does not even bother to name or identify this mysterious figure (most likely an invention of the author). Instead, the Gospels provide story-like narratives, where the authors omnisciently narrate everything that occurs rather than engage in any form of critical analysis. <ref>[https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/ancient-historical-writing-compared-to-the-gospels-of-the-new-testament/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|At no point do the Gospels name their sources or discuss their relative merits or why they are relying on them; at no point do the Gospels exhibit any historiographical consciousness (such as discussing methods, or the possibility of information being incorrect, or the existence of non-polemical alternative accounts); they don't even express amazement at anything they report, no matter how incredible it is (unlike a more rational historian); and they never explain why they changed what their sources said, nor do they even acknowledge the fact that they did (as when, e.g. Luke or Matthew alters what they derive from Mark).<ref name="rc"/>}}<br />
<br />
==Counter arguments==<br />
<br />
===There were many accurate copies of the Bible===<br />
{{main article|Many accurate copies of my holy book exist}}<br />
<br />
Apologists claim the Bible, and particularly the [[New Testament]], was accurately preserved when compared to other ancient sources. <ref name="slick">Matt Slick, [http://carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-historical-document Can We Trust the New Testament as a Historical Document?]</ref> This is a [[red herring]] because the primary issue is with the reliability of ''the first complete copy''. If that was a work of fiction, no amount of accurate copying would make it true.<br />
<br />
===The Bible says the Bible is true===<br />
<br />
{{quote|What does Jesus say about God's Word? He says, "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35, NIV), thus testifying to the authority of the Bible.<ref>Robert Velarde, [https://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/the-study-of-god/how-do-we-know-the-bible-is-true/how-do-we-know-bible-is-true How Do We Know the Bible Is True?], 2009</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Claiming the Bible is true based on any verse or section of the Bible is a [[circular argument]].<br />
<br />
===The gospels are independent sources===<br />
<br />
{{quote|He noted that the type of eyewitness accounts given in the four Gospels—accounts which agree, but with each writer choosing to omit or add details different from the others—is typical of reliable, independent sources that would be accepted in a court of law as strong evidence. [...] Thus, the independent nature of the four Gospel accounts, agreeing in their information but differing in perspective, amount of detail, and which events were recorded, indicate that the record that we have of Christ's life and ministry as presented in the Gospels is factual and reliable <ref>[http://www.gotquestions.org/four-Gospels.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
None of the New Testament is eye witness testimony (and probably none of the Old Testament too). There are many obvious borrowings between the gospels, particularly the synoptic gospels, and they are therefore not independent sources. Differences in style and content are based on different editing decisions rather than on different recollection.<br />
<br />
===The Bible gets some details right===<br />
<br />
Apologists claim that many archaeological finds or present day locations confirm the Bible. Tablets discovered in Ebla, in Syria, allegedly contain references to cities mentioned in [[Genesis]], including [[Sodom and Gomorrah]].<br />
<br />
{{quote|If you open to almost any page in the Bible you will find a name of a place and/or a person. Much of this can be verified from archaeology <ref name="slick"/>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|And, as common history, when called in question in any instance, may often be greatly confirmed by contemporary or subsequent events more known and acknowledged; and as the common Scripture history, like many others, is thus confirmed; so likewise is the miraculous history of it, not only in particular instances, but in general.<ref name="butler"/>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Something else that helps solidify the truthfulness of eyewitness testimony is the use of archaeology or external evidence. In his book The Reliability of John’s Gospel, Craig Blomberg has identified 59 people, events, or places that have been confirmed by archaeology <ref>[https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/the-8-es-of-testimony-in-the-new-testament/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|If the text shows itself to be reliable in matters of history including statements of fact as well as geography, etc., then we may conclude that it is a reliable source regarding other matters that it affirms<ref>[http://www.xenos.org/essays/christ-and-scriptural-interpretation]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Although the Bible is not a history book it does contain a great deal of historical data and ''whenever it has been possible to check this against contemporary evidence the Bible has been found to be accurate''. [...] With its impeccable track record, it is unreasonable and illogical to charge it with making thousands of false and blasphemous statements about its own authorship [...]<ref name="blanchard">John Blanchard, Why believe the Bible?, 2004</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The argument goes:<br />
<br />
#The Bible describes events and places.<br />
#Some of these events are independently verified.<br />
#Therefore, all the events are accurately described in the Bible.<br />
<br />
Such discoveries are in agreement with parts of the Bible. However, we must be careful not to commit what might be called the "Spider-Man fallacy": just because some facts in a holy book are correct, such as "Jerusalem exists", it does not follow that the entire book is factually correct. That is a [[hasty generalization]]. Suppose that a few thousand years from now, an archaeologist discovers a cache of Spider-Man comic books. Judging by the backgrounds, the stories are clearly set in New York. New York is a real place, as confirmed by archaeology. However, this does not mean that Spider-Man exists. Similarly, the fact that Bible stories are set in real places does not mean that the stories themselves are real. The Red Sea is a real sea, but that does not mean that [[Moses]] parted it.<br />
<br />
Most of the findings are of nobles or locations that featured in the Bible are fairly trivial. The tomb of a person may establish that person's existence. Ruins indicate a location may have existed. However, it does not validate the specific events that are described, which have no corroboration. No amount of correct trivia validates the overall narrative of the Bible. Independent sources of ''the events'' described would validate it. <br />
<br />
Similarly, Homer's ''Odyssey'' describes the travels of Odysseus throughout the Greek Islands. The epic describes, in detail, many locations that existed in history. But should we take Odysseus, the Greek gods and goddesses, one-eyed giants and monsters as literal fact simply because the story depicts geographic locations accurately? Of course not. Since accepting myths as true if they reference real places leads to multiple contradictory conclusions and is therefore a [[broken compass argument]]. A similar fallacious argument could be made:<br />
<br />
*Homer's Iliad mentions Greece and [[Zeus]].<br />
*Based on archaeological finds, the ancient Greek civilisation existed.<br />
*Therefore Zeus exists.<br />
<br />
Apologists ignore the lack of evidence in several important areas and are [[cherry picking]] the evidence.<br />
<br />
===Objections to the Bible are an excuse to ignore it===<br />
{{main article|You just want to sin}}<br />
{{quote|Faced with demand for an ethical commitment (and having a natural aversion to authority), some people feign intellectual objections, claiming alleged contradictions in the Bible, and generally questioning its reliability. <ref>[http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This is an [[ad hominem]] and therefore [[Red herring|irrelevant]]. The reliability of the Bible must be established by evidence.<br />
<br />
===Innocent until proven guilty===<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] Scripture history in general is to be admitted as an authentic genuine history, till something positive be alleged sufficient to invalidate it.<ref name="butler"/>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Many evangelical Christians would try to sidestep this entire discussion by arguing that historical texts, like their authors, should be presumed 'innocent until proven guilty'; thus until someone can prove that the New Testament is unreliable, we should a priori accept its claims. <ref name="lowder">Jeffery Jay Lowder, [http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/indconf.html Independent Confirmation and the Historicity of Jesus], 2007</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This is [[shifting the burden of proof]] without justification; a positive claim that the Bible is reliable requires evidence. It is also a [[broken compass argument]] since many wild hypotheses could be accepted as true on this basis.<br />
<br />
===Minimal facts approach===<br />
{{main article|Most scholars accepts the basic facts of the resurrection}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...]I believe because I find the Bible to be authoritative and historically accurate. [...] I find it historically accurate because the life, crucifixion, empty tomb and eye witness testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus are all recognised as historical facts. These core beliefs are defended by historians.<ref>[http://www.bethinking.org/atheism/the-end-of-faith-by-sam-harris-a-review]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The minimal facts approach recognises the difficulty in justifying all the claims in the [[New Testament]] as historical fact. Instead, it focuses on a few instances that are useful for converting non-believers, such as the [[resurrection]] of Jesus. <ref>[https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/knocking-out-the-pillars-of-the-minimal-facts-apologetic/]</ref><br />
<br />
===Criterion of embarrassment===<br />
{{main article|Embarrassing testimony}}<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that facts that were embarrassing were unlikely to be recorded by the Biblical authors unless they were factually true. This is the so called "criterion of embarrassment".<br />
<br />
The problem is the argument is it is factually incorrect: myth and legends often include embarrassing testimony and that does not support their reliability.<br />
<br />
===The Bible is either entirely true or entirely false===<br />
<br />
This is a [[false dichotomy]] and contrary to historical evidence. Of course there is some truth in the Bible. For instance, Jerusalem is a real place. However, there are also some historical inaccuracies. The Bible is therefore not entirely true or entirely false.<br />
<br />
===Evidence of Jesus was suppressed===<br />
<br />
{{quote|In the early days of Christianity Christians were persecuted and many Christians were martyred so the Romans tried to destroy any record of Jesus <ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210421185615/https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100715133735AABoeww]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This seems to contradict other apologists that claim there is good evidence that Jesus existed.<br />
<br />
===Noah's Ark===<br />
<br />
[[Image:Johans Ark.jpg|thumb|right|Full scale replica of [[Noah's ark]], based on the description in the Bible.]]<br />
The final location and remains of [[Noah's ark]] has been of interest to pseudo-archaeologists of centuries. Apologists have argued that various sites have evidence of the ark, such as the Durupınar site <ref>[http://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/470/noah-s-ark-has-been-found-why-are-they-keeping-us-in-the-dark]</ref>, but no conclusive evidence has been found. These findings are probably explained by [[pareidolia]]. Even if a large ancient ship was discovered, it would be difficult to establish it was specifically Noah's ark.<br />
<br />
==Additional arguments==<br />
<br />
===Other holy books have better support===<br />
<br />
If we accept that the Bible can be authenticated by historical sources, we face the problem that other holy books have better historical support. For instance, the [[Qur'an]] was actually written (or transmitted) by eyewitnesses.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Biblical inerrancy]]<br />
* [[Outsider test]]<br />
* [[Biblical genealogies]]<br />
* [[The Bible was written by eyewitnesses]]<br />
* [[Testimonium Flavian]]<br />
* [[Argument from relics]]<br />
* [[Biblical minimalism]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
* Vati Leaks, [http://www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati_Leaks/post/The_Bible_is_fiction;_PART_1/ The Bible is fiction; PART 1 ], August 10, 2012<br />
* [http://www.reasonablefaith.org/scholarly-articles/historical-jesus Historical Jesus], Reasonable faith<br />
* [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible?], christiananswers.net<br />
* [https://youtu.be/pgxTvGPEwaY?t=27m8s Explaining charring around Mount Sinai], a typical [[argument from ignorance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Bible]]<br />
[[Category:History]]<br />
[[Category:Arguments against belief]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=The_Bible_is_not_a_reliable_historical_source&diff=44053The Bible is not a reliable historical source2023-08-27T01:15:34Z<p>TimSC: Having anonymous authors doesn't make it incorrect. Focus on content and ideas, not authorship.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{sab|http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html|Science and History in the Bible}}<br />
{{wikipedia|Historicity of the Bible}}<br />
[[Image:Bible.jpg|right|thumb|The Bible with annotations by the reader.]]<br />
The [[Bible]] is not a reliable historical source because it does not meet the standard criteria of source reliability used by historians. The Bible is not, as many believers assume, [[The Bible was written by eyewitnesses|eye witness testimony]]. Reliable sources are generally based on authors who were eye witnesses to an event (i.e. it is a primary source). Since any particular source may be fabricating their story, multiple independent sources are usually required for confidence. Establishing the lack of author biases, including religious motivations, is also necessary if a work is to be read at face value. The Bible satisfies none of these requirements.<br />
<br />
Based on historical and archaeological research, there are known historical inaccuracies in the Bible. The Bible is considered mythological by most historians. Historians know the Gospels are largely or entirely myths because they share the same characteristics in that they are an apparently normal story except:<br />
<br />
* the text is structured to convey an underlying meaning, usually to convey some political or value system,<ref name="edmonds">Radcliffe G. Edmonds III, <br />
''Myths of the Underworld Journey: Plato, Aristophanes, and the 'Orphic' Gold Tablets'', 20 Sep 2004</ref><br />
* using symbols that are familiar the intended audience,<ref name="edmonds"/><br />
* refers to or retells other myths and stories but often some aspects are changed to make a specific point,<ref name="edmonds"/><br />
* historical improbabilities, occurrence of miracles or people acting unrealistically,<ref name="rc"/><br />
* lack of corroborating evidence.<ref name="rc"/><br />
<br />
Because of this, the [[Bible]] cannot itself be used as an [[argument from scripture]] that the events it describes actually occurred, including [[Argument from miracle testimony|scriptural miracles]]. This contrasts with the view held by many apologists that the Bible is a reliable source:<br />
<br />
{{quote|The Old Testament affords us the same historical evidence of the miracles of Moses and of the prophets, as of the common civil history of Moses and the kings of Israel; or, as of the affairs of the Jewish nation. And the ''Gospels'' and ''the Acts'' afford us the same historical evidence of the miracles of Christ and the apostles, as of the common matters related in them. [...] But the facts, both miraculous and natural, in Scripture, are related in plain unadorned narratives, and both of them appear, in all respects, to stand upon the same foot of historical evidence. <ref name="butler">Joseph Butler, [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/53346/53346-h/53346-h.htm The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed], 1736</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Authorship of the Bible==<br />
<br />
The [[authorship of the Old Testament]] has been studied by academics and is generally considered to be the work of multiple authors over many centuries, with many different stages of rewriting, censoring and editing. One popular theory is the [[documentary hypothesis]] which considers the Old Testament to be largely written by four anonymous authors, each with different agendas and priorities.<br />
<br />
According to some historians, the New Testament was based on oral traditions and stories that were passed down in the early church and were written down several decades after Jesus's crucifixion. The gospels are not primary or even second hand accounts but more likely many times removed from the original events. <ref>Chris Hallquist, [http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/07/why-atheists-dont-think-the-bibl-is-historically-reliable/ Why atheists don’t think the Bible is historically reliable], July 12, 2012</ref> Other historians reject the idea that an oral tradition existed, since the earliest epistles do not make any reference to it.<ref name="rc"/> The Gospels could be a mid to late 1st century fiction.<br />
<br />
While many of the books of the Bible are named or attributed to [[Moses]] or the [[Apostles]], they were probably not the actual authors. The books of the Bible are almost entirely by anonymous authors, which makes them poor historial sources. The exception is [[Paul the Apostle]] who actually did write many (but not all) of letters attributed to him. However, Paul was not an [[The Bible was written by eyewitnesses|eye witness]] to the events described in the gospels but claimed he received his knowledge by revelation, which is not a way to preserve historical facts. <br />
<br />
Also, as part of a religion, the authors of the Bible had an obvious religious motivation to invent or enlarge stories that suited their purposes. We cannot assume they were interested in recording historical information.<br />
<br />
==Influences==<br />
<br />
According to historians like [[Richard Carrier]], the Gospels could be mostly or entirely fictional, certainly to the point that historical facts could not be distinguished from fictional ones. He notes that the text ''Eugnostos the Blessed'' was used as the basis for quotes allegedly said by Jesus in the ''Wisdom of Jesus Christ''. This was a common practice as students were taught to weave a narrative around collections of proverbs while adding a symbolic meaning. Carrier argues that the canonical Gospels were produced by similar means from works like [[1 Clement]], the epistles, well known myths, the Old Testament and other lost scriptures.<ref name="rc">[[Richard Carrier]], [[On the Historicity of Jesus]], 2014</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|Inventing historical narratives in which to place or adapt sayings was commonplace in ancient biography, even in general, but especially in faith literature [...] That was actually the norm.<ref name="rc"/>}}<br />
<br />
* The [[custom of releasing a prisoner before Passover]] is a retelling of the scapegoat ritual performed at Yom Kippur.<ref name="rc"/><br />
<br />
==Lack of corroborating evidence==<br />
Lack of evidence for an event does not automatically imply its non-occurence. However, in cases where evidence would be expected to be found and a search for evidence is conducted, lack of evidence ''does'' imply non-occurence. This is true for both the Old and [[lack of evidence for the events described in the New Testament|New Testaments]].<br />
<br />
===Old Testament===<br />
<br />
There is no reliable evidence of [[Noah's ark|a global flood or an ark]], apart from the Bible. There is no archaeological remains of the [[Tower of Babel]] and it fails to explain linguistic patterns. <ref>[http://cranberryletters.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/breaking-down-creationist-bad.html]</ref><br />
<br />
The story of the tribe of Joseph being held as slaves in Egypt and wandering in the Sinai for 40 years lead by Moses as told in [[Exodus]] <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a027.html]</ref> is false. There is also no evidence of the [[Plagues of Egypt|ten plagues]]. Archaeologists now consider the evidence to be overwhelming and further searches for evidence are "a fruitless pursuit". <ref>William G. Dever, ''What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It?'', 2001</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids in order to store grain. <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2015/11/05/archaeologists-to-ben-carson-ancient-egyptians-wrote-down-why-the-pyramids-were-built/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
However, the ancient Egyptians made records about the purpose of the pyramids: they were tombs not grain stores. Also, the mummified bodies found in the pyramids seems to corroborate the written claims.<br />
<br />
Some apologists have told the story of NASA discovering a "lost day" in astronomical observations, which would agree with {{Bible|Joshua 10:12-13}}. However, this story is false. NASA released a statement saying these events never took place. This does not stop the tale being circulated among credulous believers. <ref>[http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp]</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|The mainstream consensus in fact has decided almost nothing in the Pentateuch is reliably reported; that in fact most of it is myth. And even much after that is not wholly trustworthy either. The events of the Exodus did not happen. Jews never emigrated from Egypt to conquer Israel but in fact were a native tribe of Canaanites who had never left the place. The forged book of Daniel gets the sequence of foreign kings wrong. And so on.[...] All claims of “archaeological confirmation” of facts in the NT are of this type: merely mundane facts unrelated to Christianity, that anyone could learn from histories and reference books or other assorted non-Christian lore.<ref name="carrier5reasons">[[Richard Carrier]], [https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14441 Five Bogus Reasons to Trust the Bible]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===New Testament===<br />
{{main article|Lack of evidence for the events described in the New Testament}}<br />
There is hardly any independent evidence for the biographical details of Jesus. <ref>[Scott Oser, [http://infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html Historicity Of Jesus FAQ], 1994]</ref> If the events described really occurred, we would expect first hand accounts. Despite thorough searching, non have been found and it is likely first hand accounts do not exist. Therefore, the events described in the gospels did not occur or occurred very differently than described.<br />
<br />
There is no record of a [[Custom of releasing a prisoner before Passover|Roman tradition of releasing a prisoner]] at the [[Passover]] feast. <ref>Charles B. Chavel, [http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3262626 The Releasing of a Prisoner on the Eve of Passover in Ancient Jerusalem], Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 60, No. 3 (Sep., 1941), pp. 273-278]</ref> {{Bible|John 18:39}}<br />
<br />
There is no evidence of Herod's slaughter of the innocent. {{Bible|Matthew 2:16–18}} <ref>[http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/historical_errors_in_the_gospels-3.htm]</ref><br />
<br />
The Bible says that when Jesus died there was an earthquake {{Bible|Matthew 27:51}}, a [[Crucifixion darkness|great darkness]] {{Bible|Matthew 27:45}}, and the dead rose and wandered into Jerusalem {{Bible|Matthew 27:52-53}}. We would expect first hand accounts of such extraordinary events. However, there is no evidence they occurred apart from the Bible.<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that [[other historical figures are accepted on weaker evidence than Jesus]], however:<br />
<br />
{{quote|In fact, when we compare [the evidence of the resurrection to that of Caesar crossed the Rubicon], we see that in four of the five proofs of an event's historicity, the resurrection has no evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it has not the best, but the very worst kind of evidence--a handful of biased, uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses.<ref>[[Richard Carrier]], [https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Known inaccuracies==<br />
<br />
Apologists like to claim the Bible is no shortcomings:<br />
<br />
{{quote|there isn't a single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way. <ref name="slick"/>}}<br />
<br />
However, there are many historical inaccuracies in the Bible. The Bible mentions the reason that Joseph returned to Bethlehem for the [[census of Quirinius]], directly before the birth of Jesus, as described in {{Bible|Luke 2:1–7}}. The Bible says Jesus was born in the reign of [[Herod the Great]], i.e. before Herod the Great's death in 4 BC. The census was conducted in 6/7 CE when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Therefore the census could not have been the reason for Joseph to return to Bethlehem since it occurred 10 years after the birth of Jesus! A more probable explanation is that the authors of the Bible wanted to find a pretext for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem and the census was a convenient fictional device.<br />
<br />
* The [[custom of releasing a prisoner before Passover]] is historically implausible.<br />
* Mark has a weak understanding of the geography of Palestine.<ref>[https://vridar.org/2010/08/06/mark-failed-geography-but-great-bible-student/]</ref><br />
<br />
Also, [[Scientific inaccuracies in the Bible|the Bible contains many scientific inaccuracies]].<br />
<br />
===Exodus from Egypt===<br />
<br />
There is no evidence that the Jews were slaves in Egypt or departed as described in [[Exodus]]. If that happened, we would expect the events described to leave a significant amount of evidence.<br />
<br />
One theory is the Great Pyramids of Egypt were grain stores constructed at the time of [[Joseph]] to ensure enough food was available in a famine he predicted though dream interpretation {{Bible|Genesis 41}}. Expert archaeologists totally reject this theory, saying the pyramids were pharaonic tombs and do not have large storage areas.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/10/egypt-to-ben-carson-no-the-pyramids-were-not-for-storing-grain]</ref><br />
<br />
===Existence of Nazareth===<br />
<br />
It is quite likely that the early Christians were called the Nazorians. Most likely, the Gospel writers chose a suitable town name (Nazareth) to fit the title Nazorian, but Jesus (if he existed) probably had no connection to the place (if it existed).<ref name="rc"/><br />
<br />
==Contradictions==<br />
{{Sab|http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html|Contradictions in the Bible}}<br />
{{main article|Biblical contradictions}}<br />
<br />
The Bible contains many clear contradictions, which makes its truth an impossibility.<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|It seems to me that [the death of [[Judas Iscariot|Judas]]] and [inclusion of some unhistorical narratives] rule out the view that every statement in Scripture must be historical truth.| [[C. S. Lewis]] <ref>Quoted in Michael J. Christensen, C. S. Lewis on Scripture, Abingdon, 1979, Appendix A.</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Style==<br />
<br />
Because the texts do not discuss their sources or provide any critical analysis, they are more like ancient fiction rather than a history of their times:<br />
<br />
{{quote|These texts instead read like ancient prose novels. In all but Luke, we do not hear anything about the written sources that the authors consulted (and even the author of Luke does not name them, explain their contents, or discuss how they are relevant as sources), the authors of the Gospels do not discuss how they learned their stories or what their personal relations are to these events, and even when John claims to have an eyewitness disciple “whom Jesus loved,” the gospel does not even bother to name or identify this mysterious figure (most likely an invention of the author). Instead, the Gospels provide story-like narratives, where the authors omnisciently narrate everything that occurs rather than engage in any form of critical analysis. <ref>[https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/ancient-historical-writing-compared-to-the-gospels-of-the-new-testament/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|At no point do the Gospels name their sources or discuss their relative merits or why they are relying on them; at no point do the Gospels exhibit any historiographical consciousness (such as discussing methods, or the possibility of information being incorrect, or the existence of non-polemical alternative accounts); they don't even express amazement at anything they report, no matter how incredible it is (unlike a more rational historian); and they never explain why they changed what their sources said, nor do they even acknowledge the fact that they did (as when, e.g. Luke or Matthew alters what they derive from Mark).<ref name="rc"/>}}<br />
<br />
==Counter arguments==<br />
<br />
===There were many accurate copies of the Bible===<br />
{{main article|Many accurate copies of my holy book exist}}<br />
<br />
Apologists claim the Bible, and particularly the [[New Testament]], was accurately preserved when compared to other ancient sources. <ref name="slick">Matt Slick, [http://carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-historical-document Can We Trust the New Testament as a Historical Document?]</ref> This is a [[red herring]] because the primary issue is with the reliability of ''the first complete copy''. If that was a work of fiction, no amount of accurate copying would make it true.<br />
<br />
===The Bible says the Bible is true===<br />
<br />
{{quote|What does Jesus say about God's Word? He says, "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35, NIV), thus testifying to the authority of the Bible.<ref>Robert Velarde, [https://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/the-study-of-god/how-do-we-know-the-bible-is-true/how-do-we-know-bible-is-true How Do We Know the Bible Is True?], 2009</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Claiming the Bible is true based on any verse or section of the Bible is a [[circular argument]].<br />
<br />
===The gospels are independent sources===<br />
<br />
{{quote|He noted that the type of eyewitness accounts given in the four Gospels—accounts which agree, but with each writer choosing to omit or add details different from the others—is typical of reliable, independent sources that would be accepted in a court of law as strong evidence. [...] Thus, the independent nature of the four Gospel accounts, agreeing in their information but differing in perspective, amount of detail, and which events were recorded, indicate that the record that we have of Christ's life and ministry as presented in the Gospels is factual and reliable <ref>[http://www.gotquestions.org/four-Gospels.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
None of the New Testament is eye witness testimony (and probably none of the Old Testament too). There are many obvious borrowings between the gospels, particularly the synoptic gospels, and they are therefore not independent sources. Differences in style and content are based on different editing decisions rather than on different recollection.<br />
<br />
===The Bible gets some details right===<br />
<br />
Apologists claim that many archaeological finds or present day locations confirm the Bible. Tablets discovered in Ebla, in Syria, allegedly contain references to cities mentioned in [[Genesis]], including [[Sodom and Gomorrah]].<br />
<br />
{{quote|If you open to almost any page in the Bible you will find a name of a place and/or a person. Much of this can be verified from archaeology <ref name="slick"/>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|And, as common history, when called in question in any instance, may often be greatly confirmed by contemporary or subsequent events more known and acknowledged; and as the common Scripture history, like many others, is thus confirmed; so likewise is the miraculous history of it, not only in particular instances, but in general.<ref name="butler"/>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Something else that helps solidify the truthfulness of eyewitness testimony is the use of archaeology or external evidence. In his book The Reliability of John’s Gospel, Craig Blomberg has identified 59 people, events, or places that have been confirmed by archaeology <ref>[https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/the-8-es-of-testimony-in-the-new-testament/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|If the text shows itself to be reliable in matters of history including statements of fact as well as geography, etc., then we may conclude that it is a reliable source regarding other matters that it affirms<ref>[http://www.xenos.org/essays/christ-and-scriptural-interpretation]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Although the Bible is not a history book it does contain a great deal of historical data and ''whenever it has been possible to check this against contemporary evidence the Bible has been found to be accurate''. [...] With its impeccable track record, it is unreasonable and illogical to charge it with making thousands of false and blasphemous statements about its own authorship [...]<ref name="blanchard">John Blanchard, Why believe the Bible?, 2004</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The argument goes:<br />
<br />
#The Bible describes events and places.<br />
#Some of these events are independently verified.<br />
#Therefore, all the events are accurately described in the Bible.<br />
<br />
Such discoveries are in agreement with parts of the Bible. However, we must be careful not to commit what might be called the "Spider-Man fallacy": just because some facts in a holy book are correct, such as "Jerusalem exists", it does not follow that the entire book is factually correct. That is a [[hasty generalization]]. Suppose that a few thousand years from now, an archaeologist discovers a cache of Spider-Man comic books. Judging by the backgrounds, the stories are clearly set in New York. New York is a real place, as confirmed by archaeology. However, this does not mean that Spider-Man exists. Similarly, the fact that Bible stories are set in real places does not mean that the stories themselves are real. The Red Sea is a real sea, but that does not mean that [[Moses]] parted it.<br />
<br />
Most of the findings are of nobles or locations that featured in the Bible are fairly trivial. The tomb of a person may establish that person's existence. Ruins indicate a location may have existed. However, it does not validate the specific events that are described, which have no corroboration. No amount of correct trivia validates the overall narrative of the Bible. Independent sources of ''the events'' described would validate it. <br />
<br />
Similarly, Homer's ''Odyssey'' describes the travels of Odysseus throughout the Greek Islands. The epic describes, in detail, many locations that existed in history. But should we take Odysseus, the Greek gods and goddesses, one-eyed giants and monsters as literal fact simply because the story depicts geographic locations accurately? Of course not. Since accepting myths as true if they reference real places leads to multiple contradictory conclusions and is therefore a [[broken compass argument]]. A similar fallacious argument could be made:<br />
<br />
*Homer's Iliad mentions Greece and [[Zeus]].<br />
*Based on archaeological finds, the ancient Greek civilisation existed.<br />
*Therefore Zeus exists.<br />
<br />
Apologists ignore the lack of evidence in several important areas and are [[cherry picking]] the evidence.<br />
<br />
===Objections to the Bible are an excuse to ignore it===<br />
{{main article|You just want to sin}}<br />
{{quote|Faced with demand for an ethical commitment (and having a natural aversion to authority), some people feign intellectual objections, claiming alleged contradictions in the Bible, and generally questioning its reliability. <ref>[http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This is an [[ad hominem]] and therefore [[Red herring|irrelevant]]. The reliability of the Bible must be established by evidence.<br />
<br />
===Innocent until proven guilty===<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] Scripture history in general is to be admitted as an authentic genuine history, till something positive be alleged sufficient to invalidate it.<ref name="butler"/>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Many evangelical Christians would try to sidestep this entire discussion by arguing that historical texts, like their authors, should be presumed 'innocent until proven guilty'; thus until someone can prove that the New Testament is unreliable, we should a priori accept its claims. <ref name="lowder">Jeffery Jay Lowder, [http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/indconf.html Independent Confirmation and the Historicity of Jesus], 2007</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This is [[shifting the burden of proof]] without justification; a positive claim that the Bible is reliable requires evidence. It is also a [[broken compass argument]] since many wild hypotheses could be accepted as true on this basis.<br />
<br />
===Minimal facts approach===<br />
{{main article|Most scholars accepts the basic facts of the resurrection}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|[...]I believe because I find the Bible to be authoritative and historically accurate. [...] I find it historically accurate because the life, crucifixion, empty tomb and eye witness testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus are all recognised as historical facts. These core beliefs are defended by historians.<ref>[http://www.bethinking.org/atheism/the-end-of-faith-by-sam-harris-a-review]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The minimal facts approach recognises the difficulty in justifying all the claims in the [[New Testament]] as historical fact. Instead, it focuses on a few instances that are useful for converting non-believers, such as the [[resurrection]] of Jesus. <ref>[https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/knocking-out-the-pillars-of-the-minimal-facts-apologetic/]</ref><br />
<br />
===Criterion of embarrassment===<br />
{{main article|Embarrassing testimony}}<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that facts that were embarrassing were unlikely to be recorded by the Biblical authors unless they were factually true. This is the so called "criterion of embarrassment".<br />
<br />
The problem is the argument is it is factually incorrect: myth and legends often include embarrassing testimony and that does not support their reliability.<br />
<br />
===The Bible is either entirely true or entirely false===<br />
<br />
This is a [[false dichotomy]] and contrary to historical evidence. Of course there is some truth in the Bible. For instance, Jerusalem is a real place. However, there are also some historical inaccuracies. The Bible is therefore not entirely true or entirely false.<br />
<br />
===Evidence of Jesus was suppressed===<br />
<br />
{{quote|In the early days of Christianity Christians were persecuted and many Christians were martyred so the Romans tried to destroy any record of Jesus <ref>[https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100715133735AABoeww]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
This seems to contradict other apologists that claim there is good evidence that Jesus existed.<br />
<br />
===Noah's Ark===<br />
<br />
[[Image:Johans Ark.jpg|thumb|right|Full scale replica of [[Noah's ark]], based on the description in the Bible.]]<br />
The final location and remains of [[Noah's ark]] has been of interest to pseudo-archaeologists of centuries. Apologists have argued that various sites have evidence of the ark, such as the Durupınar site <ref>[http://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/470/noah-s-ark-has-been-found-why-are-they-keeping-us-in-the-dark]</ref>, but no conclusive evidence has been found. These findings are probably explained by [[pareidolia]]. Even if a large ancient ship was discovered, it would be difficult to establish it was specifically Noah's ark.<br />
<br />
==Additional arguments==<br />
<br />
===Other holy books have better support===<br />
<br />
If we accept that the Bible can be authenticated by historical sources, we face the problem that other holy books have better historical support. For instance, the [[Qur'an]] was actually written (or transmitted) by eyewitnesses.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Biblical inerrancy]]<br />
* [[Outsider test]]<br />
* [[Biblical genealogies]]<br />
* [[The Bible was written by eyewitnesses]]<br />
* [[Testimonium Flavian]]<br />
* [[Argument from relics]]<br />
* [[Biblical minimalism]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
* Vati Leaks, [http://www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati_Leaks/post/The_Bible_is_fiction;_PART_1/ The Bible is fiction; PART 1 ], August 10, 2012<br />
* [http://www.reasonablefaith.org/scholarly-articles/historical-jesus Historical Jesus], Reasonable faith<br />
* [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible?], christiananswers.net<br />
* [https://youtu.be/pgxTvGPEwaY?t=27m8s Explaining charring around Mount Sinai], a typical [[argument from ignorance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Bible]]<br />
[[Category:History]]<br />
[[Category:Arguments against belief]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Would_someone_die_for_what_they_knew_was_a_lie%3F&diff=44050Would someone die for what they knew was a lie?2023-08-09T15:32:18Z<p>TimSC: /* Beliefs are not always correct */</p>
<hr />
<div>An often used modern [[argument]] for the [[truth]] of the [[resurrection]] of [[Jesus]] is that of [[martyr]]dom. The claim is that all of the [[apostle]]s would have had first-hand [[knowledge]] as to whether or not Jesus actually returned from the dead and confirmed that he was the [[Jesus|Son of God]]. As they died rather than admit the account was false, this suggests that rather than just [[believe]] that it was true like other martyrs in other faiths, they knew it was true for a fact.<br />
<br />
{{quote|People do not willingly allow themselves to die for something they know is a lie so the Apostles really believed they saw, talked with, touched, walked with and even ate with Jesus in various group settings after He died on the cross which convinced them He was God so they became bold proclaimers when before they were doubters.<ref>[http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476-4-Step-Proof-for-God-amp-Minimal-Facts-Approach]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|They didn't just die for a lie either, they left lives of general stability, families, and the things they enjoyed to go to parts of the world the had never dreamed of. All but one were killed in terrible circumstance.}}<br />
<br />
==Argument structure==<br />
<br />
* The disciples of Jesus either were either telling the truth or lying about Jesus.<br />
* Many of them were martyred for speaking about their belief.<br />
* People don't die for a lie that they know is a lie when they have the ability to live by denouncing the lie.<br />
* Therefore, the disciples were telling the truth about Jesus.<br />
* Therefore, Jesus was resurrected.<br />
<br />
The argument also can be applied to other believers and belief systems.<br />
<br />
==Counter-apologetics==<br />
<br />
===Beliefs are not always correct===<br />
<br />
If early Christians did in fact die specifically for holding to the claim that Jesus was real (which has in no way been demonstrated), that only indicates that they believed it, not that they were correct. People have been willing to die for a mistaken or delusional belief.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Countless people throughout history have been fully convinced that gods or ghosts spoke to them, by the mere fact that they dreamt it, or hallucinated it... Thus countless people die for a “lie” in the sense that they don’t know that what they are dying for is false.<ref>Richard Carrier, [https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9978 Did the Apostles Die for a Lie?], 7 April 2016</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Examples of people dying for delusional beliefs include: <br />
* Many thousands of Germans died during World War II based on the belief that they were the "master race" and were justified in conquering other nations for "living space". <br />
* Also during World War II, many Japanese civilians committed suicide rather than being captured by the Americans because of the false belief they would be mistreated. <br />
* At Jonestown, over 900 people committed mass suicide while under the influence of the cult leader Jim Jones. <br />
* In 1993, 76 people died at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas because they believed their leader, David Koresh, was a prophet of God. <br />
* In 1997, 39 members of [[Heaven's Gate]] committed suicide in the belief that a UFO following the comet Hale-Bopp would transport them to "Their world". <br />
Since accepting delusional beliefs would prove multiple incompatible religions were true, it is a [[broken compass argument]] (e.g. this argument would imply that Heaven's Gate is just as true as Christianity).<br />
<br />
{{quote-source| Characters of blood did they write on the way they went, and their folly taught that truth is proved by blood. But blood is the very worst witness to truth; blood tainteth the purest teaching, and turneth it into delusion and hatred of heart.|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]}}<br />
<br />
===Earliest records we have===<br />
<br />
The earliest record of Christians from non-Christian sources is the letter of [[Pliny the Younger]] who specifically did give these very early Christians a choice between dying and worshiping Jesus. They overwhelmingly recanted and did not die for their faith.<br />
<br />
{{quote|I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.<ref>[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
When threatened the group of Christians quickly recanted and insisted they first said they were Christians in error, they stopped being Christians long ago and all hail the emperor and to hell with Christ! Apparently when push came to shove, the evidence is they recanted and rejected Christ. Strenuously refusing to die for their belief. Being willing to die has little bearing on authenticating belief. But, in this case the earliest non-ambiguous non-Christian reference we have to Christians as a group, and they promptly recant.<br />
<br />
===Based on unreliable accounts===<br />
<br />
The [[Apostles]] may well have had firsthand knowledge, but that doesn't lend any credibility to the claim because we don't have first hand knowledge about them or of their claims. We also have only vague accounts of the death of the apostles, which are generally known by "tradition" or biased sources, rather than primary sources. <br />
<br />
Many people have personally witnessed a seemingly paranormal phenomenon, and genuinely believe that what they saw was a supernatural element, only for them to discover after a meticulous analysis that what they witnessed was actually a regular incident with a logical and natural explanation (Will-O-Wisps were thought to be ghostly apparitions before being identified as the manifestation of chemical reactions).<br />
<br />
===Assumption of Biblical accuracy===<br />
{{quote|If you read through the book of Acts, it is obvious that the early Messianic community was willing to die whether than recant their faith in the risen Lord.<ref>[https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/the-8-es-of-testimony-in-the-new-testament/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Implicit]] in this argument is the idea that the [[miracles of Jesus]] therefore actually happened, which is not supported by the [[premise]] that his apostles would not have died for a lie. This [[conclusion]] ignores several other possibilities:<br />
# The apostles strongly believed the stories to be true, but were mistaken:<br />
#* The ones who were killed never actually [[witness]]ed the events take place themselves, but were told by other apostles, whom they trusted.<br />
#* They convinced themselves the stories were true, to the point of actually believing they were, even though what they witnessed directly contradicted them.<!-- ? --><br />
#* They remembered the details of the events differently than they witnessed, because the false details were constantly reinforced by everyone they kept company with.<br />
#* They were fooled. They really did see the events, but what they saw was a [[magic|trick]].<br />
# The apostles did not believe all of the stories, but died for another reason:<br />
#* They believed the literal truth of {{Bible|John 3:16}}, and thought they would not die.<br />
#* They considered the cause to be just, even though they knew some of the stories were embellished or exaggerated.<br />
#* They were protecting the lives of other people.<br />
#* They would have chosen death rather than be exposed as shameless liars.<br />
#* They were killed because they were public figureheads for the cause, not due to the specific stories they maintained or denied.<br />
#* They were killed without having an opportunity to retract their stories.<br />
#* They stuck to their story to maintain some dignity in their death, as they were going to be killed either way.<br />
#* They intended to become martyrs.<br />
# The apostles admitted the stories were not true, but the admission was never made public.<br />
# They did die protecting the truth, but the stories of those events were later embellished. The "miracles" we now read about are not what they actually saw and died for.<br />
# The stories of the apostles' deaths were themselves later embellished to present them as martyrs.<br />
# The apostles as well as Jesus died for something else; perhaps they hoped they would help free Israel from the Romans.<br />
# The apostles were never killed.<br />
# The existence of the apostles was also an invention.<br />
<br />
While all the above are possible explanations for early Christian martyrs, what we can tell about the 1st century Christian apostles (assuming they all existed) is mostly based on the stories within the New Testament. In the book of [[Acts]], we only have two martyrs: Stephen and James. Stephen wasn't even an eyewitness, he was a later convert, meaning if he died for anything it was entirely based on hearsay. But according to Acts, he was not killed for what he believed, but for some trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted. So his death does not prove he died for his beliefs, which was Jesus was the messiah and was at that moment in heaven. The lack of any mention of a physical resurrection could indicate that if Stephen died for his beliefs, it could have been a belief in a spiritual resurrection instead of an actual physical resurrection. As for James, we are not told anything about why he was killed or whether recanting would have saved him, or (like Stephen) if he believed in a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical resurrection. [[Josephus]] does mention that a James (which may or may not be the same James in Acts) was stoned to death in 62 CE, but he was stoned for breaking the Jewish law-recanting would not have saved him anyway.<br />
<br />
Then we have stories of Apostle martyrs outside the New Testament, such as the famous crucifixion of Peter upside-down. The problem is that this event doesn't have any contemporary sources. It is never mentioned until about two or three generations later in only a single source: the Gnostic Acts of Peter, a gospel rejected as a false document by many Christians of the day. But even if this account is true, it claims that Peter was executed for political meddling and not for his beliefs. Even more important, it states that Peter believed Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, not in the flesh.<br />
<br />
[[Paul the Apostle]] admits he was not an eyewitness. He merely had a vision of a spiritual figure of Jesus while on the road to Damascus. So even if he did die for his beliefs, it was based on a vision of a man he never met in his life. While the date of Paul's death is unknown, it is commonly accepted to have occurred after the Great Fire of Rome in July 64 CE, but before the last year of Nero's reign, in 68 CE. But all accounts of Paul's "martyrdom" come from sources 30-50 years after his death. The earliest mention comes from the non-canonical document 1 Clement, in which it only suggests Paul was martyred under the prefects.<br />
<br />
As for the rest of the Apostles being martyred, they all come from non-eyewitness sources written numerous generations after their deaths, so there is no way to be certain how they died and if they did or did not die for their beliefs. The Apostle Philip has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the earliest mention comes from the apocryphal Acts of Philip which was written between the mid-to-late 4th century CE. Mark "the evangelist" was killed by Egyptian pagans, but there is no mention of this until the 4th century. The martyrdom of the Apostle Andrew account comes from the apocryphal Acts of Andrew written in the 3rd century CE. The Apostle Jude's martyrdom is only mentioned in the apocryphal Acts of Simon and Jude written in the 4th century CE. The Apostle Bartholomew has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the Gospel of Bartholomew is a missing text. And then there's Thomas, often called [[Doubting Thomas]], according to tradition believed to be martyred in 72 CE. Yet the earliest mention of his martyrdom comes from a Syriac Christian, Ephrem the Syrian, who wasn't born until over 200 years after the death of Thomas.<br />
<br />
===Jesus didn't die===<br />
Assuming the Bible is true, Jesus didn't die, he was found alive some days after his crucifixion.<ref>Achtemeier, Paul J. "Introducing the New Testament." Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eardmans Publishing Company. 2001.</ref><br />
<br />
This is contrary to the account in the Bible. According to the Bible Jesus did die and was resurrected, ergo creating a difference between resuscitation and resurrection. The gospels say that Jesus died on the cross as a result of crucifixion (if that doesn't prove his death, being in a sealed tomb for three days does). Furthermore, according to gospel accounts and other accounts, upon Jesus' resurrection it is said that he had wounds but wasn't in a state of looking ill (as would be the result of crucifixion and being in a tomb for three days). Thus Jesus had to die and resurrect, not just resuscitate, assuming the accounts are correct. The Gospels were all written at least a generation after the events stated there allegedly took place so we cannot be sure that the Gospel account is accurate.<br />
<br />
===Jesus was executed but not for his core beliefs===<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that because Jesus was willing to die for what he believed it proves that he believed in what he had said. However, assuming the Gospels are true, Jesus was executed as a criminal. The crimes described in the Gospels consist of vandalism ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}), theft ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}, {{Bible|Matthew 21:12}}, {{Bible|John 2:15}}), battery with a weapon ({{Bible|John 2:15}}), impeding traffic ({{Bible|Mark 11:16}}) and making terrorist threats ({{Bible|John 2:19}}), as well as assault, disturbing the peace and impeding commerce. Most of these were capital crimes, and he was arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to death for another-blasphemy (by supposedly claiming to be God). It is often believed that Jesus knew his actions would result in his death, so that despite his execution being legally justified it has no bearing on whether is was martyrdom. However, if he died for his beliefs, then those beliefs for which he died consist of not changing money or selling animals inside of the Temple. In addition, he was not killed for his beliefs, but as a threat to Jewish authority ({{Bible|Mark 11:18}}).<br />
<br />
===Being willing to die does not authenticate Jesus===<br />
<br />
Their willingness to die shows that early Christians believed firmly in their religious ideal, not that they believed [[Jesus]] was a real person. The religious ideal could easily have been considered a worthy cause, whether or not its founder was invented.<br />
<br />
===People do die for a lie===<br />
The [[premise]] that people would never "die for a lie" is arguably true. However, apologists point out that while people do die for lies, the actual issue is whether people die for what they ''knew'' to be a lie i.e. a lie of their own creation or contrary to facts known to them. Psychology shows that people will not die for what they ''know'' to be false.<br />
<br />
Arguing that "the disciples were not like that because they had proof" [[#Further arguments|doesn't address the argument]].<br />
<br />
==Further arguments==<br />
<br />
It is claimed that the [[apostles]] were eye witness experiences so they would know Jesus's [[resurrection]] to be either true or false, they were not dying for an unproven or abstract belief but rather what they had been shown. Therefore, they were not dying for a lie. <br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] The disciples [...] did not really believe Jesus until he showed up reanimated. Peter denied Jesus three times before he saw Christ resurrected. He was crucified upside down because he thought something was true but because he knew it was, and he denied the truth and was not worthy to die as Christ did. The disciples did not die practising unsubstantiated belief but on the understanding that they saw something and they believed it enough to die. [...] All the people or events mentioned in the above agreement are cases were people did not question the nature of the circumstances, the disciples did. At first they were in at state of disbelief, then they died in a understanding of what they perceived as fact.}} <br />
<br />
While this argument has a point, it does have the premise that the apostles actually had the experiences described in the Bible, including many [[miracles]], which is [[begging the question]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
*[http://www.heavensgate.com/ Heaven's Gate official website]<br />
<br />
{{Arguments for god}}</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Would_someone_die_for_what_they_knew_was_a_lie%3F&diff=44049Would someone die for what they knew was a lie?2023-08-09T15:31:32Z<p>TimSC: /* People do die for a lie */</p>
<hr />
<div>An often used modern [[argument]] for the [[truth]] of the [[resurrection]] of [[Jesus]] is that of [[martyr]]dom. The claim is that all of the [[apostle]]s would have had first-hand [[knowledge]] as to whether or not Jesus actually returned from the dead and confirmed that he was the [[Jesus|Son of God]]. As they died rather than admit the account was false, this suggests that rather than just [[believe]] that it was true like other martyrs in other faiths, they knew it was true for a fact.<br />
<br />
{{quote|People do not willingly allow themselves to die for something they know is a lie so the Apostles really believed they saw, talked with, touched, walked with and even ate with Jesus in various group settings after He died on the cross which convinced them He was God so they became bold proclaimers when before they were doubters.<ref>[http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476-4-Step-Proof-for-God-amp-Minimal-Facts-Approach]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|They didn't just die for a lie either, they left lives of general stability, families, and the things they enjoyed to go to parts of the world the had never dreamed of. All but one were killed in terrible circumstance.}}<br />
<br />
==Argument structure==<br />
<br />
* The disciples of Jesus either were either telling the truth or lying about Jesus.<br />
* Many of them were martyred for speaking about their belief.<br />
* People don't die for a lie that they know is a lie when they have the ability to live by denouncing the lie.<br />
* Therefore, the disciples were telling the truth about Jesus.<br />
* Therefore, Jesus was resurrected.<br />
<br />
The argument also can be applied to other believers and belief systems.<br />
<br />
==Counter-apologetics==<br />
<br />
===Beliefs are not always correct===<br />
<br />
If early Christians did in fact die specifically for holding to the claim that Jesus was real (which has in no way been demonstrated), that only indicates that they believed it, not that they were correct. People have been willing to die for a delusional belief.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Countless people throughout history have been fully convinced that gods or ghosts spoke to them, by the mere fact that they dreamt it, or hallucinated it... Thus countless people die for a “lie” in the sense that they don’t know that what they are dying for is false.<ref>Richard Carrier, [https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9978 Did the Apostles Die for a Lie?], 7 April 2016</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Examples of people dying for delusional beliefs include: <br />
* Many thousands of Germans died during World War II based on the belief that they were the "master race" and were justified in conquering other nations for "living space". <br />
* Also during World War II, many Japanese civilians committed suicide rather than being captured by the Americans because of the false belief they would be mistreated. <br />
* At Jonestown, over 900 people committed mass suicide while under the influence of the cult leader Jim Jones. <br />
* In 1993, 76 people died at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas because they believed their leader, David Koresh, was a prophet of God. <br />
* In 1997, 39 members of [[Heaven's Gate]] committed suicide in the belief that a UFO following the comet Hale-Bopp would transport them to "Their world". <br />
Since accepting delusional beliefs would prove multiple incompatible religions were true, it is a [[broken compass argument]] (e.g. this argument would imply that Heaven's Gate is just as true as Christianity).<br />
<br />
{{quote-source| Characters of blood did they write on the way they went, and their folly taught that truth is proved by blood. But blood is the very worst witness to truth; blood tainteth the purest teaching, and turneth it into delusion and hatred of heart.|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]}}<br />
<br />
===Earliest records we have===<br />
<br />
The earliest record of Christians from non-Christian sources is the letter of [[Pliny the Younger]] who specifically did give these very early Christians a choice between dying and worshiping Jesus. They overwhelmingly recanted and did not die for their faith.<br />
<br />
{{quote|I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.<ref>[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
When threatened the group of Christians quickly recanted and insisted they first said they were Christians in error, they stopped being Christians long ago and all hail the emperor and to hell with Christ! Apparently when push came to shove, the evidence is they recanted and rejected Christ. Strenuously refusing to die for their belief. Being willing to die has little bearing on authenticating belief. But, in this case the earliest non-ambiguous non-Christian reference we have to Christians as a group, and they promptly recant.<br />
<br />
===Based on unreliable accounts===<br />
<br />
The [[Apostles]] may well have had firsthand knowledge, but that doesn't lend any credibility to the claim because we don't have first hand knowledge about them or of their claims. We also have only vague accounts of the death of the apostles, which are generally known by "tradition" or biased sources, rather than primary sources. <br />
<br />
Many people have personally witnessed a seemingly paranormal phenomenon, and genuinely believe that what they saw was a supernatural element, only for them to discover after a meticulous analysis that what they witnessed was actually a regular incident with a logical and natural explanation (Will-O-Wisps were thought to be ghostly apparitions before being identified as the manifestation of chemical reactions).<br />
<br />
===Assumption of Biblical accuracy===<br />
{{quote|If you read through the book of Acts, it is obvious that the early Messianic community was willing to die whether than recant their faith in the risen Lord.<ref>[https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/the-8-es-of-testimony-in-the-new-testament/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Implicit]] in this argument is the idea that the [[miracles of Jesus]] therefore actually happened, which is not supported by the [[premise]] that his apostles would not have died for a lie. This [[conclusion]] ignores several other possibilities:<br />
# The apostles strongly believed the stories to be true, but were mistaken:<br />
#* The ones who were killed never actually [[witness]]ed the events take place themselves, but were told by other apostles, whom they trusted.<br />
#* They convinced themselves the stories were true, to the point of actually believing they were, even though what they witnessed directly contradicted them.<!-- ? --><br />
#* They remembered the details of the events differently than they witnessed, because the false details were constantly reinforced by everyone they kept company with.<br />
#* They were fooled. They really did see the events, but what they saw was a [[magic|trick]].<br />
# The apostles did not believe all of the stories, but died for another reason:<br />
#* They believed the literal truth of {{Bible|John 3:16}}, and thought they would not die.<br />
#* They considered the cause to be just, even though they knew some of the stories were embellished or exaggerated.<br />
#* They were protecting the lives of other people.<br />
#* They would have chosen death rather than be exposed as shameless liars.<br />
#* They were killed because they were public figureheads for the cause, not due to the specific stories they maintained or denied.<br />
#* They were killed without having an opportunity to retract their stories.<br />
#* They stuck to their story to maintain some dignity in their death, as they were going to be killed either way.<br />
#* They intended to become martyrs.<br />
# The apostles admitted the stories were not true, but the admission was never made public.<br />
# They did die protecting the truth, but the stories of those events were later embellished. The "miracles" we now read about are not what they actually saw and died for.<br />
# The stories of the apostles' deaths were themselves later embellished to present them as martyrs.<br />
# The apostles as well as Jesus died for something else; perhaps they hoped they would help free Israel from the Romans.<br />
# The apostles were never killed.<br />
# The existence of the apostles was also an invention.<br />
<br />
While all the above are possible explanations for early Christian martyrs, what we can tell about the 1st century Christian apostles (assuming they all existed) is mostly based on the stories within the New Testament. In the book of [[Acts]], we only have two martyrs: Stephen and James. Stephen wasn't even an eyewitness, he was a later convert, meaning if he died for anything it was entirely based on hearsay. But according to Acts, he was not killed for what he believed, but for some trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted. So his death does not prove he died for his beliefs, which was Jesus was the messiah and was at that moment in heaven. The lack of any mention of a physical resurrection could indicate that if Stephen died for his beliefs, it could have been a belief in a spiritual resurrection instead of an actual physical resurrection. As for James, we are not told anything about why he was killed or whether recanting would have saved him, or (like Stephen) if he believed in a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical resurrection. [[Josephus]] does mention that a James (which may or may not be the same James in Acts) was stoned to death in 62 CE, but he was stoned for breaking the Jewish law-recanting would not have saved him anyway.<br />
<br />
Then we have stories of Apostle martyrs outside the New Testament, such as the famous crucifixion of Peter upside-down. The problem is that this event doesn't have any contemporary sources. It is never mentioned until about two or three generations later in only a single source: the Gnostic Acts of Peter, a gospel rejected as a false document by many Christians of the day. But even if this account is true, it claims that Peter was executed for political meddling and not for his beliefs. Even more important, it states that Peter believed Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, not in the flesh.<br />
<br />
[[Paul the Apostle]] admits he was not an eyewitness. He merely had a vision of a spiritual figure of Jesus while on the road to Damascus. So even if he did die for his beliefs, it was based on a vision of a man he never met in his life. While the date of Paul's death is unknown, it is commonly accepted to have occurred after the Great Fire of Rome in July 64 CE, but before the last year of Nero's reign, in 68 CE. But all accounts of Paul's "martyrdom" come from sources 30-50 years after his death. The earliest mention comes from the non-canonical document 1 Clement, in which it only suggests Paul was martyred under the prefects.<br />
<br />
As for the rest of the Apostles being martyred, they all come from non-eyewitness sources written numerous generations after their deaths, so there is no way to be certain how they died and if they did or did not die for their beliefs. The Apostle Philip has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the earliest mention comes from the apocryphal Acts of Philip which was written between the mid-to-late 4th century CE. Mark "the evangelist" was killed by Egyptian pagans, but there is no mention of this until the 4th century. The martyrdom of the Apostle Andrew account comes from the apocryphal Acts of Andrew written in the 3rd century CE. The Apostle Jude's martyrdom is only mentioned in the apocryphal Acts of Simon and Jude written in the 4th century CE. The Apostle Bartholomew has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the Gospel of Bartholomew is a missing text. And then there's Thomas, often called [[Doubting Thomas]], according to tradition believed to be martyred in 72 CE. Yet the earliest mention of his martyrdom comes from a Syriac Christian, Ephrem the Syrian, who wasn't born until over 200 years after the death of Thomas.<br />
<br />
===Jesus didn't die===<br />
Assuming the Bible is true, Jesus didn't die, he was found alive some days after his crucifixion.<ref>Achtemeier, Paul J. "Introducing the New Testament." Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eardmans Publishing Company. 2001.</ref><br />
<br />
This is contrary to the account in the Bible. According to the Bible Jesus did die and was resurrected, ergo creating a difference between resuscitation and resurrection. The gospels say that Jesus died on the cross as a result of crucifixion (if that doesn't prove his death, being in a sealed tomb for three days does). Furthermore, according to gospel accounts and other accounts, upon Jesus' resurrection it is said that he had wounds but wasn't in a state of looking ill (as would be the result of crucifixion and being in a tomb for three days). Thus Jesus had to die and resurrect, not just resuscitate, assuming the accounts are correct. The Gospels were all written at least a generation after the events stated there allegedly took place so we cannot be sure that the Gospel account is accurate.<br />
<br />
===Jesus was executed but not for his core beliefs===<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that because Jesus was willing to die for what he believed it proves that he believed in what he had said. However, assuming the Gospels are true, Jesus was executed as a criminal. The crimes described in the Gospels consist of vandalism ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}), theft ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}, {{Bible|Matthew 21:12}}, {{Bible|John 2:15}}), battery with a weapon ({{Bible|John 2:15}}), impeding traffic ({{Bible|Mark 11:16}}) and making terrorist threats ({{Bible|John 2:19}}), as well as assault, disturbing the peace and impeding commerce. Most of these were capital crimes, and he was arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to death for another-blasphemy (by supposedly claiming to be God). It is often believed that Jesus knew his actions would result in his death, so that despite his execution being legally justified it has no bearing on whether is was martyrdom. However, if he died for his beliefs, then those beliefs for which he died consist of not changing money or selling animals inside of the Temple. In addition, he was not killed for his beliefs, but as a threat to Jewish authority ({{Bible|Mark 11:18}}).<br />
<br />
===Being willing to die does not authenticate Jesus===<br />
<br />
Their willingness to die shows that early Christians believed firmly in their religious ideal, not that they believed [[Jesus]] was a real person. The religious ideal could easily have been considered a worthy cause, whether or not its founder was invented.<br />
<br />
===People do die for a lie===<br />
The [[premise]] that people would never "die for a lie" is arguably true. However, apologists point out that while people do die for lies, the actual issue is whether people die for what they ''knew'' to be a lie i.e. a lie of their own creation or contrary to facts known to them. Psychology shows that people will not die for what they ''know'' to be false.<br />
<br />
Arguing that "the disciples were not like that because they had proof" [[#Further arguments|doesn't address the argument]].<br />
<br />
==Further arguments==<br />
<br />
It is claimed that the [[apostles]] were eye witness experiences so they would know Jesus's [[resurrection]] to be either true or false, they were not dying for an unproven or abstract belief but rather what they had been shown. Therefore, they were not dying for a lie. <br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] The disciples [...] did not really believe Jesus until he showed up reanimated. Peter denied Jesus three times before he saw Christ resurrected. He was crucified upside down because he thought something was true but because he knew it was, and he denied the truth and was not worthy to die as Christ did. The disciples did not die practising unsubstantiated belief but on the understanding that they saw something and they believed it enough to die. [...] All the people or events mentioned in the above agreement are cases were people did not question the nature of the circumstances, the disciples did. At first they were in at state of disbelief, then they died in a understanding of what they perceived as fact.}} <br />
<br />
While this argument has a point, it does have the premise that the apostles actually had the experiences described in the Bible, including many [[miracles]], which is [[begging the question]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
*[http://www.heavensgate.com/ Heaven's Gate official website]<br />
<br />
{{Arguments for god}}</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Would_someone_die_for_what_they_knew_was_a_lie%3F&diff=44048Would someone die for what they knew was a lie?2023-08-09T15:28:11Z<p>TimSC: Move examples</p>
<hr />
<div>An often used modern [[argument]] for the [[truth]] of the [[resurrection]] of [[Jesus]] is that of [[martyr]]dom. The claim is that all of the [[apostle]]s would have had first-hand [[knowledge]] as to whether or not Jesus actually returned from the dead and confirmed that he was the [[Jesus|Son of God]]. As they died rather than admit the account was false, this suggests that rather than just [[believe]] that it was true like other martyrs in other faiths, they knew it was true for a fact.<br />
<br />
{{quote|People do not willingly allow themselves to die for something they know is a lie so the Apostles really believed they saw, talked with, touched, walked with and even ate with Jesus in various group settings after He died on the cross which convinced them He was God so they became bold proclaimers when before they were doubters.<ref>[http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476-4-Step-Proof-for-God-amp-Minimal-Facts-Approach]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|They didn't just die for a lie either, they left lives of general stability, families, and the things they enjoyed to go to parts of the world the had never dreamed of. All but one were killed in terrible circumstance.}}<br />
<br />
==Argument structure==<br />
<br />
* The disciples of Jesus either were either telling the truth or lying about Jesus.<br />
* Many of them were martyred for speaking about their belief.<br />
* People don't die for a lie that they know is a lie when they have the ability to live by denouncing the lie.<br />
* Therefore, the disciples were telling the truth about Jesus.<br />
* Therefore, Jesus was resurrected.<br />
<br />
The argument also can be applied to other believers and belief systems.<br />
<br />
==Counter-apologetics==<br />
<br />
===Beliefs are not always correct===<br />
<br />
If early Christians did in fact die specifically for holding to the claim that Jesus was real (which has in no way been demonstrated), that only indicates that they believed it, not that they were correct. People have been willing to die for a delusional belief.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Countless people throughout history have been fully convinced that gods or ghosts spoke to them, by the mere fact that they dreamt it, or hallucinated it... Thus countless people die for a “lie” in the sense that they don’t know that what they are dying for is false.<ref>Richard Carrier, [https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9978 Did the Apostles Die for a Lie?], 7 April 2016</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Examples of people dying for delusional beliefs include: <br />
* Many thousands of Germans died during World War II based on the belief that they were the "master race" and were justified in conquering other nations for "living space". <br />
* Also during World War II, many Japanese civilians committed suicide rather than being captured by the Americans because of the false belief they would be mistreated. <br />
* At Jonestown, over 900 people committed mass suicide while under the influence of the cult leader Jim Jones. <br />
* In 1993, 76 people died at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas because they believed their leader, David Koresh, was a prophet of God. <br />
* In 1997, 39 members of [[Heaven's Gate]] committed suicide in the belief that a UFO following the comet Hale-Bopp would transport them to "Their world". <br />
Since accepting delusional beliefs would prove multiple incompatible religions were true, it is a [[broken compass argument]] (e.g. this argument would imply that Heaven's Gate is just as true as Christianity).<br />
<br />
{{quote-source| Characters of blood did they write on the way they went, and their folly taught that truth is proved by blood. But blood is the very worst witness to truth; blood tainteth the purest teaching, and turneth it into delusion and hatred of heart.|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]}}<br />
<br />
===Earliest records we have===<br />
<br />
The earliest record of Christians from non-Christian sources is the letter of [[Pliny the Younger]] who specifically did give these very early Christians a choice between dying and worshiping Jesus. They overwhelmingly recanted and did not die for their faith.<br />
<br />
{{quote|I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.<ref>[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
When threatened the group of Christians quickly recanted and insisted they first said they were Christians in error, they stopped being Christians long ago and all hail the emperor and to hell with Christ! Apparently when push came to shove, the evidence is they recanted and rejected Christ. Strenuously refusing to die for their belief. Being willing to die has little bearing on authenticating belief. But, in this case the earliest non-ambiguous non-Christian reference we have to Christians as a group, and they promptly recant.<br />
<br />
===Based on unreliable accounts===<br />
<br />
The [[Apostles]] may well have had firsthand knowledge, but that doesn't lend any credibility to the claim because we don't have first hand knowledge about them or of their claims. We also have only vague accounts of the death of the apostles, which are generally known by "tradition" or biased sources, rather than primary sources. <br />
<br />
Many people have personally witnessed a seemingly paranormal phenomenon, and genuinely believe that what they saw was a supernatural element, only for them to discover after a meticulous analysis that what they witnessed was actually a regular incident with a logical and natural explanation (Will-O-Wisps were thought to be ghostly apparitions before being identified as the manifestation of chemical reactions).<br />
<br />
===Assumption of Biblical accuracy===<br />
{{quote|If you read through the book of Acts, it is obvious that the early Messianic community was willing to die whether than recant their faith in the risen Lord.<ref>[https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/the-8-es-of-testimony-in-the-new-testament/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Implicit]] in this argument is the idea that the [[miracles of Jesus]] therefore actually happened, which is not supported by the [[premise]] that his apostles would not have died for a lie. This [[conclusion]] ignores several other possibilities:<br />
# The apostles strongly believed the stories to be true, but were mistaken:<br />
#* The ones who were killed never actually [[witness]]ed the events take place themselves, but were told by other apostles, whom they trusted.<br />
#* They convinced themselves the stories were true, to the point of actually believing they were, even though what they witnessed directly contradicted them.<!-- ? --><br />
#* They remembered the details of the events differently than they witnessed, because the false details were constantly reinforced by everyone they kept company with.<br />
#* They were fooled. They really did see the events, but what they saw was a [[magic|trick]].<br />
# The apostles did not believe all of the stories, but died for another reason:<br />
#* They believed the literal truth of {{Bible|John 3:16}}, and thought they would not die.<br />
#* They considered the cause to be just, even though they knew some of the stories were embellished or exaggerated.<br />
#* They were protecting the lives of other people.<br />
#* They would have chosen death rather than be exposed as shameless liars.<br />
#* They were killed because they were public figureheads for the cause, not due to the specific stories they maintained or denied.<br />
#* They were killed without having an opportunity to retract their stories.<br />
#* They stuck to their story to maintain some dignity in their death, as they were going to be killed either way.<br />
#* They intended to become martyrs.<br />
# The apostles admitted the stories were not true, but the admission was never made public.<br />
# They did die protecting the truth, but the stories of those events were later embellished. The "miracles" we now read about are not what they actually saw and died for.<br />
# The stories of the apostles' deaths were themselves later embellished to present them as martyrs.<br />
# The apostles as well as Jesus died for something else; perhaps they hoped they would help free Israel from the Romans.<br />
# The apostles were never killed.<br />
# The existence of the apostles was also an invention.<br />
<br />
While all the above are possible explanations for early Christian martyrs, what we can tell about the 1st century Christian apostles (assuming they all existed) is mostly based on the stories within the New Testament. In the book of [[Acts]], we only have two martyrs: Stephen and James. Stephen wasn't even an eyewitness, he was a later convert, meaning if he died for anything it was entirely based on hearsay. But according to Acts, he was not killed for what he believed, but for some trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted. So his death does not prove he died for his beliefs, which was Jesus was the messiah and was at that moment in heaven. The lack of any mention of a physical resurrection could indicate that if Stephen died for his beliefs, it could have been a belief in a spiritual resurrection instead of an actual physical resurrection. As for James, we are not told anything about why he was killed or whether recanting would have saved him, or (like Stephen) if he believed in a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical resurrection. [[Josephus]] does mention that a James (which may or may not be the same James in Acts) was stoned to death in 62 CE, but he was stoned for breaking the Jewish law-recanting would not have saved him anyway.<br />
<br />
Then we have stories of Apostle martyrs outside the New Testament, such as the famous crucifixion of Peter upside-down. The problem is that this event doesn't have any contemporary sources. It is never mentioned until about two or three generations later in only a single source: the Gnostic Acts of Peter, a gospel rejected as a false document by many Christians of the day. But even if this account is true, it claims that Peter was executed for political meddling and not for his beliefs. Even more important, it states that Peter believed Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, not in the flesh.<br />
<br />
[[Paul the Apostle]] admits he was not an eyewitness. He merely had a vision of a spiritual figure of Jesus while on the road to Damascus. So even if he did die for his beliefs, it was based on a vision of a man he never met in his life. While the date of Paul's death is unknown, it is commonly accepted to have occurred after the Great Fire of Rome in July 64 CE, but before the last year of Nero's reign, in 68 CE. But all accounts of Paul's "martyrdom" come from sources 30-50 years after his death. The earliest mention comes from the non-canonical document 1 Clement, in which it only suggests Paul was martyred under the prefects.<br />
<br />
As for the rest of the Apostles being martyred, they all come from non-eyewitness sources written numerous generations after their deaths, so there is no way to be certain how they died and if they did or did not die for their beliefs. The Apostle Philip has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the earliest mention comes from the apocryphal Acts of Philip which was written between the mid-to-late 4th century CE. Mark "the evangelist" was killed by Egyptian pagans, but there is no mention of this until the 4th century. The martyrdom of the Apostle Andrew account comes from the apocryphal Acts of Andrew written in the 3rd century CE. The Apostle Jude's martyrdom is only mentioned in the apocryphal Acts of Simon and Jude written in the 4th century CE. The Apostle Bartholomew has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the Gospel of Bartholomew is a missing text. And then there's Thomas, often called [[Doubting Thomas]], according to tradition believed to be martyred in 72 CE. Yet the earliest mention of his martyrdom comes from a Syriac Christian, Ephrem the Syrian, who wasn't born until over 200 years after the death of Thomas.<br />
<br />
===Jesus didn't die===<br />
Assuming the Bible is true, Jesus didn't die, he was found alive some days after his crucifixion.<ref>Achtemeier, Paul J. "Introducing the New Testament." Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eardmans Publishing Company. 2001.</ref><br />
<br />
This is contrary to the account in the Bible. According to the Bible Jesus did die and was resurrected, ergo creating a difference between resuscitation and resurrection. The gospels say that Jesus died on the cross as a result of crucifixion (if that doesn't prove his death, being in a sealed tomb for three days does). Furthermore, according to gospel accounts and other accounts, upon Jesus' resurrection it is said that he had wounds but wasn't in a state of looking ill (as would be the result of crucifixion and being in a tomb for three days). Thus Jesus had to die and resurrect, not just resuscitate, assuming the accounts are correct. The Gospels were all written at least a generation after the events stated there allegedly took place so we cannot be sure that the Gospel account is accurate.<br />
<br />
===Jesus was executed but not for his core beliefs===<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that because Jesus was willing to die for what he believed it proves that he believed in what he had said. However, assuming the Gospels are true, Jesus was executed as a criminal. The crimes described in the Gospels consist of vandalism ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}), theft ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}, {{Bible|Matthew 21:12}}, {{Bible|John 2:15}}), battery with a weapon ({{Bible|John 2:15}}), impeding traffic ({{Bible|Mark 11:16}}) and making terrorist threats ({{Bible|John 2:19}}), as well as assault, disturbing the peace and impeding commerce. Most of these were capital crimes, and he was arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to death for another-blasphemy (by supposedly claiming to be God). It is often believed that Jesus knew his actions would result in his death, so that despite his execution being legally justified it has no bearing on whether is was martyrdom. However, if he died for his beliefs, then those beliefs for which he died consist of not changing money or selling animals inside of the Temple. In addition, he was not killed for his beliefs, but as a threat to Jewish authority ({{Bible|Mark 11:18}}).<br />
<br />
===Being willing to die does not authenticate Jesus===<br />
<br />
Their willingness to die shows that early Christians believed firmly in their religious ideal, not that they believed [[Jesus]] was a real person. The religious ideal could easily have been considered a worthy cause, whether or not its founder was invented.<br />
<br />
===People do die for a lie===<br />
The [[premise]] that people would never "die for a lie" is demonstrably false. People throughout history have, in fact, died for beliefs which turned out to be false, deceptive, poorly understood, and even [[Law of the excluded middle|mutually exclusive]].<br />
<br />
Note that this section is not arguing that [[your religion is similar to other false religions]], it is a counter argument to the premise "people don't die for a lie”. <br />
<br />
Arguing that "the disciples were not like that because they had proof" [[#Further arguments|doesn't address the argument]].<br />
<br />
Apologists point out that while people do die for lies, the actual issue is whether people die for what they ''knew'' to be a lie i.e. a lie of their own creation or contrary to facts known to them. Psychology shows that people will not die for what they ''know'' to be false.<br />
<br />
==Further arguments==<br />
<br />
It is claimed that the [[apostles]] were eye witness experiences so they would know Jesus's [[resurrection]] to be either true or false, they were not dying for an unproven or abstract belief but rather what they had been shown. Therefore, they were not dying for a lie. <br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] The disciples [...] did not really believe Jesus until he showed up reanimated. Peter denied Jesus three times before he saw Christ resurrected. He was crucified upside down because he thought something was true but because he knew it was, and he denied the truth and was not worthy to die as Christ did. The disciples did not die practising unsubstantiated belief but on the understanding that they saw something and they believed it enough to die. [...] All the people or events mentioned in the above agreement are cases were people did not question the nature of the circumstances, the disciples did. At first they were in at state of disbelief, then they died in a understanding of what they perceived as fact.}} <br />
<br />
While this argument has a point, it does have the premise that the apostles actually had the experiences described in the Bible, including many [[miracles]], which is [[begging the question]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
*[http://www.heavensgate.com/ Heaven's Gate official website]<br />
<br />
{{Arguments for god}}</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Would_someone_die_for_what_they_knew_was_a_lie%3F&diff=44047Would someone die for what they knew was a lie?2023-08-08T07:31:59Z<p>TimSC: /* People do die for a lie */</p>
<hr />
<div>An often used modern [[argument]] for the [[truth]] of the [[resurrection]] of [[Jesus]] is that of [[martyr]]dom. The claim is that all of the [[apostle]]s would have had first-hand [[knowledge]] as to whether or not Jesus actually returned from the dead and confirmed that he was the [[Jesus|Son of God]]. As they died rather than admit the account was false, this suggests that rather than just [[believe]] that it was true like other martyrs in other faiths, they knew it was true for a fact.<br />
<br />
{{quote|People do not willingly allow themselves to die for something they know is a lie so the Apostles really believed they saw, talked with, touched, walked with and even ate with Jesus in various group settings after He died on the cross which convinced them He was God so they became bold proclaimers when before they were doubters.<ref>[http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476-4-Step-Proof-for-God-amp-Minimal-Facts-Approach]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|They didn't just die for a lie either, they left lives of general stability, families, and the things they enjoyed to go to parts of the world the had never dreamed of. All but one were killed in terrible circumstance.}}<br />
<br />
==Argument structure==<br />
<br />
* The disciples of Jesus either were either telling the truth or lying about Jesus.<br />
* Many of them were martyred for speaking about their belief.<br />
* People don't die for a lie that they know is a lie when they have the ability to live by denouncing the lie.<br />
* Therefore, the disciples were telling the truth about Jesus.<br />
* Therefore, Jesus was resurrected.<br />
<br />
The argument also can be applied to other believers and belief systems.<br />
<br />
==Counter-apologetics==<br />
<br />
===Beliefs are not always correct===<br />
<br />
If early Christians did in fact die specifically for holding to the claim that Jesus was real (which has in no way been demonstrated), that only indicates that they believed it, not that they were correct. People have been willing to die for a delusional belief.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Countless people throughout history have been fully convinced that gods or ghosts spoke to them, by the mere fact that they dreamt it, or hallucinated it... Thus countless people die for a “lie” in the sense that they don’t know that what they are dying for is false.<ref>Richard Carrier, [https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9978 Did the Apostles Die for a Lie?], 7 April 2016</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===Earliest records we have===<br />
<br />
The earliest record of Christians from non-Christian sources is the letter of [[Pliny the Younger]] who specifically did give these very early Christians a choice between dying and worshiping Jesus. They overwhelmingly recanted and did not die for their faith.<br />
<br />
{{quote|I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.<ref>[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
When threatened the group of Christians quickly recanted and insisted they first said they were Christians in error, they stopped being Christians long ago and all hail the emperor and to hell with Christ! Apparently when push came to shove, the evidence is they recanted and rejected Christ. Strenuously refusing to die for their belief. Being willing to die has little bearing on authenticating belief. But, in this case the earliest non-ambiguous non-Christian reference we have to Christians as a group, and they promptly recant.<br />
<br />
===Based on unreliable accounts===<br />
<br />
The [[Apostles]] may well have had firsthand knowledge, but that doesn't lend any credibility to the claim because we don't have first hand knowledge about them or of their claims. We also have only vague accounts of the death of the apostles, which are generally known by "tradition" or biased sources, rather than primary sources. <br />
<br />
Many people have personally witnessed a seemingly paranormal phenomenon, and genuinely believe that what they saw was a supernatural element, only for them to discover after a meticulous analysis that what they witnessed was actually a regular incident with a logical and natural explanation (Will-O-Wisps were thought to be ghostly apparitions before being identified as the manifestation of chemical reactions).<br />
<br />
===Assumption of Biblical accuracy===<br />
{{quote|If you read through the book of Acts, it is obvious that the early Messianic community was willing to die whether than recant their faith in the risen Lord.<ref>[https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/the-8-es-of-testimony-in-the-new-testament/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Implicit]] in this argument is the idea that the [[miracles of Jesus]] therefore actually happened, which is not supported by the [[premise]] that his apostles would not have died for a lie. This [[conclusion]] ignores several other possibilities:<br />
# The apostles strongly believed the stories to be true, but were mistaken:<br />
#* The ones who were killed never actually [[witness]]ed the events take place themselves, but were told by other apostles, whom they trusted.<br />
#* They convinced themselves the stories were true, to the point of actually believing they were, even though what they witnessed directly contradicted them.<!-- ? --><br />
#* They remembered the details of the events differently than they witnessed, because the false details were constantly reinforced by everyone they kept company with.<br />
#* They were fooled. They really did see the events, but what they saw was a [[magic|trick]].<br />
# The apostles did not believe all of the stories, but died for another reason:<br />
#* They believed the literal truth of {{Bible|John 3:16}}, and thought they would not die.<br />
#* They considered the cause to be just, even though they knew some of the stories were embellished or exaggerated.<br />
#* They were protecting the lives of other people.<br />
#* They would have chosen death rather than be exposed as shameless liars.<br />
#* They were killed because they were public figureheads for the cause, not due to the specific stories they maintained or denied.<br />
#* They were killed without having an opportunity to retract their stories.<br />
#* They stuck to their story to maintain some dignity in their death, as they were going to be killed either way.<br />
#* They intended to become martyrs.<br />
# The apostles admitted the stories were not true, but the admission was never made public.<br />
# They did die protecting the truth, but the stories of those events were later embellished. The "miracles" we now read about are not what they actually saw and died for.<br />
# The stories of the apostles' deaths were themselves later embellished to present them as martyrs.<br />
# The apostles as well as Jesus died for something else; perhaps they hoped they would help free Israel from the Romans.<br />
# The apostles were never killed.<br />
# The existence of the apostles was also an invention.<br />
<br />
While all the above are possible explanations for early Christian martyrs, what we can tell about the 1st century Christian apostles (assuming they all existed) is mostly based on the stories within the New Testament. In the book of [[Acts]], we only have two martyrs: Stephen and James. Stephen wasn't even an eyewitness, he was a later convert, meaning if he died for anything it was entirely based on hearsay. But according to Acts, he was not killed for what he believed, but for some trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted. So his death does not prove he died for his beliefs, which was Jesus was the messiah and was at that moment in heaven. The lack of any mention of a physical resurrection could indicate that if Stephen died for his beliefs, it could have been a belief in a spiritual resurrection instead of an actual physical resurrection. As for James, we are not told anything about why he was killed or whether recanting would have saved him, or (like Stephen) if he believed in a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical resurrection. [[Josephus]] does mention that a James (which may or may not be the same James in Acts) was stoned to death in 62 CE, but he was stoned for breaking the Jewish law-recanting would not have saved him anyway.<br />
<br />
Then we have stories of Apostle martyrs outside the New Testament, such as the famous crucifixion of Peter upside-down. The problem is that this event doesn't have any contemporary sources. It is never mentioned until about two or three generations later in only a single source: the Gnostic Acts of Peter, a gospel rejected as a false document by many Christians of the day. But even if this account is true, it claims that Peter was executed for political meddling and not for his beliefs. Even more important, it states that Peter believed Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, not in the flesh.<br />
<br />
[[Paul the Apostle]] admits he was not an eyewitness. He merely had a vision of a spiritual figure of Jesus while on the road to Damascus. So even if he did die for his beliefs, it was based on a vision of a man he never met in his life. While the date of Paul's death is unknown, it is commonly accepted to have occurred after the Great Fire of Rome in July 64 CE, but before the last year of Nero's reign, in 68 CE. But all accounts of Paul's "martyrdom" come from sources 30-50 years after his death. The earliest mention comes from the non-canonical document 1 Clement, in which it only suggests Paul was martyred under the prefects.<br />
<br />
As for the rest of the Apostles being martyred, they all come from non-eyewitness sources written numerous generations after their deaths, so there is no way to be certain how they died and if they did or did not die for their beliefs. The Apostle Philip has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the earliest mention comes from the apocryphal Acts of Philip which was written between the mid-to-late 4th century CE. Mark "the evangelist" was killed by Egyptian pagans, but there is no mention of this until the 4th century. The martyrdom of the Apostle Andrew account comes from the apocryphal Acts of Andrew written in the 3rd century CE. The Apostle Jude's martyrdom is only mentioned in the apocryphal Acts of Simon and Jude written in the 4th century CE. The Apostle Bartholomew has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the Gospel of Bartholomew is a missing text. And then there's Thomas, often called [[Doubting Thomas]], according to tradition believed to be martyred in 72 CE. Yet the earliest mention of his martyrdom comes from a Syriac Christian, Ephrem the Syrian, who wasn't born until over 200 years after the death of Thomas.<br />
<br />
===Jesus didn't die===<br />
Assuming the Bible is true, Jesus didn't die, he was found alive some days after his crucifixion.<ref>Achtemeier, Paul J. "Introducing the New Testament." Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eardmans Publishing Company. 2001.</ref><br />
<br />
This is contrary to the account in the Bible. According to the Bible Jesus did die and was resurrected, ergo creating a difference between resuscitation and resurrection. The gospels say that Jesus died on the cross as a result of crucifixion (if that doesn't prove his death, being in a sealed tomb for three days does). Furthermore, according to gospel accounts and other accounts, upon Jesus' resurrection it is said that he had wounds but wasn't in a state of looking ill (as would be the result of crucifixion and being in a tomb for three days). Thus Jesus had to die and resurrect, not just resuscitate, assuming the accounts are correct. The Gospels were all written at least a generation after the events stated there allegedly took place so we cannot be sure that the Gospel account is accurate.<br />
<br />
===Jesus was executed but not for his core beliefs===<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that because Jesus was willing to die for what he believed it proves that he believed in what he had said. However, assuming the Gospels are true, Jesus was executed as a criminal. The crimes described in the Gospels consist of vandalism ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}), theft ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}, {{Bible|Matthew 21:12}}, {{Bible|John 2:15}}), battery with a weapon ({{Bible|John 2:15}}), impeding traffic ({{Bible|Mark 11:16}}) and making terrorist threats ({{Bible|John 2:19}}), as well as assault, disturbing the peace and impeding commerce. Most of these were capital crimes, and he was arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to death for another-blasphemy (by supposedly claiming to be God). It is often believed that Jesus knew his actions would result in his death, so that despite his execution being legally justified it has no bearing on whether is was martyrdom. However, if he died for his beliefs, then those beliefs for which he died consist of not changing money or selling animals inside of the Temple. In addition, he was not killed for his beliefs, but as a threat to Jewish authority ({{Bible|Mark 11:18}}).<br />
<br />
===Being willing to die does not authenticate Jesus===<br />
<br />
Their willingness to die shows that early Christians believed firmly in their religious ideal, not that they believed [[Jesus]] was a real person. The religious ideal could easily have been considered a worthy cause, whether or not its founder was invented.<br />
<br />
===People do die for a lie===<br />
The [[premise]] that people would never "die for a lie" is demonstrably false. People throughout history have, in fact, died for beliefs which turned out to be false, deceptive, poorly understood, and even [[Law of the excluded middle|mutually exclusive]]. Many thousands of Germans died during World War II based on the belief that they were the "master race" and were justified in conquering other nations for "living space". Also during World War II, many Japanese civilians committed suicide rather than being captured by the Americans because of the false belief they would be mistreated. At Jonestown, over 900 people committed mass suicide while under the influence of the cult leader Jim Jones. In 1993, 76 people died at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas because they believed their leader, David Koresh, was a prophet of God. In 1997, 39 members of [[Heaven's Gate]] committed suicide in the belief that a UFO following the comet Hale-Bopp would transport them to "Their world". Since the argument would prove multiple incompatible religions were true, it is a [[broken compass argument]] (e.g. this argument would imply that Heaven's Gate is just as true as Christianity).<br />
<br />
Note that this section is not arguing that [[your religion is similar to other false religions]], it is a counter argument to the premise "people don't die for a lie”. <br />
<br />
Arguing that "the disciples were not like that because they had proof" [[#Further arguments|doesn't address the argument]].<br />
<br />
{{quote-source| Characters of blood did they write on the way they went, and their folly taught that truth is proved by blood. But blood is the very worst witness to truth; blood tainteth the purest teaching, and turneth it into delusion and hatred of heart.|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]}}<br />
<br />
Apologists point out that while people do die for lies, the actual issue is whether people die for what they ''knew'' to be a lie i.e. a lie of their own creation or contrary to facts known to them. Psychology shows that people will not die for what they ''know'' to be false.<br />
<br />
==Further arguments==<br />
<br />
It is claimed that the [[apostles]] were eye witness experiences so they would know Jesus's [[resurrection]] to be either true or false, they were not dying for an unproven or abstract belief but rather what they had been shown. Therefore, they were not dying for a lie. <br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] The disciples [...] did not really believe Jesus until he showed up reanimated. Peter denied Jesus three times before he saw Christ resurrected. He was crucified upside down because he thought something was true but because he knew it was, and he denied the truth and was not worthy to die as Christ did. The disciples did not die practising unsubstantiated belief but on the understanding that they saw something and they believed it enough to die. [...] All the people or events mentioned in the above agreement are cases were people did not question the nature of the circumstances, the disciples did. At first they were in at state of disbelief, then they died in a understanding of what they perceived as fact.}} <br />
<br />
While this argument has a point, it does have the premise that the apostles actually had the experiences described in the Bible, including many [[miracles]], which is [[begging the question]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
*[http://www.heavensgate.com/ Heaven's Gate official website]<br />
<br />
{{Arguments for god}}</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Would_someone_die_for_what_they_knew_was_a_lie%3F&diff=44046Would someone die for what they knew was a lie?2023-08-08T05:24:12Z<p>TimSC: /* Counter-apologetics */</p>
<hr />
<div>An often used modern [[argument]] for the [[truth]] of the [[resurrection]] of [[Jesus]] is that of [[martyr]]dom. The claim is that all of the [[apostle]]s would have had first-hand [[knowledge]] as to whether or not Jesus actually returned from the dead and confirmed that he was the [[Jesus|Son of God]]. As they died rather than admit the account was false, this suggests that rather than just [[believe]] that it was true like other martyrs in other faiths, they knew it was true for a fact.<br />
<br />
{{quote|People do not willingly allow themselves to die for something they know is a lie so the Apostles really believed they saw, talked with, touched, walked with and even ate with Jesus in various group settings after He died on the cross which convinced them He was God so they became bold proclaimers when before they were doubters.<ref>[http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476-4-Step-Proof-for-God-amp-Minimal-Facts-Approach]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|They didn't just die for a lie either, they left lives of general stability, families, and the things they enjoyed to go to parts of the world the had never dreamed of. All but one were killed in terrible circumstance.}}<br />
<br />
==Argument structure==<br />
<br />
* The disciples of Jesus either were either telling the truth or lying about Jesus.<br />
* Many of them were martyred for speaking about their belief.<br />
* People don't die for a lie that they know is a lie when they have the ability to live by denouncing the lie.<br />
* Therefore, the disciples were telling the truth about Jesus.<br />
* Therefore, Jesus was resurrected.<br />
<br />
The argument also can be applied to other believers and belief systems.<br />
<br />
==Counter-apologetics==<br />
<br />
===Beliefs are not always correct===<br />
<br />
If early Christians did in fact die specifically for holding to the claim that Jesus was real (which has in no way been demonstrated), that only indicates that they believed it, not that they were correct. People have been willing to die for a delusional belief.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Countless people throughout history have been fully convinced that gods or ghosts spoke to them, by the mere fact that they dreamt it, or hallucinated it... Thus countless people die for a “lie” in the sense that they don’t know that what they are dying for is false.<ref>Richard Carrier, [https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9978 Did the Apostles Die for a Lie?], 7 April 2016</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===Earliest records we have===<br />
<br />
The earliest record of Christians from non-Christian sources is the letter of [[Pliny the Younger]] who specifically did give these very early Christians a choice between dying and worshiping Jesus. They overwhelmingly recanted and did not die for their faith.<br />
<br />
{{quote|I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.<ref>[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
When threatened the group of Christians quickly recanted and insisted they first said they were Christians in error, they stopped being Christians long ago and all hail the emperor and to hell with Christ! Apparently when push came to shove, the evidence is they recanted and rejected Christ. Strenuously refusing to die for their belief. Being willing to die has little bearing on authenticating belief. But, in this case the earliest non-ambiguous non-Christian reference we have to Christians as a group, and they promptly recant.<br />
<br />
===Based on unreliable accounts===<br />
<br />
The [[Apostles]] may well have had firsthand knowledge, but that doesn't lend any credibility to the claim because we don't have first hand knowledge about them or of their claims. We also have only vague accounts of the death of the apostles, which are generally known by "tradition" or biased sources, rather than primary sources. <br />
<br />
Many people have personally witnessed a seemingly paranormal phenomenon, and genuinely believe that what they saw was a supernatural element, only for them to discover after a meticulous analysis that what they witnessed was actually a regular incident with a logical and natural explanation (Will-O-Wisps were thought to be ghostly apparitions before being identified as the manifestation of chemical reactions).<br />
<br />
===Assumption of Biblical accuracy===<br />
{{quote|If you read through the book of Acts, it is obvious that the early Messianic community was willing to die whether than recant their faith in the risen Lord.<ref>[https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/the-8-es-of-testimony-in-the-new-testament/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Implicit]] in this argument is the idea that the [[miracles of Jesus]] therefore actually happened, which is not supported by the [[premise]] that his apostles would not have died for a lie. This [[conclusion]] ignores several other possibilities:<br />
# The apostles strongly believed the stories to be true, but were mistaken:<br />
#* The ones who were killed never actually [[witness]]ed the events take place themselves, but were told by other apostles, whom they trusted.<br />
#* They convinced themselves the stories were true, to the point of actually believing they were, even though what they witnessed directly contradicted them.<!-- ? --><br />
#* They remembered the details of the events differently than they witnessed, because the false details were constantly reinforced by everyone they kept company with.<br />
#* They were fooled. They really did see the events, but what they saw was a [[magic|trick]].<br />
# The apostles did not believe all of the stories, but died for another reason:<br />
#* They believed the literal truth of {{Bible|John 3:16}}, and thought they would not die.<br />
#* They considered the cause to be just, even though they knew some of the stories were embellished or exaggerated.<br />
#* They were protecting the lives of other people.<br />
#* They would have chosen death rather than be exposed as shameless liars.<br />
#* They were killed because they were public figureheads for the cause, not due to the specific stories they maintained or denied.<br />
#* They were killed without having an opportunity to retract their stories.<br />
#* They stuck to their story to maintain some dignity in their death, as they were going to be killed either way.<br />
#* They intended to become martyrs.<br />
# The apostles admitted the stories were not true, but the admission was never made public.<br />
# They did die protecting the truth, but the stories of those events were later embellished. The "miracles" we now read about are not what they actually saw and died for.<br />
# The stories of the apostles' deaths were themselves later embellished to present them as martyrs.<br />
# The apostles as well as Jesus died for something else; perhaps they hoped they would help free Israel from the Romans.<br />
# The apostles were never killed.<br />
# The existence of the apostles was also an invention.<br />
<br />
While all the above are possible explanations for early Christian martyrs, what we can tell about the 1st century Christian apostles (assuming they all existed) is mostly based on the stories within the New Testament. In the book of [[Acts]], we only have two martyrs: Stephen and James. Stephen wasn't even an eyewitness, he was a later convert, meaning if he died for anything it was entirely based on hearsay. But according to Acts, he was not killed for what he believed, but for some trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted. So his death does not prove he died for his beliefs, which was Jesus was the messiah and was at that moment in heaven. The lack of any mention of a physical resurrection could indicate that if Stephen died for his beliefs, it could have been a belief in a spiritual resurrection instead of an actual physical resurrection. As for James, we are not told anything about why he was killed or whether recanting would have saved him, or (like Stephen) if he believed in a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical resurrection. [[Josephus]] does mention that a James (which may or may not be the same James in Acts) was stoned to death in 62 CE, but he was stoned for breaking the Jewish law-recanting would not have saved him anyway.<br />
<br />
Then we have stories of Apostle martyrs outside the New Testament, such as the famous crucifixion of Peter upside-down. The problem is that this event doesn't have any contemporary sources. It is never mentioned until about two or three generations later in only a single source: the Gnostic Acts of Peter, a gospel rejected as a false document by many Christians of the day. But even if this account is true, it claims that Peter was executed for political meddling and not for his beliefs. Even more important, it states that Peter believed Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, not in the flesh.<br />
<br />
[[Paul the Apostle]] admits he was not an eyewitness. He merely had a vision of a spiritual figure of Jesus while on the road to Damascus. So even if he did die for his beliefs, it was based on a vision of a man he never met in his life. While the date of Paul's death is unknown, it is commonly accepted to have occurred after the Great Fire of Rome in July 64 CE, but before the last year of Nero's reign, in 68 CE. But all accounts of Paul's "martyrdom" come from sources 30-50 years after his death. The earliest mention comes from the non-canonical document 1 Clement, in which it only suggests Paul was martyred under the prefects.<br />
<br />
As for the rest of the Apostles being martyred, they all come from non-eyewitness sources written numerous generations after their deaths, so there is no way to be certain how they died and if they did or did not die for their beliefs. The Apostle Philip has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the earliest mention comes from the apocryphal Acts of Philip which was written between the mid-to-late 4th century CE. Mark "the evangelist" was killed by Egyptian pagans, but there is no mention of this until the 4th century. The martyrdom of the Apostle Andrew account comes from the apocryphal Acts of Andrew written in the 3rd century CE. The Apostle Jude's martyrdom is only mentioned in the apocryphal Acts of Simon and Jude written in the 4th century CE. The Apostle Bartholomew has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the Gospel of Bartholomew is a missing text. And then there's Thomas, often called [[Doubting Thomas]], according to tradition believed to be martyred in 72 CE. Yet the earliest mention of his martyrdom comes from a Syriac Christian, Ephrem the Syrian, who wasn't born until over 200 years after the death of Thomas.<br />
<br />
===Jesus didn't die===<br />
Assuming the Bible is true, Jesus didn't die, he was found alive some days after his crucifixion.<ref>Achtemeier, Paul J. "Introducing the New Testament." Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eardmans Publishing Company. 2001.</ref><br />
<br />
This is contrary to the account in the Bible. According to the Bible Jesus did die and was resurrected, ergo creating a difference between resuscitation and resurrection. The gospels say that Jesus died on the cross as a result of crucifixion (if that doesn't prove his death, being in a sealed tomb for three days does). Furthermore, according to gospel accounts and other accounts, upon Jesus' resurrection it is said that he had wounds but wasn't in a state of looking ill (as would be the result of crucifixion and being in a tomb for three days). Thus Jesus had to die and resurrect, not just resuscitate, assuming the accounts are correct. The Gospels were all written at least a generation after the events stated there allegedly took place so we cannot be sure that the Gospel account is accurate.<br />
<br />
===Jesus was executed but not for his core beliefs===<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that because Jesus was willing to die for what he believed it proves that he believed in what he had said. However, assuming the Gospels are true, Jesus was executed as a criminal. The crimes described in the Gospels consist of vandalism ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}), theft ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}, {{Bible|Matthew 21:12}}, {{Bible|John 2:15}}), battery with a weapon ({{Bible|John 2:15}}), impeding traffic ({{Bible|Mark 11:16}}) and making terrorist threats ({{Bible|John 2:19}}), as well as assault, disturbing the peace and impeding commerce. Most of these were capital crimes, and he was arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to death for another-blasphemy (by supposedly claiming to be God). It is often believed that Jesus knew his actions would result in his death, so that despite his execution being legally justified it has no bearing on whether is was martyrdom. However, if he died for his beliefs, then those beliefs for which he died consist of not changing money or selling animals inside of the Temple. In addition, he was not killed for his beliefs, but as a threat to Jewish authority ({{Bible|Mark 11:18}}).<br />
<br />
===Being willing to die does not authenticate Jesus===<br />
<br />
Their willingness to die shows that early Christians believed firmly in their religious ideal, not that they believed [[Jesus]] was a real person. The religious ideal could easily have been considered a worthy cause, whether or not its founder was invented.<br />
<br />
===People do die for a lie===<br />
The [[premise]] that people would never "die for a lie" is demonstrably false. People throughout history have, in fact, died for beliefs which turned out to be false, deceptive, poorly understood, and even [[Law of the excluded middle|mutually exclusive]]. Many thousands of Germans died during World War II based on the belief that they were the "master race" and were justified in conquering other nations for "living space". Also during World War II, many Japanese civilians committed suicide rather than being captured by the Americans because of the false belief they would be mistreated. At Jonestown, over 900 people committed mass suicide while under the influence of the cult leader Jim Jones. In 1993, 76 people died at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas because they believed their leader, David Koresh, was a prophet of God. In 1997, 39 members of [[Heaven's Gate]] committed suicide in the belief that a UFO following the comet Hale-Bopp would transport them to "Their world". Since the argument would prove multiple incompatible religions were true, it is a [[broken compass argument]] (e.g. this argument would imply that Heaven's Gate is just as true as Christianity).<br />
<br />
Note that this section is not arguing that [[your religion is similar to other false religions]], it is a counter argument to the premise "people don't die for a lie”. <br />
<br />
Arguing that "the disciples were not like that because they had proof" [[#Further arguments|doesn't address the argument]].<br />
<br />
{{quote-source| Characters of blood did they write on the way they went, and their folly taught that truth is proved by blood. But blood is the very worst witness to truth; blood tainteth the purest teaching, and turneth it into delusion and hatred of heart.|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]}}<br />
<br />
Apologists point out that while people do die for lies, the actual issue is whether people die for what they ''knew'' to be a lie i.e. a lie of their own creation or contrary to facts known to them. Psychology shows that people will not die for what they ''know'' to be false, not that people won’t die for beliefs they think is true.<br />
<br />
==Further arguments==<br />
<br />
It is claimed that the [[apostles]] were eye witness experiences so they would know Jesus's [[resurrection]] to be either true or false, they were not dying for an unproven or abstract belief but rather what they had been shown. Therefore, they were not dying for a lie. <br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] The disciples [...] did not really believe Jesus until he showed up reanimated. Peter denied Jesus three times before he saw Christ resurrected. He was crucified upside down because he thought something was true but because he knew it was, and he denied the truth and was not worthy to die as Christ did. The disciples did not die practising unsubstantiated belief but on the understanding that they saw something and they believed it enough to die. [...] All the people or events mentioned in the above agreement are cases were people did not question the nature of the circumstances, the disciples did. At first they were in at state of disbelief, then they died in a understanding of what they perceived as fact.}} <br />
<br />
While this argument has a point, it does have the premise that the apostles actually had the experiences described in the Bible, including many [[miracles]], which is [[begging the question]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
*[http://www.heavensgate.com/ Heaven's Gate official website]<br />
<br />
{{Arguments for god}}</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Would_someone_die_for_what_they_knew_was_a_lie%3F&diff=44045Would someone die for what they knew was a lie?2023-08-08T05:20:20Z<p>TimSC: /* Beliefs are not always correct */</p>
<hr />
<div>An often used modern [[argument]] for the [[truth]] of the [[resurrection]] of [[Jesus]] is that of [[martyr]]dom. The claim is that all of the [[apostle]]s would have had first-hand [[knowledge]] as to whether or not Jesus actually returned from the dead and confirmed that he was the [[Jesus|Son of God]]. As they died rather than admit the account was false, this suggests that rather than just [[believe]] that it was true like other martyrs in other faiths, they knew it was true for a fact.<br />
<br />
{{quote|People do not willingly allow themselves to die for something they know is a lie so the Apostles really believed they saw, talked with, touched, walked with and even ate with Jesus in various group settings after He died on the cross which convinced them He was God so they became bold proclaimers when before they were doubters.<ref>[http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476-4-Step-Proof-for-God-amp-Minimal-Facts-Approach]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|They didn't just die for a lie either, they left lives of general stability, families, and the things they enjoyed to go to parts of the world the had never dreamed of. All but one were killed in terrible circumstance.}}<br />
<br />
==Argument structure==<br />
<br />
* The disciples of Jesus either were either telling the truth or lying about Jesus.<br />
* Many of them were martyred for speaking about their belief.<br />
* People don't die for a lie that they know is a lie when they have the ability to live by denouncing the lie.<br />
* Therefore, the disciples were telling the truth about Jesus.<br />
* Therefore, Jesus was resurrected.<br />
<br />
The argument also can be applied to other believers and belief systems.<br />
<br />
==Counter-apologetics==<br />
===People do die for a lie===<br />
The [[premise]] that people would never "die for a lie" is demonstrably false. People throughout history have, in fact, died for beliefs which turned out to be false, deceptive, poorly understood, and even [[Law of the excluded middle|mutually exclusive]]. Many thousands of Germans died during World War II based on the belief that they were the "master race" and were justified in conquering other nations for "living space". Also during World War II, many Japanese civilians committed suicide rather than being captured by the Americans because of the false belief they would be mistreated. At Jonestown, over 900 people committed mass suicide while under the influence of the cult leader Jim Jones. In 1993, 76 people died at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas because they believed their leader, David Koresh, was a prophet of God. In 1997, 39 members of [[Heaven's Gate]] committed suicide in the belief that a UFO following the comet Hale-Bopp would transport them to "Their world". Since the argument would prove multiple incompatible religions were true, it is a [[broken compass argument]] (e.g. this argument would imply that Heaven's Gate is just as true as Christianity).<br />
<br />
Note that this section is not arguing that [[your religion is similar to other false religions]], it is a counter argument to the premise "people don't die for a lie”. <br />
<br />
Arguing that "the disciples were not like that because they had proof" [[#Further arguments|doesn't address the argument]].<br />
<br />
{{quote-source| Characters of blood did they write on the way they went, and their folly taught that truth is proved by blood. But blood is the very worst witness to truth; blood tainteth the purest teaching, and turneth it into delusion and hatred of heart.|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]}}<br />
<br />
Apologists point out that while people do die for lies, the actual issue is whether people die for what they ''knew'' to be a lie i.e. a lie of their own creation or contrary to facts known to them. Psychology shows that people will not die for what they ''know'' to be false, not that people won’t die for beliefs they think is true.<br />
<br />
===Earliest records we have===<br />
<br />
The earliest record of Christians from non-Christian sources is the letter of [[Pliny the Younger]] who specifically did give these very early Christians a choice between dying and worshiping Jesus. They overwhelmingly recanted and did not die for their faith.<br />
<br />
{{quote|I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.<ref>[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
When threatened the group of Christians quickly recanted and insisted they first said they were Christians in error, they stopped being Christians long ago and all hail the emperor and to hell with Christ! Apparently when push came to shove, the evidence is they recanted and rejected Christ. Strenuously refusing to die for their belief. Being willing to die has little bearing on authenticating belief. But, in this case the earliest non-ambiguous non-Christian reference we have to Christians as a group, and they promptly recant.<br />
<br />
===Based on unreliable accounts===<br />
<br />
The [[Apostles]] may well have had firsthand knowledge, but that doesn't lend any credibility to the claim because we don't have first hand knowledge about them or of their claims. We also have only vague accounts of the death of the apostles, which are generally known by "tradition" or biased sources, rather than primary sources. <br />
<br />
Many people have personally witnessed a seemingly paranormal phenomenon, and genuinely believe that what they saw was a supernatural element, only for them to discover after a meticulous analysis that what they witnessed was actually a regular incident with a logical and natural explanation (Will-O-Wisps were thought to be ghostly apparitions before being identified as the manifestation of chemical reactions).<br />
<br />
===Assumption of Biblical accuracy===<br />
{{quote|If you read through the book of Acts, it is obvious that the early Messianic community was willing to die whether than recant their faith in the risen Lord.<ref>[https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/the-8-es-of-testimony-in-the-new-testament/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Implicit]] in this argument is the idea that the [[miracles of Jesus]] therefore actually happened, which is not supported by the [[premise]] that his apostles would not have died for a lie. This [[conclusion]] ignores several other possibilities:<br />
# The apostles strongly believed the stories to be true, but were mistaken:<br />
#* The ones who were killed never actually [[witness]]ed the events take place themselves, but were told by other apostles, whom they trusted.<br />
#* They convinced themselves the stories were true, to the point of actually believing they were, even though what they witnessed directly contradicted them.<!-- ? --><br />
#* They remembered the details of the events differently than they witnessed, because the false details were constantly reinforced by everyone they kept company with.<br />
#* They were fooled. They really did see the events, but what they saw was a [[magic|trick]].<br />
# The apostles did not believe all of the stories, but died for another reason:<br />
#* They believed the literal truth of {{Bible|John 3:16}}, and thought they would not die.<br />
#* They considered the cause to be just, even though they knew some of the stories were embellished or exaggerated.<br />
#* They were protecting the lives of other people.<br />
#* They would have chosen death rather than be exposed as shameless liars.<br />
#* They were killed because they were public figureheads for the cause, not due to the specific stories they maintained or denied.<br />
#* They were killed without having an opportunity to retract their stories.<br />
#* They stuck to their story to maintain some dignity in their death, as they were going to be killed either way.<br />
#* They intended to become martyrs.<br />
# The apostles admitted the stories were not true, but the admission was never made public.<br />
# They did die protecting the truth, but the stories of those events were later embellished. The "miracles" we now read about are not what they actually saw and died for.<br />
# The stories of the apostles' deaths were themselves later embellished to present them as martyrs.<br />
# The apostles as well as Jesus died for something else; perhaps they hoped they would help free Israel from the Romans.<br />
# The apostles were never killed.<br />
# The existence of the apostles was also an invention.<br />
<br />
While all the above are possible explanations for early Christian martyrs, what we can tell about the 1st century Christian apostles (assuming they all existed) is mostly based on the stories within the New Testament. In the book of [[Acts]], we only have two martyrs: Stephen and James. Stephen wasn't even an eyewitness, he was a later convert, meaning if he died for anything it was entirely based on hearsay. But according to Acts, he was not killed for what he believed, but for some trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted. So his death does not prove he died for his beliefs, which was Jesus was the messiah and was at that moment in heaven. The lack of any mention of a physical resurrection could indicate that if Stephen died for his beliefs, it could have been a belief in a spiritual resurrection instead of an actual physical resurrection. As for James, we are not told anything about why he was killed or whether recanting would have saved him, or (like Stephen) if he believed in a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical resurrection. [[Josephus]] does mention that a James (which may or may not be the same James in Acts) was stoned to death in 62 CE, but he was stoned for breaking the Jewish law-recanting would not have saved him anyway.<br />
<br />
Then we have stories of Apostle martyrs outside the New Testament, such as the famous crucifixion of Peter upside-down. The problem is that this event doesn't have any contemporary sources. It is never mentioned until about two or three generations later in only a single source: the Gnostic Acts of Peter, a gospel rejected as a false document by many Christians of the day. But even if this account is true, it claims that Peter was executed for political meddling and not for his beliefs. Even more important, it states that Peter believed Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, not in the flesh.<br />
<br />
[[Paul the Apostle]] admits he was not an eyewitness. He merely had a vision of a spiritual figure of Jesus while on the road to Damascus. So even if he did die for his beliefs, it was based on a vision of a man he never met in his life. While the date of Paul's death is unknown, it is commonly accepted to have occurred after the Great Fire of Rome in July 64 CE, but before the last year of Nero's reign, in 68 CE. But all accounts of Paul's "martyrdom" come from sources 30-50 years after his death. The earliest mention comes from the non-canonical document 1 Clement, in which it only suggests Paul was martyred under the prefects.<br />
<br />
As for the rest of the Apostles being martyred, they all come from non-eyewitness sources written numerous generations after their deaths, so there is no way to be certain how they died and if they did or did not die for their beliefs. The Apostle Philip has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the earliest mention comes from the apocryphal Acts of Philip which was written between the mid-to-late 4th century CE. Mark "the evangelist" was killed by Egyptian pagans, but there is no mention of this until the 4th century. The martyrdom of the Apostle Andrew account comes from the apocryphal Acts of Andrew written in the 3rd century CE. The Apostle Jude's martyrdom is only mentioned in the apocryphal Acts of Simon and Jude written in the 4th century CE. The Apostle Bartholomew has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the Gospel of Bartholomew is a missing text. And then there's Thomas, often called [[Doubting Thomas]], according to tradition believed to be martyred in 72 CE. Yet the earliest mention of his martyrdom comes from a Syriac Christian, Ephrem the Syrian, who wasn't born until over 200 years after the death of Thomas.<br />
<br />
===Jesus didn't die===<br />
Assuming the Bible is true, Jesus didn't die, he was found alive some days after his crucifixion.<ref>Achtemeier, Paul J. "Introducing the New Testament." Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eardmans Publishing Company. 2001.</ref><br />
<br />
This is contrary to the account in the Bible. According to the Bible Jesus did die and was resurrected, ergo creating a difference between resuscitation and resurrection. The gospels say that Jesus died on the cross as a result of crucifixion (if that doesn't prove his death, being in a sealed tomb for three days does). Furthermore, according to gospel accounts and other accounts, upon Jesus' resurrection it is said that he had wounds but wasn't in a state of looking ill (as would be the result of crucifixion and being in a tomb for three days). Thus Jesus had to die and resurrect, not just resuscitate, assuming the accounts are correct. The Gospels were all written at least a generation after the events stated there allegedly took place so we cannot be sure that the Gospel account is accurate.<br />
<br />
===Jesus was executed but not for his core beliefs===<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that because Jesus was willing to die for what he believed it proves that he believed in what he had said. However, assuming the Gospels are true, Jesus was executed as a criminal. The crimes described in the Gospels consist of vandalism ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}), theft ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}, {{Bible|Matthew 21:12}}, {{Bible|John 2:15}}), battery with a weapon ({{Bible|John 2:15}}), impeding traffic ({{Bible|Mark 11:16}}) and making terrorist threats ({{Bible|John 2:19}}), as well as assault, disturbing the peace and impeding commerce. Most of these were capital crimes, and he was arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to death for another-blasphemy (by supposedly claiming to be God). It is often believed that Jesus knew his actions would result in his death, so that despite his execution being legally justified it has no bearing on whether is was martyrdom. However, if he died for his beliefs, then those beliefs for which he died consist of not changing money or selling animals inside of the Temple. In addition, he was not killed for his beliefs, but as a threat to Jewish authority ({{Bible|Mark 11:18}}).<br />
<br />
===Being willing to die does not authenticate Jesus===<br />
<br />
Their willingness to die shows that early Christians believed firmly in their religious ideal, not that they believed [[Jesus]] was a real person. The religious ideal could easily have been considered a worthy cause, whether or not its founder was invented.<br />
<br />
===Beliefs are not always correct===<br />
<br />
If early Christians did in fact die specifically for holding to the claim that Jesus was real (which has in no way been demonstrated), that only indicates that they believed it, not that they were correct. People have been willing to die for a delusional belief.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Countless people throughout history have been fully convinced that gods or ghosts spoke to them, by the mere fact that they dreamt it, or hallucinated it... Thus countless people die for a “lie” in the sense that they don’t know that what they are dying for is false.<ref>Richard Carrier, [https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9978 Did the Apostles Die for a Lie?], 7 April 2016</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Further arguments==<br />
<br />
It is claimed that the [[apostles]] were eye witness experiences so they would know Jesus's [[resurrection]] to be either true or false, they were not dying for an unproven or abstract belief but rather what they had been shown. Therefore, they were not dying for a lie. <br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] The disciples [...] did not really believe Jesus until he showed up reanimated. Peter denied Jesus three times before he saw Christ resurrected. He was crucified upside down because he thought something was true but because he knew it was, and he denied the truth and was not worthy to die as Christ did. The disciples did not die practising unsubstantiated belief but on the understanding that they saw something and they believed it enough to die. [...] All the people or events mentioned in the above agreement are cases were people did not question the nature of the circumstances, the disciples did. At first they were in at state of disbelief, then they died in a understanding of what they perceived as fact.}} <br />
<br />
While this argument has a point, it does have the premise that the apostles actually had the experiences described in the Bible, including many [[miracles]], which is [[begging the question]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
*[http://www.heavensgate.com/ Heaven's Gate official website]<br />
<br />
{{Arguments for god}}</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Would_someone_die_for_what_they_knew_was_a_lie%3F&diff=44044Would someone die for what they knew was a lie?2023-08-08T05:10:45Z<p>TimSC: /* Beliefs are not always correct */</p>
<hr />
<div>An often used modern [[argument]] for the [[truth]] of the [[resurrection]] of [[Jesus]] is that of [[martyr]]dom. The claim is that all of the [[apostle]]s would have had first-hand [[knowledge]] as to whether or not Jesus actually returned from the dead and confirmed that he was the [[Jesus|Son of God]]. As they died rather than admit the account was false, this suggests that rather than just [[believe]] that it was true like other martyrs in other faiths, they knew it was true for a fact.<br />
<br />
{{quote|People do not willingly allow themselves to die for something they know is a lie so the Apostles really believed they saw, talked with, touched, walked with and even ate with Jesus in various group settings after He died on the cross which convinced them He was God so they became bold proclaimers when before they were doubters.<ref>[http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476-4-Step-Proof-for-God-amp-Minimal-Facts-Approach]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|They didn't just die for a lie either, they left lives of general stability, families, and the things they enjoyed to go to parts of the world the had never dreamed of. All but one were killed in terrible circumstance.}}<br />
<br />
==Argument structure==<br />
<br />
* The disciples of Jesus either were either telling the truth or lying about Jesus.<br />
* Many of them were martyred for speaking about their belief.<br />
* People don't die for a lie that they know is a lie when they have the ability to live by denouncing the lie.<br />
* Therefore, the disciples were telling the truth about Jesus.<br />
* Therefore, Jesus was resurrected.<br />
<br />
The argument also can be applied to other believers and belief systems.<br />
<br />
==Counter-apologetics==<br />
===People do die for a lie===<br />
The [[premise]] that people would never "die for a lie" is demonstrably false. People throughout history have, in fact, died for beliefs which turned out to be false, deceptive, poorly understood, and even [[Law of the excluded middle|mutually exclusive]]. Many thousands of Germans died during World War II based on the belief that they were the "master race" and were justified in conquering other nations for "living space". Also during World War II, many Japanese civilians committed suicide rather than being captured by the Americans because of the false belief they would be mistreated. At Jonestown, over 900 people committed mass suicide while under the influence of the cult leader Jim Jones. In 1993, 76 people died at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas because they believed their leader, David Koresh, was a prophet of God. In 1997, 39 members of [[Heaven's Gate]] committed suicide in the belief that a UFO following the comet Hale-Bopp would transport them to "Their world". Since the argument would prove multiple incompatible religions were true, it is a [[broken compass argument]] (e.g. this argument would imply that Heaven's Gate is just as true as Christianity).<br />
<br />
Note that this section is not arguing that [[your religion is similar to other false religions]], it is a counter argument to the premise "people don't die for a lie”. <br />
<br />
Arguing that "the disciples were not like that because they had proof" [[#Further arguments|doesn't address the argument]].<br />
<br />
{{quote-source| Characters of blood did they write on the way they went, and their folly taught that truth is proved by blood. But blood is the very worst witness to truth; blood tainteth the purest teaching, and turneth it into delusion and hatred of heart.|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]}}<br />
<br />
Apologists point out that while people do die for lies, the actual issue is whether people die for what they ''knew'' to be a lie i.e. a lie of their own creation or contrary to facts known to them. Psychology shows that people will not die for what they ''know'' to be false, not that people won’t die for beliefs they think is true.<br />
<br />
===Earliest records we have===<br />
<br />
The earliest record of Christians from non-Christian sources is the letter of [[Pliny the Younger]] who specifically did give these very early Christians a choice between dying and worshiping Jesus. They overwhelmingly recanted and did not die for their faith.<br />
<br />
{{quote|I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.<ref>[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
When threatened the group of Christians quickly recanted and insisted they first said they were Christians in error, they stopped being Christians long ago and all hail the emperor and to hell with Christ! Apparently when push came to shove, the evidence is they recanted and rejected Christ. Strenuously refusing to die for their belief. Being willing to die has little bearing on authenticating belief. But, in this case the earliest non-ambiguous non-Christian reference we have to Christians as a group, and they promptly recant.<br />
<br />
===Based on unreliable accounts===<br />
<br />
The [[Apostles]] may well have had firsthand knowledge, but that doesn't lend any credibility to the claim because we don't have first hand knowledge about them or of their claims. We also have only vague accounts of the death of the apostles, which are generally known by "tradition" or biased sources, rather than primary sources. <br />
<br />
Many people have personally witnessed a seemingly paranormal phenomenon, and genuinely believe that what they saw was a supernatural element, only for them to discover after a meticulous analysis that what they witnessed was actually a regular incident with a logical and natural explanation (Will-O-Wisps were thought to be ghostly apparitions before being identified as the manifestation of chemical reactions).<br />
<br />
===Assumption of Biblical accuracy===<br />
{{quote|If you read through the book of Acts, it is obvious that the early Messianic community was willing to die whether than recant their faith in the risen Lord.<ref>[https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/the-8-es-of-testimony-in-the-new-testament/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Implicit]] in this argument is the idea that the [[miracles of Jesus]] therefore actually happened, which is not supported by the [[premise]] that his apostles would not have died for a lie. This [[conclusion]] ignores several other possibilities:<br />
# The apostles strongly believed the stories to be true, but were mistaken:<br />
#* The ones who were killed never actually [[witness]]ed the events take place themselves, but were told by other apostles, whom they trusted.<br />
#* They convinced themselves the stories were true, to the point of actually believing they were, even though what they witnessed directly contradicted them.<!-- ? --><br />
#* They remembered the details of the events differently than they witnessed, because the false details were constantly reinforced by everyone they kept company with.<br />
#* They were fooled. They really did see the events, but what they saw was a [[magic|trick]].<br />
# The apostles did not believe all of the stories, but died for another reason:<br />
#* They believed the literal truth of {{Bible|John 3:16}}, and thought they would not die.<br />
#* They considered the cause to be just, even though they knew some of the stories were embellished or exaggerated.<br />
#* They were protecting the lives of other people.<br />
#* They would have chosen death rather than be exposed as shameless liars.<br />
#* They were killed because they were public figureheads for the cause, not due to the specific stories they maintained or denied.<br />
#* They were killed without having an opportunity to retract their stories.<br />
#* They stuck to their story to maintain some dignity in their death, as they were going to be killed either way.<br />
#* They intended to become martyrs.<br />
# The apostles admitted the stories were not true, but the admission was never made public.<br />
# They did die protecting the truth, but the stories of those events were later embellished. The "miracles" we now read about are not what they actually saw and died for.<br />
# The stories of the apostles' deaths were themselves later embellished to present them as martyrs.<br />
# The apostles as well as Jesus died for something else; perhaps they hoped they would help free Israel from the Romans.<br />
# The apostles were never killed.<br />
# The existence of the apostles was also an invention.<br />
<br />
While all the above are possible explanations for early Christian martyrs, what we can tell about the 1st century Christian apostles (assuming they all existed) is mostly based on the stories within the New Testament. In the book of [[Acts]], we only have two martyrs: Stephen and James. Stephen wasn't even an eyewitness, he was a later convert, meaning if he died for anything it was entirely based on hearsay. But according to Acts, he was not killed for what he believed, but for some trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted. So his death does not prove he died for his beliefs, which was Jesus was the messiah and was at that moment in heaven. The lack of any mention of a physical resurrection could indicate that if Stephen died for his beliefs, it could have been a belief in a spiritual resurrection instead of an actual physical resurrection. As for James, we are not told anything about why he was killed or whether recanting would have saved him, or (like Stephen) if he believed in a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical resurrection. [[Josephus]] does mention that a James (which may or may not be the same James in Acts) was stoned to death in 62 CE, but he was stoned for breaking the Jewish law-recanting would not have saved him anyway.<br />
<br />
Then we have stories of Apostle martyrs outside the New Testament, such as the famous crucifixion of Peter upside-down. The problem is that this event doesn't have any contemporary sources. It is never mentioned until about two or three generations later in only a single source: the Gnostic Acts of Peter, a gospel rejected as a false document by many Christians of the day. But even if this account is true, it claims that Peter was executed for political meddling and not for his beliefs. Even more important, it states that Peter believed Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, not in the flesh.<br />
<br />
[[Paul the Apostle]] admits he was not an eyewitness. He merely had a vision of a spiritual figure of Jesus while on the road to Damascus. So even if he did die for his beliefs, it was based on a vision of a man he never met in his life. While the date of Paul's death is unknown, it is commonly accepted to have occurred after the Great Fire of Rome in July 64 CE, but before the last year of Nero's reign, in 68 CE. But all accounts of Paul's "martyrdom" come from sources 30-50 years after his death. The earliest mention comes from the non-canonical document 1 Clement, in which it only suggests Paul was martyred under the prefects.<br />
<br />
As for the rest of the Apostles being martyred, they all come from non-eyewitness sources written numerous generations after their deaths, so there is no way to be certain how they died and if they did or did not die for their beliefs. The Apostle Philip has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the earliest mention comes from the apocryphal Acts of Philip which was written between the mid-to-late 4th century CE. Mark "the evangelist" was killed by Egyptian pagans, but there is no mention of this until the 4th century. The martyrdom of the Apostle Andrew account comes from the apocryphal Acts of Andrew written in the 3rd century CE. The Apostle Jude's martyrdom is only mentioned in the apocryphal Acts of Simon and Jude written in the 4th century CE. The Apostle Bartholomew has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the Gospel of Bartholomew is a missing text. And then there's Thomas, often called [[Doubting Thomas]], according to tradition believed to be martyred in 72 CE. Yet the earliest mention of his martyrdom comes from a Syriac Christian, Ephrem the Syrian, who wasn't born until over 200 years after the death of Thomas.<br />
<br />
===Jesus didn't die===<br />
Assuming the Bible is true, Jesus didn't die, he was found alive some days after his crucifixion.<ref>Achtemeier, Paul J. "Introducing the New Testament." Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eardmans Publishing Company. 2001.</ref><br />
<br />
This is contrary to the account in the Bible. According to the Bible Jesus did die and was resurrected, ergo creating a difference between resuscitation and resurrection. The gospels say that Jesus died on the cross as a result of crucifixion (if that doesn't prove his death, being in a sealed tomb for three days does). Furthermore, according to gospel accounts and other accounts, upon Jesus' resurrection it is said that he had wounds but wasn't in a state of looking ill (as would be the result of crucifixion and being in a tomb for three days). Thus Jesus had to die and resurrect, not just resuscitate, assuming the accounts are correct. The Gospels were all written at least a generation after the events stated there allegedly took place so we cannot be sure that the Gospel account is accurate.<br />
<br />
===Jesus was executed but not for his core beliefs===<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that because Jesus was willing to die for what he believed it proves that he believed in what he had said. However, assuming the Gospels are true, Jesus was executed as a criminal. The crimes described in the Gospels consist of vandalism ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}), theft ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}, {{Bible|Matthew 21:12}}, {{Bible|John 2:15}}), battery with a weapon ({{Bible|John 2:15}}), impeding traffic ({{Bible|Mark 11:16}}) and making terrorist threats ({{Bible|John 2:19}}), as well as assault, disturbing the peace and impeding commerce. Most of these were capital crimes, and he was arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to death for another-blasphemy (by supposedly claiming to be God). It is often believed that Jesus knew his actions would result in his death, so that despite his execution being legally justified it has no bearing on whether is was martyrdom. However, if he died for his beliefs, then those beliefs for which he died consist of not changing money or selling animals inside of the Temple. In addition, he was not killed for his beliefs, but as a threat to Jewish authority ({{Bible|Mark 11:18}}).<br />
<br />
===Being willing to die does not authenticate Jesus===<br />
<br />
Their willingness to die shows that early Christians believed firmly in their religious ideal, not that they believed [[Jesus]] was a real person. The religious ideal could easily have been considered a worthy cause, whether or not its founder was invented.<br />
<br />
===Beliefs are not always correct===<br />
<br />
If early Christians did in fact die specifically for holding to the claim that Jesus was real (which has in no way been demonstrated), that only indicates that they believed it, not that they were correct. People have been willing to die for a delusional belief.<br />
<br />
==Further arguments==<br />
<br />
It is claimed that the [[apostles]] were eye witness experiences so they would know Jesus's [[resurrection]] to be either true or false, they were not dying for an unproven or abstract belief but rather what they had been shown. Therefore, they were not dying for a lie. <br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] The disciples [...] did not really believe Jesus until he showed up reanimated. Peter denied Jesus three times before he saw Christ resurrected. He was crucified upside down because he thought something was true but because he knew it was, and he denied the truth and was not worthy to die as Christ did. The disciples did not die practising unsubstantiated belief but on the understanding that they saw something and they believed it enough to die. [...] All the people or events mentioned in the above agreement are cases were people did not question the nature of the circumstances, the disciples did. At first they were in at state of disbelief, then they died in a understanding of what they perceived as fact.}} <br />
<br />
While this argument has a point, it does have the premise that the apostles actually had the experiences described in the Bible, including many [[miracles]], which is [[begging the question]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
*[http://www.heavensgate.com/ Heaven's Gate official website]<br />
<br />
{{Arguments for god}}</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Would_someone_die_for_what_they_knew_was_a_lie%3F&diff=44043Would someone die for what they knew was a lie?2023-08-08T05:03:45Z<p>TimSC: /* Counter-apologetics */</p>
<hr />
<div>An often used modern [[argument]] for the [[truth]] of the [[resurrection]] of [[Jesus]] is that of [[martyr]]dom. The claim is that all of the [[apostle]]s would have had first-hand [[knowledge]] as to whether or not Jesus actually returned from the dead and confirmed that he was the [[Jesus|Son of God]]. As they died rather than admit the account was false, this suggests that rather than just [[believe]] that it was true like other martyrs in other faiths, they knew it was true for a fact.<br />
<br />
{{quote|People do not willingly allow themselves to die for something they know is a lie so the Apostles really believed they saw, talked with, touched, walked with and even ate with Jesus in various group settings after He died on the cross which convinced them He was God so they became bold proclaimers when before they were doubters.<ref>[http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476-4-Step-Proof-for-God-amp-Minimal-Facts-Approach]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|They didn't just die for a lie either, they left lives of general stability, families, and the things they enjoyed to go to parts of the world the had never dreamed of. All but one were killed in terrible circumstance.}}<br />
<br />
==Argument structure==<br />
<br />
* The disciples of Jesus either were either telling the truth or lying about Jesus.<br />
* Many of them were martyred for speaking about their belief.<br />
* People don't die for a lie that they know is a lie when they have the ability to live by denouncing the lie.<br />
* Therefore, the disciples were telling the truth about Jesus.<br />
* Therefore, Jesus was resurrected.<br />
<br />
The argument also can be applied to other believers and belief systems.<br />
<br />
==Counter-apologetics==<br />
===People do die for a lie===<br />
The [[premise]] that people would never "die for a lie" is demonstrably false. People throughout history have, in fact, died for beliefs which turned out to be false, deceptive, poorly understood, and even [[Law of the excluded middle|mutually exclusive]]. Many thousands of Germans died during World War II based on the belief that they were the "master race" and were justified in conquering other nations for "living space". Also during World War II, many Japanese civilians committed suicide rather than being captured by the Americans because of the false belief they would be mistreated. At Jonestown, over 900 people committed mass suicide while under the influence of the cult leader Jim Jones. In 1993, 76 people died at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas because they believed their leader, David Koresh, was a prophet of God. In 1997, 39 members of [[Heaven's Gate]] committed suicide in the belief that a UFO following the comet Hale-Bopp would transport them to "Their world". Since the argument would prove multiple incompatible religions were true, it is a [[broken compass argument]] (e.g. this argument would imply that Heaven's Gate is just as true as Christianity).<br />
<br />
Note that this section is not arguing that [[your religion is similar to other false religions]], it is a counter argument to the premise "people don't die for a lie”. <br />
<br />
Arguing that "the disciples were not like that because they had proof" [[#Further arguments|doesn't address the argument]].<br />
<br />
{{quote-source| Characters of blood did they write on the way they went, and their folly taught that truth is proved by blood. But blood is the very worst witness to truth; blood tainteth the purest teaching, and turneth it into delusion and hatred of heart.|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]}}<br />
<br />
Apologists point out that while people do die for lies, the actual issue is whether people die for what they ''knew'' to be a lie i.e. a lie of their own creation or contrary to facts known to them. Psychology shows that people will not die for what they ''know'' to be false, not that people won’t die for beliefs they think is true.<br />
<br />
===Earliest records we have===<br />
<br />
The earliest record of Christians from non-Christian sources is the letter of [[Pliny the Younger]] who specifically did give these very early Christians a choice between dying and worshiping Jesus. They overwhelmingly recanted and did not die for their faith.<br />
<br />
{{quote|I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.<ref>[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
When threatened the group of Christians quickly recanted and insisted they first said they were Christians in error, they stopped being Christians long ago and all hail the emperor and to hell with Christ! Apparently when push came to shove, the evidence is they recanted and rejected Christ. Strenuously refusing to die for their belief. Being willing to die has little bearing on authenticating belief. But, in this case the earliest non-ambiguous non-Christian reference we have to Christians as a group, and they promptly recant.<br />
<br />
===Based on unreliable accounts===<br />
<br />
The [[Apostles]] may well have had firsthand knowledge, but that doesn't lend any credibility to the claim because we don't have first hand knowledge about them or of their claims. We also have only vague accounts of the death of the apostles, which are generally known by "tradition" or biased sources, rather than primary sources. <br />
<br />
Many people have personally witnessed a seemingly paranormal phenomenon, and genuinely believe that what they saw was a supernatural element, only for them to discover after a meticulous analysis that what they witnessed was actually a regular incident with a logical and natural explanation (Will-O-Wisps were thought to be ghostly apparitions before being identified as the manifestation of chemical reactions).<br />
<br />
===Assumption of Biblical accuracy===<br />
{{quote|If you read through the book of Acts, it is obvious that the early Messianic community was willing to die whether than recant their faith in the risen Lord.<ref>[https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/the-8-es-of-testimony-in-the-new-testament/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Implicit]] in this argument is the idea that the [[miracles of Jesus]] therefore actually happened, which is not supported by the [[premise]] that his apostles would not have died for a lie. This [[conclusion]] ignores several other possibilities:<br />
# The apostles strongly believed the stories to be true, but were mistaken:<br />
#* The ones who were killed never actually [[witness]]ed the events take place themselves, but were told by other apostles, whom they trusted.<br />
#* They convinced themselves the stories were true, to the point of actually believing they were, even though what they witnessed directly contradicted them.<!-- ? --><br />
#* They remembered the details of the events differently than they witnessed, because the false details were constantly reinforced by everyone they kept company with.<br />
#* They were fooled. They really did see the events, but what they saw was a [[magic|trick]].<br />
# The apostles did not believe all of the stories, but died for another reason:<br />
#* They believed the literal truth of {{Bible|John 3:16}}, and thought they would not die.<br />
#* They considered the cause to be just, even though they knew some of the stories were embellished or exaggerated.<br />
#* They were protecting the lives of other people.<br />
#* They would have chosen death rather than be exposed as shameless liars.<br />
#* They were killed because they were public figureheads for the cause, not due to the specific stories they maintained or denied.<br />
#* They were killed without having an opportunity to retract their stories.<br />
#* They stuck to their story to maintain some dignity in their death, as they were going to be killed either way.<br />
#* They intended to become martyrs.<br />
# The apostles admitted the stories were not true, but the admission was never made public.<br />
# They did die protecting the truth, but the stories of those events were later embellished. The "miracles" we now read about are not what they actually saw and died for.<br />
# The stories of the apostles' deaths were themselves later embellished to present them as martyrs.<br />
# The apostles as well as Jesus died for something else; perhaps they hoped they would help free Israel from the Romans.<br />
# The apostles were never killed.<br />
# The existence of the apostles was also an invention.<br />
<br />
While all the above are possible explanations for early Christian martyrs, what we can tell about the 1st century Christian apostles (assuming they all existed) is mostly based on the stories within the New Testament. In the book of [[Acts]], we only have two martyrs: Stephen and James. Stephen wasn't even an eyewitness, he was a later convert, meaning if he died for anything it was entirely based on hearsay. But according to Acts, he was not killed for what he believed, but for some trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted. So his death does not prove he died for his beliefs, which was Jesus was the messiah and was at that moment in heaven. The lack of any mention of a physical resurrection could indicate that if Stephen died for his beliefs, it could have been a belief in a spiritual resurrection instead of an actual physical resurrection. As for James, we are not told anything about why he was killed or whether recanting would have saved him, or (like Stephen) if he believed in a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical resurrection. [[Josephus]] does mention that a James (which may or may not be the same James in Acts) was stoned to death in 62 CE, but he was stoned for breaking the Jewish law-recanting would not have saved him anyway.<br />
<br />
Then we have stories of Apostle martyrs outside the New Testament, such as the famous crucifixion of Peter upside-down. The problem is that this event doesn't have any contemporary sources. It is never mentioned until about two or three generations later in only a single source: the Gnostic Acts of Peter, a gospel rejected as a false document by many Christians of the day. But even if this account is true, it claims that Peter was executed for political meddling and not for his beliefs. Even more important, it states that Peter believed Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, not in the flesh.<br />
<br />
[[Paul the Apostle]] admits he was not an eyewitness. He merely had a vision of a spiritual figure of Jesus while on the road to Damascus. So even if he did die for his beliefs, it was based on a vision of a man he never met in his life. While the date of Paul's death is unknown, it is commonly accepted to have occurred after the Great Fire of Rome in July 64 CE, but before the last year of Nero's reign, in 68 CE. But all accounts of Paul's "martyrdom" come from sources 30-50 years after his death. The earliest mention comes from the non-canonical document 1 Clement, in which it only suggests Paul was martyred under the prefects.<br />
<br />
As for the rest of the Apostles being martyred, they all come from non-eyewitness sources written numerous generations after their deaths, so there is no way to be certain how they died and if they did or did not die for their beliefs. The Apostle Philip has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the earliest mention comes from the apocryphal Acts of Philip which was written between the mid-to-late 4th century CE. Mark "the evangelist" was killed by Egyptian pagans, but there is no mention of this until the 4th century. The martyrdom of the Apostle Andrew account comes from the apocryphal Acts of Andrew written in the 3rd century CE. The Apostle Jude's martyrdom is only mentioned in the apocryphal Acts of Simon and Jude written in the 4th century CE. The Apostle Bartholomew has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the Gospel of Bartholomew is a missing text. And then there's Thomas, often called [[Doubting Thomas]], according to tradition believed to be martyred in 72 CE. Yet the earliest mention of his martyrdom comes from a Syriac Christian, Ephrem the Syrian, who wasn't born until over 200 years after the death of Thomas.<br />
<br />
===Jesus didn't die===<br />
Assuming the Bible is true, Jesus didn't die, he was found alive some days after his crucifixion.<ref>Achtemeier, Paul J. "Introducing the New Testament." Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eardmans Publishing Company. 2001.</ref><br />
<br />
This is contrary to the account in the Bible. According to the Bible Jesus did die and was resurrected, ergo creating a difference between resuscitation and resurrection. The gospels say that Jesus died on the cross as a result of crucifixion (if that doesn't prove his death, being in a sealed tomb for three days does). Furthermore, according to gospel accounts and other accounts, upon Jesus' resurrection it is said that he had wounds but wasn't in a state of looking ill (as would be the result of crucifixion and being in a tomb for three days). Thus Jesus had to die and resurrect, not just resuscitate, assuming the accounts are correct. The Gospels were all written at least a generation after the events stated there allegedly took place so we cannot be sure that the Gospel account is accurate.<br />
<br />
===Jesus was executed but not for his core beliefs===<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that because Jesus was willing to die for what he believed it proves that he believed in what he had said. However, assuming the Gospels are true, Jesus was executed as a criminal. The crimes described in the Gospels consist of vandalism ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}), theft ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}, {{Bible|Matthew 21:12}}, {{Bible|John 2:15}}), battery with a weapon ({{Bible|John 2:15}}), impeding traffic ({{Bible|Mark 11:16}}) and making terrorist threats ({{Bible|John 2:19}}), as well as assault, disturbing the peace and impeding commerce. Most of these were capital crimes, and he was arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to death for another-blasphemy (by supposedly claiming to be God). It is often believed that Jesus knew his actions would result in his death, so that despite his execution being legally justified it has no bearing on whether is was martyrdom. However, if he died for his beliefs, then those beliefs for which he died consist of not changing money or selling animals inside of the Temple. In addition, he was not killed for his beliefs, but as a threat to Jewish authority ({{Bible|Mark 11:18}}).<br />
<br />
===Being willing to die does not authenticate Jesus===<br />
<br />
Their willingness to die shows that early Christians believed firmly in their religious ideal, not that they believed [[Jesus]] was a real person. The religious ideal could easily have been considered a worthy cause, whether or not its founder was invented.<br />
<br />
===Beliefs are not always correct===<br />
<br />
If early Christians did in fact die specifically for holding to the claim that Jesus was real (which has in no way been demonstrated), that only indicates that they believed it, not that they were correct.<br />
<br />
==Further arguments==<br />
<br />
It is claimed that the [[apostles]] were eye witness experiences so they would know Jesus's [[resurrection]] to be either true or false, they were not dying for an unproven or abstract belief but rather what they had been shown. Therefore, they were not dying for a lie. <br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] The disciples [...] did not really believe Jesus until he showed up reanimated. Peter denied Jesus three times before he saw Christ resurrected. He was crucified upside down because he thought something was true but because he knew it was, and he denied the truth and was not worthy to die as Christ did. The disciples did not die practising unsubstantiated belief but on the understanding that they saw something and they believed it enough to die. [...] All the people or events mentioned in the above agreement are cases were people did not question the nature of the circumstances, the disciples did. At first they were in at state of disbelief, then they died in a understanding of what they perceived as fact.}} <br />
<br />
While this argument has a point, it does have the premise that the apostles actually had the experiences described in the Bible, including many [[miracles]], which is [[begging the question]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
*[http://www.heavensgate.com/ Heaven's Gate official website]<br />
<br />
{{Arguments for god}}</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Would_someone_die_for_what_they_knew_was_a_lie%3F&diff=44042Would someone die for what they knew was a lie?2023-08-08T05:03:26Z<p>TimSC: /* Counter-apologetics */</p>
<hr />
<div>An often used modern [[argument]] for the [[truth]] of the [[resurrection]] of [[Jesus]] is that of [[martyr]]dom. The claim is that all of the [[apostle]]s would have had first-hand [[knowledge]] as to whether or not Jesus actually returned from the dead and confirmed that he was the [[Jesus|Son of God]]. As they died rather than admit the account was false, this suggests that rather than just [[believe]] that it was true like other martyrs in other faiths, they knew it was true for a fact.<br />
<br />
{{quote|People do not willingly allow themselves to die for something they know is a lie so the Apostles really believed they saw, talked with, touched, walked with and even ate with Jesus in various group settings after He died on the cross which convinced them He was God so they became bold proclaimers when before they were doubters.<ref>[http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476-4-Step-Proof-for-God-amp-Minimal-Facts-Approach]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|They didn't just die for a lie either, they left lives of general stability, families, and the things they enjoyed to go to parts of the world the had never dreamed of. All but one were killed in terrible circumstance.}}<br />
<br />
==Argument structure==<br />
<br />
* The disciples of Jesus either were either telling the truth or lying about Jesus.<br />
* Many of them were martyred for speaking about their belief.<br />
* People don't die for a lie that they know is a lie when they have the ability to live by denouncing the lie.<br />
* Therefore, the disciples were telling the truth about Jesus.<br />
* Therefore, Jesus was resurrected.<br />
<br />
The argument also can be applied to other believers and belief systems.<br />
<br />
==Counter-apologetics==<br />
===People do die for a lie===<br />
The [[premise]] that people would never "die for a lie" is demonstrably false. People throughout history have, in fact, died for beliefs which turned out to be false, deceptive, poorly understood, and even [[Law of the excluded middle|mutually exclusive]]. Many thousands of Germans died during World War II based on the belief that they were the "master race" and were justified in conquering other nations for "living space". Also during World War II, many Japanese civilians committed suicide rather than being captured by the Americans because of the false belief they would be mistreated. At Jonestown, over 900 people committed mass suicide while under the influence of the cult leader Jim Jones. In 1993, 76 people died at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas because they believed their leader, David Koresh, was a prophet of God. In 1997, 39 members of [[Heaven's Gate]] committed suicide in the belief that a UFO following the comet Hale-Bopp would transport them to "Their world". Since the argument would prove multiple incompatible religions were true, it is a [[broken compass argument]] (e.g. this argument would imply that Heaven's Gate is just as true as Christianity).<br />
<br />
Note that this section is not arguing that [[your religion is similar to other false religions]], it is a counter argument to the premise "people don't die for a lie”. <br />
<br />
Arguing that "the disciples were not like that because they had proof" [[#Further arguments|doesn't address the argument]].<br />
<br />
{{quote-source| Characters of blood did they write on the way they went, and their folly taught that truth is proved by blood. But blood is the very worst witness to truth; blood tainteth the purest teaching, and turneth it into delusion and hatred of heart.|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]}}<br />
<br />
Apologists point out that while people do die for lies, but the actual issue is whether people die for what they ''knew'' to be a lie? i.e. a lie of their own creation or contrary to facts known to them. Psychology shows that people will not die for what they ''know'' to be false, not that people won’t die for beliefs they think is true.<br />
<br />
===Earliest records we have===<br />
<br />
The earliest record of Christians from non-Christian sources is the letter of [[Pliny the Younger]] who specifically did give these very early Christians a choice between dying and worshiping Jesus. They overwhelmingly recanted and did not die for their faith.<br />
<br />
{{quote|I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.<ref>[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
When threatened the group of Christians quickly recanted and insisted they first said they were Christians in error, they stopped being Christians long ago and all hail the emperor and to hell with Christ! Apparently when push came to shove, the evidence is they recanted and rejected Christ. Strenuously refusing to die for their belief. Being willing to die has little bearing on authenticating belief. But, in this case the earliest non-ambiguous non-Christian reference we have to Christians as a group, and they promptly recant.<br />
<br />
===Based on unreliable accounts===<br />
<br />
The [[Apostles]] may well have had firsthand knowledge, but that doesn't lend any credibility to the claim because we don't have first hand knowledge about them or of their claims. We also have only vague accounts of the death of the apostles, which are generally known by "tradition" or biased sources, rather than primary sources. <br />
<br />
Many people have personally witnessed a seemingly paranormal phenomenon, and genuinely believe that what they saw was a supernatural element, only for them to discover after a meticulous analysis that what they witnessed was actually a regular incident with a logical and natural explanation (Will-O-Wisps were thought to be ghostly apparitions before being identified as the manifestation of chemical reactions).<br />
<br />
===Assumption of Biblical accuracy===<br />
{{quote|If you read through the book of Acts, it is obvious that the early Messianic community was willing to die whether than recant their faith in the risen Lord.<ref>[https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/the-8-es-of-testimony-in-the-new-testament/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Implicit]] in this argument is the idea that the [[miracles of Jesus]] therefore actually happened, which is not supported by the [[premise]] that his apostles would not have died for a lie. This [[conclusion]] ignores several other possibilities:<br />
# The apostles strongly believed the stories to be true, but were mistaken:<br />
#* The ones who were killed never actually [[witness]]ed the events take place themselves, but were told by other apostles, whom they trusted.<br />
#* They convinced themselves the stories were true, to the point of actually believing they were, even though what they witnessed directly contradicted them.<!-- ? --><br />
#* They remembered the details of the events differently than they witnessed, because the false details were constantly reinforced by everyone they kept company with.<br />
#* They were fooled. They really did see the events, but what they saw was a [[magic|trick]].<br />
# The apostles did not believe all of the stories, but died for another reason:<br />
#* They believed the literal truth of {{Bible|John 3:16}}, and thought they would not die.<br />
#* They considered the cause to be just, even though they knew some of the stories were embellished or exaggerated.<br />
#* They were protecting the lives of other people.<br />
#* They would have chosen death rather than be exposed as shameless liars.<br />
#* They were killed because they were public figureheads for the cause, not due to the specific stories they maintained or denied.<br />
#* They were killed without having an opportunity to retract their stories.<br />
#* They stuck to their story to maintain some dignity in their death, as they were going to be killed either way.<br />
#* They intended to become martyrs.<br />
# The apostles admitted the stories were not true, but the admission was never made public.<br />
# They did die protecting the truth, but the stories of those events were later embellished. The "miracles" we now read about are not what they actually saw and died for.<br />
# The stories of the apostles' deaths were themselves later embellished to present them as martyrs.<br />
# The apostles as well as Jesus died for something else; perhaps they hoped they would help free Israel from the Romans.<br />
# The apostles were never killed.<br />
# The existence of the apostles was also an invention.<br />
<br />
While all the above are possible explanations for early Christian martyrs, what we can tell about the 1st century Christian apostles (assuming they all existed) is mostly based on the stories within the New Testament. In the book of [[Acts]], we only have two martyrs: Stephen and James. Stephen wasn't even an eyewitness, he was a later convert, meaning if he died for anything it was entirely based on hearsay. But according to Acts, he was not killed for what he believed, but for some trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted. So his death does not prove he died for his beliefs, which was Jesus was the messiah and was at that moment in heaven. The lack of any mention of a physical resurrection could indicate that if Stephen died for his beliefs, it could have been a belief in a spiritual resurrection instead of an actual physical resurrection. As for James, we are not told anything about why he was killed or whether recanting would have saved him, or (like Stephen) if he believed in a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical resurrection. [[Josephus]] does mention that a James (which may or may not be the same James in Acts) was stoned to death in 62 CE, but he was stoned for breaking the Jewish law-recanting would not have saved him anyway.<br />
<br />
Then we have stories of Apostle martyrs outside the New Testament, such as the famous crucifixion of Peter upside-down. The problem is that this event doesn't have any contemporary sources. It is never mentioned until about two or three generations later in only a single source: the Gnostic Acts of Peter, a gospel rejected as a false document by many Christians of the day. But even if this account is true, it claims that Peter was executed for political meddling and not for his beliefs. Even more important, it states that Peter believed Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, not in the flesh.<br />
<br />
[[Paul the Apostle]] admits he was not an eyewitness. He merely had a vision of a spiritual figure of Jesus while on the road to Damascus. So even if he did die for his beliefs, it was based on a vision of a man he never met in his life. While the date of Paul's death is unknown, it is commonly accepted to have occurred after the Great Fire of Rome in July 64 CE, but before the last year of Nero's reign, in 68 CE. But all accounts of Paul's "martyrdom" come from sources 30-50 years after his death. The earliest mention comes from the non-canonical document 1 Clement, in which it only suggests Paul was martyred under the prefects.<br />
<br />
As for the rest of the Apostles being martyred, they all come from non-eyewitness sources written numerous generations after their deaths, so there is no way to be certain how they died and if they did or did not die for their beliefs. The Apostle Philip has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the earliest mention comes from the apocryphal Acts of Philip which was written between the mid-to-late 4th century CE. Mark "the evangelist" was killed by Egyptian pagans, but there is no mention of this until the 4th century. The martyrdom of the Apostle Andrew account comes from the apocryphal Acts of Andrew written in the 3rd century CE. The Apostle Jude's martyrdom is only mentioned in the apocryphal Acts of Simon and Jude written in the 4th century CE. The Apostle Bartholomew has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the Gospel of Bartholomew is a missing text. And then there's Thomas, often called [[Doubting Thomas]], according to tradition believed to be martyred in 72 CE. Yet the earliest mention of his martyrdom comes from a Syriac Christian, Ephrem the Syrian, who wasn't born until over 200 years after the death of Thomas.<br />
<br />
===Jesus didn't die===<br />
Assuming the Bible is true, Jesus didn't die, he was found alive some days after his crucifixion.<ref>Achtemeier, Paul J. "Introducing the New Testament." Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eardmans Publishing Company. 2001.</ref><br />
<br />
This is contrary to the account in the Bible. According to the Bible Jesus did die and was resurrected, ergo creating a difference between resuscitation and resurrection. The gospels say that Jesus died on the cross as a result of crucifixion (if that doesn't prove his death, being in a sealed tomb for three days does). Furthermore, according to gospel accounts and other accounts, upon Jesus' resurrection it is said that he had wounds but wasn't in a state of looking ill (as would be the result of crucifixion and being in a tomb for three days). Thus Jesus had to die and resurrect, not just resuscitate, assuming the accounts are correct. The Gospels were all written at least a generation after the events stated there allegedly took place so we cannot be sure that the Gospel account is accurate.<br />
<br />
===Jesus was executed but not for his core beliefs===<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that because Jesus was willing to die for what he believed it proves that he believed in what he had said. However, assuming the Gospels are true, Jesus was executed as a criminal. The crimes described in the Gospels consist of vandalism ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}), theft ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}, {{Bible|Matthew 21:12}}, {{Bible|John 2:15}}), battery with a weapon ({{Bible|John 2:15}}), impeding traffic ({{Bible|Mark 11:16}}) and making terrorist threats ({{Bible|John 2:19}}), as well as assault, disturbing the peace and impeding commerce. Most of these were capital crimes, and he was arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to death for another-blasphemy (by supposedly claiming to be God). It is often believed that Jesus knew his actions would result in his death, so that despite his execution being legally justified it has no bearing on whether is was martyrdom. However, if he died for his beliefs, then those beliefs for which he died consist of not changing money or selling animals inside of the Temple. In addition, he was not killed for his beliefs, but as a threat to Jewish authority ({{Bible|Mark 11:18}}).<br />
<br />
===Being willing to die does not authenticate Jesus===<br />
<br />
Their willingness to die shows that early Christians believed firmly in their religious ideal, not that they believed [[Jesus]] was a real person. The religious ideal could easily have been considered a worthy cause, whether or not its founder was invented.<br />
<br />
===Beliefs are not always correct===<br />
<br />
If early Christians did in fact die specifically for holding to the claim that Jesus was real (which has in no way been demonstrated), that only indicates that they believed it, not that they were correct.<br />
<br />
==Further arguments==<br />
<br />
It is claimed that the [[apostles]] were eye witness experiences so they would know Jesus's [[resurrection]] to be either true or false, they were not dying for an unproven or abstract belief but rather what they had been shown. Therefore, they were not dying for a lie. <br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] The disciples [...] did not really believe Jesus until he showed up reanimated. Peter denied Jesus three times before he saw Christ resurrected. He was crucified upside down because he thought something was true but because he knew it was, and he denied the truth and was not worthy to die as Christ did. The disciples did not die practising unsubstantiated belief but on the understanding that they saw something and they believed it enough to die. [...] All the people or events mentioned in the above agreement are cases were people did not question the nature of the circumstances, the disciples did. At first they were in at state of disbelief, then they died in a understanding of what they perceived as fact.}} <br />
<br />
While this argument has a point, it does have the premise that the apostles actually had the experiences described in the Bible, including many [[miracles]], which is [[begging the question]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
*[http://www.heavensgate.com/ Heaven's Gate official website]<br />
<br />
{{Arguments for god}}</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Would_someone_die_for_what_they_knew_was_a_lie%3F&diff=44041Would someone die for what they knew was a lie?2023-08-08T04:59:10Z<p>TimSC: Rewrite for clarity</p>
<hr />
<div>An often used modern [[argument]] for the [[truth]] of the [[resurrection]] of [[Jesus]] is that of [[martyr]]dom. The claim is that all of the [[apostle]]s would have had first-hand [[knowledge]] as to whether or not Jesus actually returned from the dead and confirmed that he was the [[Jesus|Son of God]]. As they died rather than admit the account was false, this suggests that rather than just [[believe]] that it was true like other martyrs in other faiths, they knew it was true for a fact.<br />
<br />
{{quote|People do not willingly allow themselves to die for something they know is a lie so the Apostles really believed they saw, talked with, touched, walked with and even ate with Jesus in various group settings after He died on the cross which convinced them He was God so they became bold proclaimers when before they were doubters.<ref>[http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476-4-Step-Proof-for-God-amp-Minimal-Facts-Approach]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|They didn't just die for a lie either, they left lives of general stability, families, and the things they enjoyed to go to parts of the world the had never dreamed of. All but one were killed in terrible circumstance.}}<br />
<br />
==Argument structure==<br />
<br />
* The disciples of Jesus either were either telling the truth or lying about Jesus.<br />
* Many of them were martyred for speaking about their belief.<br />
* People don't die for a lie that they know is a lie when they have the ability to live by denouncing the lie.<br />
* Therefore, the disciples were telling the truth about Jesus.<br />
* Therefore, Jesus was resurrected.<br />
<br />
The argument also can be applied to other believers and belief systems.<br />
<br />
==Counter-apologetics==<br />
===People do die for a lie===<br />
The [[premise]] that people would never "die for a lie" is demonstrably false. People throughout history have, in fact, died for beliefs which turned out to be false, deceptive, poorly understood, and even [[Law of the excluded middle|mutually exclusive]]. Many thousands of Germans died during World War II based on the belief that they were the "master race" and were justified in conquering other nations for "living space". Also during World War II, many Japanese civilians committed suicide rather than being captured by the Americans because of the false belief they would be mistreated. At Jonestown, over 900 people committed mass suicide while under the influence of the cult leader Jim Jones. In 1993, 76 people died at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas because they believed their leader, David Koresh, was a prophet of God. In 1997, 39 members of [[Heaven's Gate]] committed suicide in the belief that a UFO following the comet Hale-Bopp would transport them to "Their world". Since the argument would prove multiple incompatible religions were true, it is a [[broken compass argument]] (e.g. this argument would imply that Heaven's Gate is just as true as Christianity).<br />
<br />
Note that this section is not arguing that [[your religion is similar to other false religions]], it is a counter argument to the premise "people don't die for a lie”. <br />
<br />
Arguing that "the disciples were not like that because they had proof" [[#Further arguments|doesn't address the argument]].<br />
<br />
{{quote-source| Characters of blood did they write on the way they went, and their folly taught that truth is proved by blood. But blood is the very worst witness to truth; blood tainteth the purest teaching, and turneth it into delusion and hatred of heart.|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]}}<br />
<br />
Apologists point out that people do die for lies, but the actual issue is whether people die for what they ''knew'' to be a lie? i.e. a lie of their own creation or contrary to facts known to them. Psychology shows that people will not die for what they ''know'' to be false, not that people won’t die for beliefs they think is true.<br />
<br />
===Earliest records we have===<br />
<br />
The earliest record of Christians from non-Christian sources is the letter of [[Pliny the Younger]] who specifically did give these very early Christians a choice between dying and worshiping Jesus. They overwhelmingly recanted and did not die for their faith.<br />
<br />
{{quote|I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.<ref>[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
When threatened the group of Christians quickly recanted and insisted they first said they were Christians in error, they stopped being Christians long ago and all hail the emperor and to hell with Christ! Apparently when push came to shove, the evidence is they recanted and rejected Christ. Strenuously refusing to die for their belief. Being willing to die has little bearing on authenticating belief. But, in this case the earliest non-ambiguous non-Christian reference we have to Christians as a group, and they promptly recant.<br />
<br />
===Based on unreliable accounts===<br />
<br />
The [[Apostles]] may well have had firsthand knowledge, but that doesn't lend any credibility to the claim because we don't have first hand knowledge about them or of their claims. We also have only vague accounts of the death of the apostles, which are generally known by "tradition" or biased sources, rather than primary sources. <br />
<br />
Many people have personally witnessed a seemingly paranormal phenomenon, and genuinely believe that what they saw was a supernatural element, only for them to discover after a meticulous analysis that what they witnessed was actually a regular incident with a logical and natural explanation (Will-O-Wisps were thought to be ghostly apparitions before being identified as the manifestation of chemical reactions).<br />
<br />
===Assumption of Biblical accuracy===<br />
{{quote|If you read through the book of Acts, it is obvious that the early Messianic community was willing to die whether than recant their faith in the risen Lord.<ref>[https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/the-8-es-of-testimony-in-the-new-testament/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Implicit]] in this argument is the idea that the [[miracles of Jesus]] therefore actually happened, which is not supported by the [[premise]] that his apostles would not have died for a lie. This [[conclusion]] ignores several other possibilities:<br />
# The apostles strongly believed the stories to be true, but were mistaken:<br />
#* The ones who were killed never actually [[witness]]ed the events take place themselves, but were told by other apostles, whom they trusted.<br />
#* They convinced themselves the stories were true, to the point of actually believing they were, even though what they witnessed directly contradicted them.<!-- ? --><br />
#* They remembered the details of the events differently than they witnessed, because the false details were constantly reinforced by everyone they kept company with.<br />
#* They were fooled. They really did see the events, but what they saw was a [[magic|trick]].<br />
# The apostles did not believe all of the stories, but died for another reason:<br />
#* They believed the literal truth of {{Bible|John 3:16}}, and thought they would not die.<br />
#* They considered the cause to be just, even though they knew some of the stories were embellished or exaggerated.<br />
#* They were protecting the lives of other people.<br />
#* They would have chosen death rather than be exposed as shameless liars.<br />
#* They were killed because they were public figureheads for the cause, not due to the specific stories they maintained or denied.<br />
#* They were killed without having an opportunity to retract their stories.<br />
#* They stuck to their story to maintain some dignity in their death, as they were going to be killed either way.<br />
#* They intended to become martyrs.<br />
# The apostles admitted the stories were not true, but the admission was never made public.<br />
# They did die protecting the truth, but the stories of those events were later embellished. The "miracles" we now read about are not what they actually saw and died for.<br />
# The stories of the apostles' deaths were themselves later embellished to present them as martyrs.<br />
# The apostles as well as Jesus died for something else; perhaps they hoped they would help free Israel from the Romans.<br />
# The apostles were never killed.<br />
# The existence of the apostles was also an invention.<br />
<br />
While all the above are possible explanations for early Christian martyrs, what we can tell about the 1st century Christian apostles (assuming they all existed) is mostly based on the stories within the New Testament. In the book of [[Acts]], we only have two martyrs: Stephen and James. Stephen wasn't even an eyewitness, he was a later convert, meaning if he died for anything it was entirely based on hearsay. But according to Acts, he was not killed for what he believed, but for some trumped up false charge, and by a mob, whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted. So his death does not prove he died for his beliefs, which was Jesus was the messiah and was at that moment in heaven. The lack of any mention of a physical resurrection could indicate that if Stephen died for his beliefs, it could have been a belief in a spiritual resurrection instead of an actual physical resurrection. As for James, we are not told anything about why he was killed or whether recanting would have saved him, or (like Stephen) if he believed in a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical resurrection. [[Josephus]] does mention that a James (which may or may not be the same James in Acts) was stoned to death in 62 CE, but he was stoned for breaking the Jewish law-recanting would not have saved him anyway.<br />
<br />
Then we have stories of Apostle martyrs outside the New Testament, such as the famous crucifixion of Peter upside-down. The problem is that this event doesn't have any contemporary sources. It is never mentioned until about two or three generations later in only a single source: the Gnostic Acts of Peter, a gospel rejected as a false document by many Christians of the day. But even if this account is true, it claims that Peter was executed for political meddling and not for his beliefs. Even more important, it states that Peter believed Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, not in the flesh.<br />
<br />
[[Paul the Apostle]] admits he was not an eyewitness. He merely had a vision of a spiritual figure of Jesus while on the road to Damascus. So even if he did die for his beliefs, it was based on a vision of a man he never met in his life. While the date of Paul's death is unknown, it is commonly accepted to have occurred after the Great Fire of Rome in July 64 CE, but before the last year of Nero's reign, in 68 CE. But all accounts of Paul's "martyrdom" come from sources 30-50 years after his death. The earliest mention comes from the non-canonical document 1 Clement, in which it only suggests Paul was martyred under the prefects.<br />
<br />
As for the rest of the Apostles being martyred, they all come from non-eyewitness sources written numerous generations after their deaths, so there is no way to be certain how they died and if they did or did not die for their beliefs. The Apostle Philip has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the earliest mention comes from the apocryphal Acts of Philip which was written between the mid-to-late 4th century CE. Mark "the evangelist" was killed by Egyptian pagans, but there is no mention of this until the 4th century. The martyrdom of the Apostle Andrew account comes from the apocryphal Acts of Andrew written in the 3rd century CE. The Apostle Jude's martyrdom is only mentioned in the apocryphal Acts of Simon and Jude written in the 4th century CE. The Apostle Bartholomew has conflicting accounts about how he died, but the Gospel of Bartholomew is a missing text. And then there's Thomas, often called [[Doubting Thomas]], according to tradition believed to be martyred in 72 CE. Yet the earliest mention of his martyrdom comes from a Syriac Christian, Ephrem the Syrian, who wasn't born until over 200 years after the death of Thomas.<br />
<br />
===Jesus didn't die===<br />
Assuming the Bible is true, Jesus didn't die, he was found alive some days after his crucifixion.<ref>Achtemeier, Paul J. "Introducing the New Testament." Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eardmans Publishing Company. 2001.</ref><br />
<br />
This is contrary to the account in the Bible. According to the Bible Jesus did die and was resurrected, ergo creating a difference between resuscitation and resurrection. The gospels say that Jesus died on the cross as a result of crucifixion (if that doesn't prove his death, being in a sealed tomb for three days does). Furthermore, according to gospel accounts and other accounts, upon Jesus' resurrection it is said that he had wounds but wasn't in a state of looking ill (as would be the result of crucifixion and being in a tomb for three days). Thus Jesus had to die and resurrect, not just resuscitate, assuming the accounts are correct. The Gospels were all written at least a generation after the events stated there allegedly took place so we cannot be sure that the Gospel account is accurate.<br />
<br />
===Jesus was executed but not for his core beliefs===<br />
<br />
Apologists argue that because Jesus was willing to die for what he believed it proves that he believed in what he had said. However, assuming the Gospels are true, Jesus was executed as a criminal. The crimes described in the Gospels consist of vandalism ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}), theft ({{Bible|Mark 11:15}}, {{Bible|Matthew 21:12}}, {{Bible|John 2:15}}), battery with a weapon ({{Bible|John 2:15}}), impeding traffic ({{Bible|Mark 11:16}}) and making terrorist threats ({{Bible|John 2:19}}), as well as assault, disturbing the peace and impeding commerce. Most of these were capital crimes, and he was arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to death for another-blasphemy (by supposedly claiming to be God). It is often believed that Jesus knew his actions would result in his death, so that despite his execution being legally justified it has no bearing on whether is was martyrdom. However, if he died for his beliefs, then those beliefs for which he died consist of not changing money or selling animals inside of the Temple. In addition, he was not killed for his beliefs, but as a threat to Jewish authority ({{Bible|Mark 11:18}}).<br />
<br />
===Being willing to die does not authenticate Jesus===<br />
<br />
Their willingness to die shows that early Christians believed firmly in their religious ideal, not that they believed [[Jesus]] was a real person. The religious ideal could easily have been considered a worthy cause, whether or not its founder was invented.<br />
<br />
===Beliefs are not always correct===<br />
<br />
If early Christians did in fact die specifically for holding to the claim that Jesus was real (which has in no way been demonstrated), that only indicates that they believed it, not that they were correct.<br />
<br />
==Further arguments==<br />
<br />
It is claimed that the [[apostles]] were eye witness experiences so they would know Jesus's [[resurrection]] to be either true or false, they were not dying for an unproven or abstract belief but rather what they had been shown. Therefore, they were not dying for a lie. <br />
<br />
{{quote|[...] The disciples [...] did not really believe Jesus until he showed up reanimated. Peter denied Jesus three times before he saw Christ resurrected. He was crucified upside down because he thought something was true but because he knew it was, and he denied the truth and was not worthy to die as Christ did. The disciples did not die practising unsubstantiated belief but on the understanding that they saw something and they believed it enough to die. [...] All the people or events mentioned in the above agreement are cases were people did not question the nature of the circumstances, the disciples did. At first they were in at state of disbelief, then they died in a understanding of what they perceived as fact.}} <br />
<br />
While this argument has a point, it does have the premise that the apostles actually had the experiences described in the Bible, including many [[miracles]], which is [[begging the question]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
*[http://www.heavensgate.com/ Heaven's Gate official website]<br />
<br />
{{Arguments for god}}</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Bible&diff=44038Bible2023-07-27T11:02:04Z<p>TimSC: /* External links */ I don't see this adding much, discuss on talk page</p>
<hr />
<div>{{sab|http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm|Bible}}<br />
{{wikipedia}}<br />
[[Image:Bible.jpg|right|thumb|The Bible with annotations by the reader.]]<br />
{{Atheist Debates|1=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzfCBj9h2Xk|2=The Bible Doesn't Say That!}}<br />
{{Books of the Bible}}<br />
'''''The Bible''''' is the name used by [[Judaism|Jews]] and [[Christian]]s for their differing but overlapping [[canon]]s of [[sacred text]]s. It was written and edited by mostly anonymous authors and has gone through many revisions as material was added and deleted over the centuries. The Christian Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. As strongly advocated by [[Martin Luther]], the Bible is now normally available and read in vernacular languages, which brings additional translation problems. There are over 50 translations of the Bible in English with many having significant differences in interpretation. The Bible has been translated into other languages. Christians and Jews usually consider the Bible to be divinely inspired. Apologists argue that the [[My holy book is true|Bible is true]] and many fundamentalists consider it to be [[Biblical inerrancy|inerrant]] and interpret it [[Biblical literalism|literally]].<br />
<br />
==Problematic issues with the Bible==<br />
===Historicity===<br />
Some Christian apologists claim that the [[Argument from historical sources|Bible is authenticated by historical sources]]. Despite apologists heavily relying on the Bible, [[the Bible is not a reliable historical source]]. It is also filled with [[Biblical genealogies|long and improbable genealogies]], [[Biblical contradictions|internal contradictions]] and [[Scientific inaccuracies in the Bible|scientific inaccuracies]].<br />
<br />
===Morality===<br />
When non-believers read the Bible they are often surprised at what seem to be morally questionable sections, including [[God commanded atrocities in the Old Testament|atrocities]] ordered by Yahweh and bizarre laws regarding animal sacrifice, [[Homosexuality|homophobia]], [[Misogyny in the Bible|misogyny]], dietary restrictions, [[Religious clothing|clothing restrictions]], sexual restrictions, [[slavery]], etc. Different schools of thought exist among believers as to how to address these problems, as explained further below. An excellent Biblical resource for atheists reading the Bible is available at [[The Skeptic's Annotated Bible]].<br />
<br />
==Composition==<br />
{{main article|History of the Bible}}<br />
<br />
The Jewish and Christian Bibles are actually collections of what were originally a number of independent books. The overwhelming majority of Christians refer to the Bible as the combination of Hebrew Scripture, known to Christians as the [[Old Testament]] or First Testament; and the [[New Testament]], which describes the life and message of [[Jesus]]. For [[Roman Catholic]]s, the [[Eastern Orthodox]], and some [[Protestant]]s, the Deuterocanonical books — various writings important in the Second-Temple period of Judaism (often regarded by many Protestants as (or part of the) Apocrypha) — are considered to be part of the Old Testament and as such part of the Bible, although they are rejected by many Protestants and are not in the Hebrew Bible as accepted in modern Judaism. Some books considered deuterocanonical by Orthodox Churches are considered apocryphal by other Orthodox Churches and/or Catholics. For Jews, the term refers only to the Hebrew Bible, also called the Tanakh, which includes the Five Books of [[Moses]] (the [[Torah]]) as well as the books of the Prophets and Writings. Both Christians and Jews regard the Bible as divinely inspired, with widespread variation on its accuracy, interpretation and legitimacy.<br />
Archaeological study has shown that the primary elements the first five books of the Bible, especially [[Exodus]], were around before the Old Testament was. They were found in several unrelated oral traditions around 500 BCE, but the oldest examples of biblical scripture were dated using radiometric dating to have been written between 325 and 125 BCE. The Bible is nowhere near as old as claimed by the majority of Jews and Christians)<br />
<br />
{{quote|The Bible, which [the new atheists] are so fond of attaching a incoherent, was never designed to be a coherent book. [...] In ancient libraries it was not a unified whole but a collection of scrolls places in cubbyholes. These scrolls, all read separately, contain wisdom literature, moral treatise, stories, rules, aphorisms, creation myths, letters, fables, polemics, histories and poems.<ref>[[Chris Hedges]], [[I Don't Believe in Atheists]], 2008</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Christian perspective==<br />
<br />
[[Fundamentalist]]s believe that the Bible is both divinely inspired and [[inerrant]]. They claim that every word of the Bible is [[Biblical literalism|literally true]], except for the parts which are intentionally written as allegories or [[parable]]s. It is free of contradiction and error. So for example, a Fundamentalist would most likely believe in [[six-day creation]] because he believes in the literal truth of [[Genesis]]. Many Christians believe that [[the Bible was written by eyewitnesses]], which is contradicted by evidence and common sense.<br />
<br />
Liberal Christians take a more open view of the Bible, often believing that it is "inspired by God" but not inerrant. They may believe that, while the Bible is a good spiritual guide, it is not necessarily meant to be taken literally.<br />
<br />
===Interpretation===<br />
<br />
* [[Sacred tradition]]<br />
* [[Sola scriptura]]<br />
* [[Biblical literalism]]<br />
<br />
==Atheist perspective==<br />
<br />
Atheists regard the Bible as just a period piece of literature. Its authors may have been sincere when they wrote it, but they were nomadic sheep herders with a narrow perspective on the world. In that sense it is little different than any other ancient text such as ''[[The Odyssey]]'': an interesting perspective on the mindset of early cultures, but of questionable accuracy, especially those passages that refer to [[supernatural]] events.<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.|[[Mark Twain]], ''Letters From the Earth''}}<br />
<br />
===Atheists are closed minded===<br />
<br />
{{quote|Time and time again I have heard it written off as 'a load of rubbish', or as 'myths' or 'folklore' but this kind of approach reminds me of the pre-election car bumper-sticker that read, 'My mind is made up. Please don't confuse me with facts.'<ref>John Blanchard, Why believe the Bible?, 2004</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The facts are consistent with the Bible being largely or entirely mythological. The earlier sections are clearly mythological and are [[The Bible is not a reliable historical source|contradicted by historical facts]]. Historians consider the [[Existence of Jesus|New Testament to be highly embellished]] or even entirely [[Jesus is ahistorical|ahistorical]]. It is also untrue that [[atheists are closed minded]].<br />
<br />
==Criticism==<br />
<br />
===Contradictions within the Bible===<br />
{{sab|http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html|Contradictions in the Bible}}<br />
{{main article|Biblical contradictions}}<br />
<br />
The first two chapters of Genesis contradict each other on the creation of man.<br />
Gen 1:26 Man was created on the sixth day. Notice the first 5 days god was busy creating animals and plants.<br />
Gen 2:4-7 Man was created right from the start.<br />
<br />
===Scientific inaccuracies===<br />
{{sab|http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html|Science and History in the Bible}}<br />
{{main article|Scientific inaccuracies in the Bible}}<br />
<br />
The Bible was also written well over a thousand years before the discovery of [[science]], which means that the Bible is nearly irrelevant to any scientific discussion. Not only is the literal story of Genesis completely at odds with modern [[cosmology]], but there are many other scientific errors in the Bible.<br />
<br />
In contrast, apologists claim the the [[Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts|Bible contains scientific foreknowledge]].<br />
<br />
===Unsuitable reading===<br />
{{sab|http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html|Cruelty and Violence in the Bible}}<br />
The Bible is a terrible guide for living, with repugnant sections on:<br />
<br />
* [[Misogyny in the Bible]]<br />
* [[Homosexuality]]<br />
* [[Christian attitudes to sexuality#Bible|Biblical view of sexuality]]<br />
<br />
The Bible contains passages that many people would consider inappropriate for children. <ref>[http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html Cruelty and Violence in the Bible]</ref> <ref>[http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/rape/dt22_23a.html Rape in the Old Testament], The Brick Testament</ref><br />
<br />
* [[God commanded atrocities in the Old Testament]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
* [[Distinguishing between God and Satan|What if Satan wrote the Bible?]]<br />
* [[Holy books can be interpreted in any way you choose to believe]]<br />
* [[History of the Biblical canon]]<br />
* [[The Brick Testament]]<br />
* [[Fun facts about the Bible]]<br />
* [[God's character changes in the Bible]]<br />
* [[Religious teachings should not be written down]]<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.biblegateway.com/ biblegateway.com] An online Bible, searchable in many languages<br />
*[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ The Skeptic's Annotated Bible]<br />
*[http://freespace.virgin.net/graham.lawrence/ The Fallible Gospels]<br />
*RationalWiki's [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Guide_to_the_Bible Guide to the Bible]<br />
*[http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-versions/ Bible Study Tools], learn the history of different bible versions and compare verses<br />
*[http://www.project-reason.org//scripture_project/index The Bible] on the Scripture Project<br />
*[http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm The Dark Bible], violence and hatred in the Bible.<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEnWw_lH4tQ The Holy Quran Experiment], street interviews about sections of the Bible, while pretending the sections are actually from the [[Qur'an]].<br />
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5pE2UKOCbA Who Wrote The Bible?], The Atheist Experience #483<br />
<br />
===Contradictions===<br />
<br />
*[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html A List of Biblical Contradictions]<br />
*[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html Bible Inconsistencies: Bible Contradictions?]<br />
*[http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm Biblical Contradictions]<br />
*[http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions Bible Contradictions]<br />
*[http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=contra Bible Contradictions]<br />
<br />
{{Religion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Bible]]<br />
[[Category:Religious texts]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:TimSC&diff=44034User talk:TimSC2023-07-12T11:36:51Z<p>TimSC: /* Is Religions Wiki still being updated? */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Welcome to ''Iron Chariots Wiki''!'''<br />
We hope you will contribute much and well.<br />
You will probably want to read the [[Help:Contents|help pages]].<br />
Again, welcome and have fun! [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 15:44, 14 February 2014 (CST)<br />
<br />
Hi Tim, I tried to reply to your email asking for permission to update the front page, but it bounced. I say go ahead.<br />
<br />
Also, would you be interested in helping to approve new members? I notice you've been pretty active lately and I could use some help. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 10:01, 8 April 2014 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:I am not sure how long I can keep up my edit rate but I keep finding stuff to do. :) Not sure why my email address is bouncing emails - I'll look into it. I am willing and able to help with new user registration. Did you get me email from a while back that thumbnails are not being generated on the wiki? (the gremlins might have eaten that too) --[[User:Tim Sheerman-Chase|Tim Sheerman-Chase]] 10:08, 8 April 2014 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==Mental note to self: How many times was John beheaded?==<br />
<br />
I was confused by this: <br />
<br />
''Mark 6:14 And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.''<br />
<br />
''Mark 6:16 But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.''<br />
<br />
''Mark 6:25 And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head of John the Baptist.''<br />
<br />
''Mark 6:27 And immediately the king sent an executioner, and commanded his head to be brought: and he went and beheaded him in the prison,''<br />
<br />
How many times was John beheaded? Apparently Mark 6:17 onwards is a flashback: [http://bibleq.net/answer/2660/]<br />
<br />
== New pages ==<br />
<br />
Tim,<br />
<br />
I tried to email you at both the addresses I have for you, but they both bounced. I hope you see this. Let me toss off a few words about what's on my mind right now regarding your new edits.<br />
<br />
I'm worried because any time we have one person doing the bulk of the new editing on the wiki, there's not much other oversight about whether the content is really suitable or not. Generally speaking I try to be extremely conservative with creating new articles. In the last few weeks I noticed you were creating many dozens of new articles with new categories, and I'm not sure if they are necessary articles or bloat.<br />
<br />
I hate to throttle you on this since I'm not actively visiting Iron Chariots on a regular basis, but Matt and I envisioned this as a repository dealing with common apologetics arguments. To pick a random example among the many articles created recently: [[Not all events necessarily have causes]]<br />
<br />
"Not all events necessarily have causes" is not a term people will be searching for. It is not the name of a common theistic or atheistic argument that stands alone, nor is it a formal fallacy. At best it seems like it would work as a subsection of the "first cause argument" page, which DOES reference a common argument with a name. But even then, the article I'm reading seems to be a lengthy conversational piece about the topic, not a succinct set of responses to frequently used apologetics.<br />
<br />
Iron Chariots is not a blog or a magazine. It's a reference resource. You see what I mean?<br />
<br />
--[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 13:02, 25 April 2014 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Sorry about the email weirdness. Wiki discussion is fine. Most of my page creations are either apologetics arguments or renaming of existing pages. I don't remember creating many categories... 2 or 3 about two or three, certainly not dozens. I'd say about 10 or 12 have been created about philosophical concepts or books, which are separate from any specific argument.<br />
<br />
:The title "Not all events necessarily have causes" was my attempt at being user friendly. Perhaps philosophical terminology of concepts would be better, in this case it would be "brute contingencies" or "contingent brute facts". <br />
<br />
:I agree that apologetic arguments and counter-arguments have primacy. However, this concept occurs in all(?) variants of the cosmological argument and is probably ''the'' biggest counter argument. I think there are about 4 cosmological argument pages on the wiki. I wanted to put additional detail somewhere on the wiki but I think putting it within each of the arguments pages would have bloated them with significant duplication of content. Similarly, if we put a full in depth discussion for and against "infinite regress" on every page separately, it will be horribly duplicated since it is such a common concept.<br />
<br />
:I guess we should ask ourselves, how much detail is necessary for the concepts we discuss? Should the detail of concepts go on the main article page or on supporting pages? Perhaps "Not all events necessarily have causes" should be merged into "principle of sufficient reason"? Should all the cosmological arguments be merged? Perhaps work needs to focus on the common arguments and when that is done, review. It seems to me a discussion of key concepts such as infinite regress & principle of sufficient reason is more important than rehashing logical fallacies where are already well documented elsewhere. A push in the right direction would be appreciated! --[[User:Tim Sheerman-Chase|Tim Sheerman-Chase]] 13:45, 25 April 2014 (CDT)<br />
<br />
::Sorry, it looks like Kyle Youmans is the one creating all the categories, not you. I'm trying to bring in a few more people on this discussion so we can brainstorm about managing a consistent content style. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 13:57, 25 April 2014 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: If I might weigh in: it seems to me that readers will most likely read the page they came for, but probably won't look at related pages unless there's a good reason to do so (such as a "Main article at..." link). So as a rule of thumb, it's best to keep information on existing pages, rather than create new ones. It's also easier to split a section off into its own article, than it is to combine multiple articles into one. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 15:18, 25 April 2014 (CDT)<br />
<br />
::: I think I understand but unsure if I am correctly interpreting your point. I think you are suggesting that new content should generally be added to each argument page. You mention that articles may need to be split into separate articles, but I am not sure what circumstances this would occur - presumably when it gets too long? If so, I agree. The main argument article should be comprehensive but perhaps some of the more obscure details can be put it related pages that are linked, preferably using the "main article" template. I think the [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Cosmological_argument&oldid=26515 cosmological argument] is good in this regard. What do you think? <br />
<br />
:::I suggest we move the discussion to [[Project talk:Layout and styleguide]]. Watching that page might be a good idea too. --[[User:Tim Sheerman-Chase|Tim Sheerman-Chase]] 04:00, 28 April 2014 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Rbutr ==<br />
<br />
Have you heard of a program called [[Rbutr]]? It was created to counter false information on the internet so I think that it would be a great tool to use to show people the arguments presented on this wiki. [[User:Kyle Youmans|Kyle Youmans]] 18:30, 6 May 2014 (CDT)<br />
:I had not heard of it previously. It's an interesting concept and it might be a useful research tool. I am glad they use [http://blog.rbutr.com/2013/12/why-does-rbutr-need-to-access-all-my-data-on-all-websites/ hashes] to see where I browse rather than totally violating privacy. --[[User:Tim Sheerman-Chase|Tim Sheerman-Chase]] 12:34, 8 May 2014 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Ironchariots Awareness ==<br />
<br />
How can I get more people to find this website?<br />
[[User:Kyle Youmans|Kyle Youmans]] 19:17, 29 May 2014 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:That is a complicated question! I am not sure I have much insight here. :) The two main areas might be what we can do directly to the wiki and also what resources are available outside the wiki. Improving the wiki to make it more useful and findable on search engines is the easier one. We probably could do with improving the [[:Special:PopularPages|popular pages]], improving navigation, content and images. We might do better in adding articles that are really of interest to people who are grappling with these issues and underpin the classic arguments (e.g. [[What would it take to change your mind?]]) and avoid duplicating excelling content of other websites. People's mights are chanced by highlighting and questioning their assumptions.<br />
<br />
:What we can do outside the wiki: encourage links to the wiki (by making the wiki useful and persuasion). There is the similar wiki [[RationalWiki]] which is broader in coverage and seem popular but they have page counts turned off. If we have in depth content, we might get a link to the article. Some generic tips: [http://www.wikihow.com/Increase-Website-Traffic]. Perhaps we could get a selection in publishable ebook/paper format? Any thoughts yourself? --[[User:Tim Sheerman-Chase|Tim Sheerman-Chase]] 12:51, 30 May 2014 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Criticism required (demanded!) ==<br />
Hi Tim,<br />
<br />
I don't see any other active members on the Wiki and wondered if you could help me improve on [[Sikhism|the page]] I'm working on? Sometimes I am blind to mistakes I make and I don't always have the sense of putting things in the right order. I need someone to criticise or find flaws on the page or arguments/rebuttals made.<br />
<br />
~Dally <small>—The preceding [[Project:Sign your comments|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Dally|Dally]] ([[User talk:Dally|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dally|contribs]]){{if|test=20:30, 7 February 2015|then=, 20:30, 7 February 2015|else=.}}</small><br />
<br />
:Will do! I'll make changes and use the talk page for the [[Sikhism]] article.--[[User:Tim Sheerman-Chase|Tim Sheerman-Chase]] 04:42, 8 February 2015 (CST)<br />
<br />
== I have a question for you ==<br />
<br />
Hi, how many people are editing or active on this wiki? {{unsigned|Jack|16:40, 11 July 2015}}<br />
<br />
:It's pretty quiet I suppose. It's mainly me and [[:User:Imadmagician|Imadmagician]]. There are 4 or 5 occasional people. The founders do not get hands on these days. Probably should do more recruiting... --[[User:Tim Sheerman-Chase|Tim Sheerman-Chase]] 16:44, 11 July 2015 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== RationalWiki article and template ==<br />
<br />
Hey, what do you think about the rationalwiki article and template so far? I used my rationalwiki teplate in the Jesus article {{unsigned|Jack|15:02, 12 July 2015}}<br />
<br />
:It's a good idea but should be used selectively. There is some overlap between RationalWiki and here. If an article is in scope of this wiki, it is pointless linking to RationalWiki because the information should be in our article already. If it is an article which is out of scope but would be a useful resource, then link. Most articles would not need a RationalWiki link, I think. There are often better resources to link to than RationalWiki anyway. <br />
<br />
:There is no point rewriting or duplicating RationalWiki, which has a much broader scope (and they are more popular). We really focus on apologetics. --[[User:Tim Sheerman-Chase|Tim Sheerman-Chase]] 16:21, 12 July 2015 (CDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree. Also RationalWiki has a more robust editing system then iron chariots, a larger diversity of templates, and doesn't download index.gz files every third or so click.--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] 07:49, 17 August 2016 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe we are on a fairly ancient godaddy server, which makes glitches common and upgrades problematic... --[[User:Tim Sheerman-Chase|Tim Sheerman-Chase]] 11:04, 17 August 2016 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Atheist groups category structure ==<br />
<br />
I see you deleted [[:Category:Atheist groups in the United States]], [[:Category:Atheist groups in Texas]], and [[:Category:Atheist groups on the Internet]]. Those categories are not empty. Do you think we should just have a "flat" [[:Category:Atheist groups]] until it gets more members, or did you have an alternative (sub-)category structure in mind? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:28, 4 October 2015 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:I think it's best with a flat structure. I am not sure there is much point having a list of atheist groups really so I don't think it will expand in the near future. --[[User:Tim Sheerman-Chase|Tim Sheerman-Chase]] 09:21, 5 October 2015 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Merge pages ==<br />
<br />
As you've seen, I created the [[Moral anti-realism]] page. However, we already have a [[Moral non-realism]] page too. I did't realize this before-it covers some of the same territory. Do you think they should be merged? I'm not sure how to do that.--[[User:Mcc1789|Mcc1789]] ([[User talk:Mcc1789|talk]]) 05:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
:Generally, move all content to a single page, then set the empty page to [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Redirects redirect] to the one with content. Let me know if you get stuck. I don't have a strong view which to keep.--[[User:TimSC|TimSC]] ([[User talk:TimSC|talk]]) 01:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== What happend to Iron Chariots wiki? ==<br />
<br />
I know this may be off topic but what happened to Iron Chariots Wiki? I read that this wiki, Religions wiki, is a fork of the Iron <br />
Chariots wiki. [[User:Skeptic1|Skeptic1]] ([[User talk:Skeptic1|talk]]) 20:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It was hosted on GoDaddy which was never very reliable. Eventually the site became read only for some unknown reason - possibly a quota problem. Then it disappeared completely.<br />
<br />
:Matt and Russell didn't have time to administer it and were not willing to transfer the domain. I decided to carry on by forking the site. --[[User:TimSC|TimSC]] ([[User talk:TimSC|talk]]) 14:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::O.K. Thank you for letting me know about that. I thought that it was down because the wiki had too many articles and cost too much to run. [[User:Skeptic1|Skeptic1]] ([[User talk:Skeptic1|talk]]) 20:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Modal Ontological Argument ==<br />
<br />
Hi,<br />
<br />
I thought that there's no point in putting the obsolete forms of the ontological argument when there's the modal version.<br />
If you want I can put all the prior versions of the ontological argument back, just for historical matters.<br />
It's fairly easy to deal with the non-modal ontological arguments because they aren't valid if they don't use modal logic.<br />
I also tried to provide all the counter-arguments possible and the responses to the counter-arguments.<br />
<br />
I'm aware that this website is for atheists but people have to get good information (like the reverse ontological argument that was provided before my edit; it's actually invalid since it makes a logical mistake that I explained in my edit).<br />
<br />
Thank you for accepting my edit, although it needs some perfectioning (I didn't have much time so I did it in a hurry). I'll probably add more things (If I'm allowed, of course). <small>—The preceding [[Project:Sign your comments|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Yann A. Staquet|Yann A. Staquet]] ([[User talk:Yann A. Staquet|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yann A. Staquet|contribs]]){{if|test=19:57, 12 November 2019|then=, 19:57, 12 November 2019|else=.}}</small><br />
<br />
:I'll probably add the old content to other pages dedicated to obsolete versions. I think they are still widely used in apologetics even if they are wrong. I've added you to the automoderated group so the anti-spam features should say out of your way from now on.--[[User:TimSC|TimSC]] ([[User talk:TimSC|talk]]) 20:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Ok, thank you <small>—The preceding [[Project:Sign your comments|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Yann A. Staquet|Yann A. Staquet]] ([[User talk:Yann A. Staquet|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yann A. Staquet|contribs]]){{if|test=19:10, 13 November 2019|then=, 19:10, 13 November 2019|else=.}}</small><br />
<br />
:::I see you did some "modifications"... Why have I wasted my time showing that the counter-arguments proposed are absurd? <small>—The preceding [[Project:Sign your comments|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Yann A. Staquet|Yann A. Staquet]] ([[User talk:Yann A. Staquet|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yann A. Staquet|contribs]]){{if|test=19:29, 26 November 2019|then=, 19:29, 26 November 2019|else=.}}</small><br />
<br />
::::Most of the content you added has been retained but I have moved some content to other articles e.g. [[Argument from incompatible attributes]], [[Omniscience]], [[Which god?]]. It's not practical to put all details of every related argument in the article. The wiki has a skepticial perspective but every argument should be fairly represented (at least somewhere on the wiki). I think the article has improved since you were involved but it sounds like you don't like it as it stands. I'd quite like further contributions but preferably within the existing structure rather than rewriting the whole article. However, if you don't want me editing you contributions, you might not be interested.--[[User:TimSC|TimSC]] ([[User talk:TimSC|talk]]) 19:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The changes you made to the whole don't bother me. Everything I wrote was not a definitive version, it was just an idea of what could be implemented. What I think is unfair is that you still keep the Omnipotence paradox, the Reverse Ontological Argument, etc. when I showed or tried to show that they aren't good objections; you could at least put my counter-arguments, otherwise any person could stumble across this wiki and think that these are good objections. <small>—The preceding [[Project:Sign your comments|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Yann A. Staquet|Yann A. Staquet]] ([[User talk:Yann A. Staquet|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yann A. Staquet|contribs]]){{if|test=18:41, 27 November 2019|then=, 18:41, 27 November 2019|else=.}}</small><br />
<br />
:Yes, I should have made that clear, I was including all popular arguments for and against, even if they are invalid. I agree that all (or most all) arguments should have at least a summary of the counter arguments. The details might need to be in another article. At the moment, the incompatible attributes section in the [[Ontological argument]] article has no counter argument, which it needs. I tried to summarise the counter arguments for the Reverse Ontological Argument but not necessarily very well. The counter arguments are sometimes loosely ordered in their significance but that is very much a work in progress.<br />
<br />
:The challenge is to summarise all related counter arguments to the incompatible attributes objection in a few sentences (I think that would be the best solution). Same for Proof by logic, Changing the subject, etc sections. The counter argument to "Changing the subject" can be a bit longer than the others since it is particularly relevant to the Ontological argument. I'm not really happy with the "Begging the Question" section because it is filled with jargon that I don't yet understand, so the reader is unlikely to understand either. However, this discussion probably belongs in the [[Circular reasoning]] or [[Begging the question]] article as it is quite in depth.<br />
<br />
:I am a bit concerned about the tone of what you are going to add, in terms of making a firm conclusion for or against an argument. I guess I hope that each section can inform the reader and they can quickly come to the "correct" conclusion about the arguments validity. However, as authors we don't necessarily agree on each argument's validity and therefore we can't easily guide the reader. Let's hope we can present information in a way that we think can agree is reasonable.--[[User:TimSC|TimSC]] ([[User talk:TimSC|talk]]) 01:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== a note on the user creation log ==<br />
<br />
Hi Tim.<br />
<br />
I just took a look at the user creation log and wanted to ask if you've noticed a pattern in the usernames new users seem to be choosing. Theres pretty much no diversity in the usernames. The majority seem to follow a <first name><last name><number> format. I'm unfamiliar with how good mediawiki's captcha is but perhaps the site is being hit by spammers?<br />
<br />
[[User:Diogenesprism|Diogenesprism]] ([[User talk:Diogenesprism|talk]]) 15:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The site has been repeatedly targetted by spammers. I block the content changes using the moderation extension but that still leaves the user creation spam. I recently switched from no captcha/reCAPTCHA to the [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T141490 newer version of fancycaptcha] and it only has improved the situation slightly. Apparently captchas can only do so much since there are human based captcha breaking services widely available. I'm option to suggestions but I don't think there is an easy solution. [[User:TimSC|TimSC]] ([[User talk:TimSC|talk]]) 02:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== How do I change my username? ==<br />
<br />
I was wondering how do I change my username without having to create a new account?[[User:Kyle Youmans.|Kyle Youmans.]] ([[User talk:Kyle Youmans.|talk]])<br />
:Renaming users is rarely done in wiki systems. Do you really want a rename your username or do you want one of your previous accounts recovered? Please get in touch directly via my website [https://www.sheerman-chase.org.uk/wp/contact-details/] --[[User:TimSC|TimSC]] ([[User talk:TimSC|talk]]) 11:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Is Religions Wiki still being updated? ==<br />
<br />
Hi, Tim. I created a new page. It's waiting moderation, but I'm not sure Religions Wiki is still being updated. I hope I didn't waste my time creating that page. :-) Thank you. --[[User:Bento Espinosa|Bento Espinosa]] ([[User talk:Bento Espinosa|talk]]) 11:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)<br />
:Page moderated :) --[[User:TimSC|TimSC]] ([[User talk:TimSC|talk]]) 11:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Liar,_Lunatic_or_Lord&diff=44021Liar, Lunatic or Lord2023-04-19T17:35:17Z<p>TimSC: Long term makes more sense?</p>
<hr />
<div>{{wikipedia|Lewis's trilemma}}<br />
{{Atheist Debates|1=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOUi4Niw5go|2=Liar, Lunatic or Lord?}}<br />
[[File:Church poster with Liar, Lunatic or Lord.jpg|right|upright|thumb|The argument on a banner outside a church.]]<br />
[[Image:CompositeJesus.JPG|thumb|right|upright|There is little agreement as to what Jesus looked like.]]<br />
The '''liar, lunatic or lord''' argument attempts to present a case through process of elimination of all other options, that Jesus Christ must have been god. It was proposed by [[C.S. Lewis]] and popularized in [[Mere Christianity]].<br />
<br />
Even a number of theologians have pointed out that the "liar, lunatic or lord" argument is unsound. Apologists such as [[William Lane Craig]] cite this argument as a good example of a bad argument for Christianity.<ref>William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Crossway Books (1994) pages 38–39.</ref> This argument has also been referred to as the "trilemma" by [[Josh McDowell]]. The argument was originally used to show Jesus was not simply a wise moral teacher, rather than to demonstrate his godhood. However, C.S. Lewis goes on to use it as an argument for God. Despite this, the argument is widely used, and widely loved, by the more general Christian audience, as are many of Lewis' other equally flawed arguments such as the [[argument from desire]].<br />
<br />
==Argument==<br />
===C.S. Lewis version===<br />
''[[C.S. Lewis]] in [[Mere Christianity]] c.1952'':<br />
{{Quote|I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.}}<br />
<br />
===Syllogism===<br />
::p1. Jesus made certain claims<br />
::p2. These claims are of a nature that has certain implications about his character<br />
::::a. Lunatic: Jesus was not God, but he mistakenly believed that he was<br />
::::b. Liar: Jesus was not God, and he knew it, but he said so anyway<br />
::::c. Lord: Jesus was telling the truth and is God<br />
::p3. Through process of elimination we can exclude the possibilities of lunatic and liar<br />
::::a. Existential evidence<br />
::::b. Textual evidence<br />
::::c. Historical evidence<br />
::c1. Therefore Jesus was/is the the lord and God in human form.<br />
<br />
==Counter arguments==<br />
<br />
The first problem with the argument is that it assumes the efficacy of the [[Bible]]. It assumes that the depiction of Jesus in the [[The Bible is not a reliable historical source|bible is historically accurate]] and an accurate depiction of his character, including (but not limited to) the words and claims attributed to him.<br />
<br />
===False dilemma===<br />
Based on the shaky grounds of the first premise, the argument creates a [[false dilemma]] to suggest that Jesus as appearing in the gospels is either telling the truth or not. This of course neglects the obvious possibility that he is a legend, in which case his claims (or those claims attributed to him) are neither true or false, but partially or entirely fictional.<br />
<br />
Nearly everything that is "known" about the life of Jesus, or his claims of godhood, come from the [[Bible]], which [[Christian|Christians]] regard as inerrant but [[atheist|atheists]] do not. Jesus may not have existed, or he may not have said all the things that were attributed to him, to the extent that his teachings were good he may have copied ideas from other people.<br />
<br />
The premise also ignores hybrid possibilities. For instance, that Jesus may in fact have been a lunatic who said true things (much like an insane person who thinks he's Napoleon may still be able to tell you the correct day of the week or the prevailing weather conditions) or that he might have been the Lord ''and'' a liar (unlikely, but inconvenient for Lewis' intended point). At heart, the dilemma commits the [[genetic fallacy]], of assuming that an idea from a bad source is itself inevitably tainted.<br />
<br />
====Jesus is a legend====<br />
<br />
Some historians question [[Existence of Jesus|if Jesus even existed]]. Even if he existed, the stories about him are unauthenticated and of questionable accuracy. There is [[The Bible was written by eyewitnesses|no first hand contemporary evidence]] that the words attributed to Jesus are his own as the earliest account was written after 60 AD. It can also be argued that due to the [[Biblical contradictions|discrepancies between accounts]] no quote in the bible can be held as the true words of Jesus. <br />
<br />
However, the claim that a person called Jesus was crucified for blasphemy is regarded by some New Testament scholars to be one of the most certain claims of ancient history (such as [[Bart Ehrman]]). This still leaves the rest of Jesus's biography open to question. As his death is the strongest claim the evidence might suggest, [[Occam's razor]] states that it should be assumed that Jesus held no divine relationship or power unless additional evidence can be provided.<br />
<br />
====Jesus was misinterpreted====<br />
<br />
Finally, the premise also ignores the very real possibility that Jesus existed and did say some of the things attributed to him, but may have been misinterpreted. Many believers will refer to themselves as "Children Of God" (or similar phrasings), but they presumably do not mean this literally. In a similar fashion, if Jesus did refer to himself as the "Son Of God," he may have intended it as a metaphor that was misunderstood by subsequent audiences. (In fact "Son of God" meant a righteous man, the Messiah or a prophet. Incidentally Christians sometimes describe themselves collectively as children of god while believing that they are ordinary human beings. This did not in any way mean the "physical" son of God, a very pagan belief that Jews considered very blasphemous.) Additionally, the term 'Lord' is a term of nobility and respect that has subsequently been confused to be synonymous with 'God'. When the disciples call Jesus 'Lord' they are not necessarily confirming a belief that he is God. [[Jesus did not claim to be God|Jesus did not explicitly claim to be God]] within the gospels<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2009/09/did-jesus-claim-to-be-god-2.html]</ref> (although some apologists disagree<ref>[http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2012/01/did-jesus-say-he-was-god/]</ref>).<br />
<br />
===Weak evidence used to rule out the other possibilities===<br />
<br />
Apologists use weak evidence to rule out the possibility that Jesus was either a liar or a lunatic.<br />
<br />
====Jesus may have been insane====<br />
<br />
Many apologists, including some who are qualified psychologists, attempt to show that Jesus could not have been a lunatic. There are two major problems with this. <br />
<br />
* First, is a complete lack of evidence. The idea of performing a real psychological diagnosis on someone that has been presumed dead for 2000 years, based solely on a few scarcely descriptive tales, from the very book that purports to reveal the truth of his divinity, is nothing short of laughable. <br />
<br />
* Secondly, they make a case of [[special pleading]]. Despite the fact that Jesus isn't depicted as a rabid, uncontrollably raving maniac, doesn't mean he was necessarily sane. Any of the psychologists who attempt to claim Jesus was not insane would have no hang ups about committing a person today that made similar claims. Indeed if Jesus made his claims today, he would fit right in at the asylums full of other people that think they're God, Jesus, Napoleon etc. Lewis falsely claims that lunatics speak falsely, rave without moments of clarity, never say anything worth paying attention to, etc. In truth, one may suffer from a delusional belief or fixation and function adequately or even superlatively in society. Even if a person's delusions are eventually destructive in the long term, they can still work for a time and even gain a following (e.g. David Koresh, Jim Jones).<br />
<br />
====Jesus may have been a liar====<br />
<br />
Jesus could also have been a liar. Lewis disregards this because he claims Jesus was a ''great human teacher''. However, much of Jesus' advice was bad advice. And regardless of his lesson content, being a great teacher doesn't by fiat logically exclude the possibility that he could lie. Jesus also had great motive to lie. Despite the trouble [[The Life Of Brian| Brian]] found himself in, there are presumably a great many selfish benefits to being mistakenly considered a human deity.<br />
<br />
===Other religions===<br />
Incidentally, the leaders/founders of other religions can be postulated to be -whatever their religion claims-, liars or lunatics in a similar way and the different religions of the world cannot all be simultaneously true. This makes it a [[broken compass argument]].<br />
<br />
<blockquote>''Basically, there are three scenarios possible:''<br/><br />
''1. Muhammad (S) was telling the truth and spreading the message of God.''<br/><br />
''2. He was lying to gain power.''<br/><br />
''3. He was crazy and believed he in what he was doing.''<ref>[https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Muslims-believe-Islam-is-the-only-true-religion]</ref></blockquote><br />
<br />
Furthermore, many religious claims are of an extraordinary nature if taken literally, but it does not follow from this that all believers are either liars or lunatics. Though some [[faith healers]] are secretly dishonest, many of them do think they have access to miraculous powers and are visited by thousands who believe themselves to be healed. For the most part, neither the "healers" nor the "healed" are clinically insane. Instead, they are guilty of [[confirmation bias]] and [[compartmentalization]], and the stories experience exaggeration in a similar manner as [[urban legend]]s. These are all possibilities regarding Jesus's own faith healing and other miracles; mystics and shamans from antiquity to today have used classic magician's techniques while still believing themselves to have supernatural abilities.<br />
<br />
==Additional notes==<br />
<br />
Additionally, some forms of the ''liar, lunatic or lord'' argument further commit the fallacy of [[begging the question]], by accepting the 'biblical [[miracle]]s as evidence for the lord' option, which of course [[a priori]] assumes the conclusion of Jesus' divinity that the very argument attempts to prove.<br />
<br />
===Trilemma/Dilemma===<br />
The reason for the use of ''dilemma'' in False premise p2. rather than the titular ''trilemma'', is due to the fact that despite there being three options, two of those have effectively the same outcome as far as the argument is concerned. The multiple options are really nothing more than a red herring, as the argument's outcome is that the claims of Jesus are either true or not true. <br />
<br />
Additionally, formal logic deals exclusively with dichotomies, not trichotomies. The overall argument attempts to prove he is the lord. So to actually express all three options, logistically it would need to be presented as two separate, but hierarchical dichotomies. (lord:(liar:lunatic))<br />
<br />
::The main dichotomy: That he is either the lord or not-lord.<br />
::::The sub dichotomy if he is not-lord: That he is either a liar or lunatic.<br />
<br />
===Stature of Jesus===<br />
Jesus is perhaps the most famous, beloved and revered figure in the Western world today. In this context, any suggestion that he was even a little bit deluded, dishonest, or misrepresented seems like a much graver accusation than if made about one of the more obscure messiah-claimants living in ancient Rome. The trilemma is not a circular argument, but it occurs in a circular context; the argument's ''emotional'' weight is almost entirely due to the significant pre-existing influence of Christianity on culture, yet Christianity's validity is the very thing being argued for.<br />
<br />
An example of this may be found in [http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trilemma.html this] [[Tektonics]] apologetic essay discussing the trilemma. The essay examines the counter-argument that people can falsely believe themselves to be God incarnate without being thoroughly "insane" in other areas. The author cites a case study of three patients with a messiah complex, and quotes them to demonstrate how overtly delusional they are. One of the patients, Clyde, says: ''"Why, there's money coming from heaven and from the old country and from the sea of heaven. The carloads, trainloads, and boatloads... 7700 cars a mile and that runs from upper Stock Lake... God marked eight of our trails himself."'' What in this quote suggests insanity? Well, there's a semi-incoherent mixture of the physical and transcendent (money coming from heaven, God personally marking some trails), and some detailed and nigh-hallucinogenic imagery.<br />
<br />
But what about this quote from Jesus? ''"The sun will be darkened, the moon will give no light, the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then at last, the sign that the Son of Man is coming will appear in the heavens, and there will be deep mourning among all the peoples of the earth. And they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with the mighty blast of a trumpet, and they will gather his chosen ones from all over the world -- the farthest ends of the earth and heaven."'' Outside a Christian culture, this sounds like the elaborate fantasy of a schizophrenic, guilty not only of the same things as Clyde's quote, but some astronomical and geological errors as well. Inside a Christian culture, passages like that one are either [[literalism|a valid reason]] to prepare for the [[End Times]] they describe, or a very poetic [[sophisticated theology|metaphor]] — depending on the manner in which one wishes to present Jesus as a sane and respectable man.<br />
<br />
===Occam's Razor===<br />
The "Lord" portion of the "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" argument is a condensed expression of a very extraordinary claim: that in Roman Palestine there was born a person literally identical to the omnipotent being who created the cosmos, and that this person demonstrated his unlimited superpowers through miracles such as raising the dead, walking on water, and so forth. Given the extremity of this claim, it seems odd to even ''consider'' questions about this person's mental state.<br />
<br />
Suppose Alice tells Bob she can magically fly. Bob tells Claire about this, and adds that he's inclined to believe Alice. Claire is trying to determine whether or not Alice's claim is true. Should Claire's first question to Bob be "Well, has Alice ever lied or seemed crazy to you? Or do the things Alice says tend to be true?" That would be an absurd line of inquiry, almost irrelevant to the matter. Even if Bob and a thousand other witnesses attest to Alice never having been incorrect about anything in the past, Claire does not have a decent reason to think that Alice can fly; what she needs is direct or indirect evidence of Alice actually flying.<br />
<br />
Yet "Alice can fly" is a much smaller claim than "Jesus was and is God". It's one thing to trust the judgment of apparently trust worthy people, and it's another to grant their judgment with infinite evidential weight.<br />
<br />
===The Bible cannot be just a "good book"===<br />
<br />
{{quote|If the Bible were not the Word of God, yet claimed that it was, it would be the most dangerous, blasphemous and contemptible book ever written, lying to use about our origin, giving us a false basis for human dignity [, etc.] <ref name="blanchard">John Blanchard, Why believe the Bible?, 2004</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Apologists again make the [[false dichotomy]] that something is entirely truthful or entirely incorrect. Being the product of human authors, scriptures are probably never either extreme.<br />
<br />
==Links==<br />
===See also===<br />
* [[Argument from desire]]<br />
* [[Overview of early Christianity]]<br />
* [[False dilemma]]<br />
* [[Begging the question]]<br />
<br />
===External links===<br />
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_perry/trilemma.html The Trilemma-- Lord, Liar Or Lunatic?] by Jim Perry at [[infidels.org]]<br />
* [http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/11/liar-loony-or-l.html Liar, Loony, or Lord; Or, How Atheists Make C.S. Lewis Cry] by [[Greta Christina]]<br />
<br />
===References===<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Arguments for god}}<br />
[[Category:Christianity]]<br />
[[Category:Jesus]]<br />
[[Category:C. S. Lewis]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=Argument_from_uniqueness&diff=44013Argument from uniqueness2023-03-20T00:01:09Z<p>TimSC: /* Overstated uniqueness */</p>
<hr />
<div>Many monotheistic religions claim they are exclusively correct and all other religions are false. There are thousands of religions in the world and many more that are extinct, which implies that all religions are human inventions. For a religion to claim exclusive truth, apologists attempt to establish that their religion is [[My religion is the one true religion|uniquely true]] and distinct from the other "false" religions.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead? <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/questions-for-skeptics.html]</ref>}}<br />
{{quote|Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others.<ref>[http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html]</ref>}}<br />
{{quote|As a Muslim, I found some special characteristics in Islam that is not in any other religion [...]<ref name="quora">[https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Muslims-believe-Islam-is-the-only-true-religion]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
An extension to this argument is to claim the unique characteristics of a religion are proof of God's existence. All other religions are considered to have the characteristics of human invention. The argument is often stated as follows:<br />
<br />
{{quote|God is perfect. Men and women are imperfect. As a result mankind can only create imperfect religions. That means that all man-created religions are imperfect and have common characteristics. This makes the one religion created by God unique, because it has characteristics only God could give it.<ref>Mission To America, How do we know Christianity is the one true way?, retrieved 3rd Apr 2014 [http://www.evangelical.us/is-christianity-true.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|If you compare Islam to other religions than you will find out that no other religion is free of contradictions and errors.<ref>[https://islam.stackexchange.com/a/24543</ref>}}<br />
<br />
In other cases, the argument is left as subtext:<br />
<br />
{{quote|A scholar who pondered about this verse [{{Quran|4:1}}] states: 'It is believed that there is no text, old or new, that deals with the humanity of the woman from all aspects with such amazing brevity, eloquence, depth, and originality as this divine decree.' <ref>[http://www.institutealislam.com/the-status-of-woman-in-islam-by-dr-jamal-badawi/]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The specific details that are unique are usually doctrinal statements and miracle testimony. The argument is related to the deductive [[argument from design]] because the characteristics of a religion are used to infer a God and all other possible sources are ruled out.<br />
<br />
==Formal Argument==<br />
<br />
# A religion R makes certain unique claims.<br />
# A perfect God would create a religion that makes these claims.<br />
# No other religion makes these claims.<br />
# There is no other way a religion could make these claims except if it was directed by God.<br />
# Therefore, religion R is true and all other religions are false.<br />
<br />
==Examples==<br />
<br />
===Theology===<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|[Regarding the Trinity,] If you are looking for something super-personal, something more than a person, then it is not a question of choosing between the Christian idea and the other ideas. The Christian idea is the only one on the market.|[[C.S. Lewis]], [[Mere Christianity]]}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Origin, morality, meaning and destiny: the Judeo-Christian worldview is not the only one that claims exclusivity but it is the only one that takes those four questions and [provides] truthful and coherent answers that stand the test of time.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWY-6xBA0Pk]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|Lots of religions recommend to do good actions or something like that, but they don’t explain it ''how''? Islam is a complete code of life and there is recommendations and programs for every aspects of humans' lives.<ref name="quora">[https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Muslims-believe-Islam-is-the-only-true-religion]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|The only world religions which include faith in one supreme God who created all things are Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.<ref>[https://www.icr.org/article/555/</ref>}}<br />
<br />
===Denominations===<br />
<br />
The [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] are rather fond of the argument from uniqueness. <ref name="jwfacts">[http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/jehovahs-witnesses-unique.php]</ref><br />
<br />
{{Quote|Of all the religious groups on earth, which one meets all these requirements? The facts clearly show that it is Jehovah's Witnesses<ref name="jwfacts"/>}}<br />
<br />
==Counter arguments==<br />
<br />
===Uniqueness does not automatically imply truth===<br />
<br />
The argument assumes no other religion could be like one designed by God. This is an unsupported assertion and establishing it would depend on prior knowledge of God, which would make the argument [[begging the question|beg the question]]. It is possible God created a religion that is very similar in character to pre-existing religions.<br />
<br />
Also, uniqueness may arise from other processes. Of itself, uniqueness does not imply truth or perfection.<br />
<br />
===Many religions claim uniqueness===<br />
<br />
[[Which God?|Many religions]] claim different sets of unique characteristics and there is no clear advantage of any particular claims of uniqueness.<br />
<br />
===Overstated uniqueness===<br />
<br />
Some religions claim to be unique on particular grounds, such as [[Jesus]] being [[resurrection|resurrected]]. However, this claim is not actually unique to Christianity. The gods [[Dionysus]], [[Odin]], and several others also are said to have returned from the dead. <ref>[http://listverse.com/2013/03/30/10-resurrected-religious-figures/]</ref> [[Virgin birth]]s, [[flood myths]], claiming to be the [[son of god]], performing [[miracles]], prophets appearing in visions and ascending to [[heaven]] are also common to many religions.<br />
<br />
Many supposedly unique features of a religion are often adapted from earlier religions. The themes and mythology of Christianity was based on Jewish, Egyptian and Greek myths. <ref>[http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/mystrel.html]</ref> Christian theology largely originates from [[Aristotle]] and other Greek philosophers, via [[St. Augustine]]. <ref>Wikipedia, "Aristotle, Influence on Western Christian theologians" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Influence_on_Western_Christian_theologians]</ref> The Abrahamic religions were influenced by [[Zoroastrianism]]: <ref>Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians, pg 29</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence [...]}}<br />
<br />
Islam was based on earlier Abrahamic religions as well as Arabic paganism. Prayer five times a day toward Mecca, pilgrimage, the Ṭawāf ritual of circumambulation, lunar symbols and worship at the Kaaba are all pre-Islamic pagan practices. <ref>Vin Chauhun, The Pagan Roots of Islamic Worship [http://vinchauhun.hubpages.com/hub/Islams-pagan-roots]</ref><ref>WikiIslam, Pagan Origins of Islam [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Pagan_Origins_of_Islam]</ref><br />
<br />
==Uniqueness of holy books==<br />
<br />
Some religions claim their holy book, such as the [[Qur'an]], is unique, which is supposedly evidence of its divinity.<br />
<br />
{{quote|Muslims have something that offers the clearest proof of all - The Holy Quran. There is no other book like it anywhere on earth. <ref>[http://www.godallah.com/is_quran_from_god.php]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto|{{Quran|2:23}}}}<br />
<br />
However, the Qur'an is not particularly special in any literary, scientific, political or poetic sense. <ref>[http://3lotus.com/en/Islam/Quran-Not-a-Miracle.htm]</ref> Also, uniqueness does not necessarily imply divinity.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
<br />
*[http://campuslight.org/wvu/EvidencesCFaith/Chapter2.html The Uniqueness of Christianity]<br />
*[http://www.islamkorea.com/english/islamuniquefeatures.html Unique Features of Islam]<br />
*[http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/04/uniqueness-of-judaism.html The Uniqueness of Judaism]<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:uniqueness, Argument from}}<br />
{{Arguments for god}}<br />
[[Category:Religion]]<br />
[[Category:Arguments]]<br />
[[Category:Arguments for the truth of a holy book]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=User:Sans_Deity&diff=44009User:Sans Deity2022-12-29T21:52:30Z<p>TimSC: Not relevant to apologetics</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Mattae1.jpg|thumb|Matt Dillahunty on the [[Atheist experience]] TV show.]]<br />
Sans Deity is the online handle of Matt Dillahunty.<br />
<br />
Raised as a Southern Baptist, he began a broad, prolonged investigation into all things religious in an attempt to bolster his faith and pursue a career in the ministry. This investigation continues, though he long ago abandoned faith and religion in favor of skepticism, reason, logic and scientific evidence. His interest in apologetics led to the creation of IronChariots.org, though the site's current incarnation is the result of the combined efforts of many dedicated individuals.<br />
<br />
Married and divorced Beth Presswood<br />
<br />
==Activities/Credits==<br />
<br />
* President of the [[Atheist Community of Austin]] (2006)<br />
* Board member of the [[Atheist Community of Austin]] (2005 - )<br />
* Host (and co-host) of "[[The Atheist Experience]]" (2005 - )<br />
* Commentator (and engineer) for "[[The Non-Prophets]]" (2005 - )<br />
* Founder and contributor at IronChariots.org and its subsidiary sites<br />
* Editorial author of numerous articles at various web sites<br />
<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
* [http://www.ironchariots.org Iron Chariot's Main Page]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=44003United Kingdom2022-11-30T07:22:24Z<p>TimSC: Clarify terminology</p>
<hr />
<div>{{fot2|http://freethoughtreport.com/countries/europe-northern-europe/united-kingdom/|The United Kingdom}}<br />
{{wikipedia|Religion in the United Kingdom}}<br />
<br />
The United Kingdom comprises [[England]], Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. It has a number of overseas sovereign territories that are not considered part of the UK itself.<br />
<br />
The Freedom of Thought Report 2014 found that there was "systemic discrimination" [[Discrimination against atheists|against atheists]] in the UK, saying:<br />
<br />
{{quote|This country is found to be in flux. Religion has little unwanted influence over most people in daily life, and the number identifying as non-religious in the most recent census has increased dramatically; however some education reforms in the past few years including in 2014 have increased the influence of religion in schools and removed secular options from some courses. <ref>[http://freethoughtreport.com Freedom of Thought Report 2014]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|There are three striking tends: [...] increase in the number of people with non-religious beliefs and identities [...] general decline in Christian affiliation, belief and practice [...] increased diversity amongst people who have a religious faith <ref name="corab">[https://corablivingwithdifference.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/living-with-difference-community-diversity-and-the-common-good.pdf]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Religious beliefs==<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" id="relgiousaffiliationsstats" style="margin-left:2em; width:30%; font-size:85%;" cellspacing="3"<br />
|+ Religions in Great Britain – BSA 2009<br />
|-<br />
!Religion/Denomination!!Percent<br />%<br />
|-<br />
|[[Irreligion|No religion]]||align="right"|50.7<br />
|-<br />
|[[Church of England]]||align="right"|19.9<br />
|-<br />
|[[Roman Catholic]]||align="right"|8.6<br />
|-<br />
|[[Presbyterian]]/[[Church of Scotland]]||align="right"|2.2<br />
|-<br />
|[[Methodist]]||align="right"|1.3<br />
|-<br />
|Other [[Protestant]]||align="right"|1.2<br />
|-<br />
|Christian (no denomination)||align="right"|9.3<br />
|-<br />
|Other Christian||align="right"|0.4<br />
|-<br />
|[[Muslim]]||align="right"|2.4<br />
|-<br />
|[[Hinduism in the United Kingdom|Hindu]]||align="right"|0.9<br />
|-<br />
|[[Sikh]]||align="right"|0.8<br />
|-<br />
|[[Judaism]]||align="right"|0.4<br />
|-<br />
|Other religions||align="right"|0.3<br />
|-<br />
|Refused / NA||align="right"|0.4<br />
|-<br />
| align="left" colspan="2" style="border-top: 0px solid;<!--<br />
--> border-right: 0px solid; border-bottom: 0px solid;<!--<br />
--> border-left: 0px solid;" |<br />
<br />
Source: British Social Attitudes Surveys 2009.<ref name="BSA 2009 Table">[https://web.archive.org/web/20150109025634/http://www.free-enterprises.co.uk/Religion-Statistics/British-Social-Attitudes/table-1999-2009/]</ref><br />
|}<br />
<br />
==On being a Christian nation==<br />
<br />
The former British prime minister David Cameron has repeatedly claimed Britain [[This is a Christian country|is a Christian country]]:<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|We are a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so|David Cameron <ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16224394]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
However, [[A. C. Grayling]] argued that the nation owes more to the Greeks and Romans:<br />
<br />
{{quote|First, Christianity not only does not have a monopoly on tolerance, kindness, and generosity – these are attitudes of individual human beings of any religion and none – but it has in a bloody and tumultuous past often exhibited the opposite of these characteristics. [...] Second, ‘being Christian’ was enforced on the residents of the British Isles for many centuries, on pain of punishment up to and including death. [...] Thirdly, for most of the time since the seventeenth century, Britain and its growing empire were run by graduates of the ancient universities. The main studies at those universities were the classics. [i.e.] the literature, philosophy and history of classical civilisation – ancient Greece and Rome.<ref>[http://www.acgrayling.com/a-christian-nation]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Also, the UK is one of the least religious countries in the world: in a WIN/Gallup international poll only 30% of people claimed to be religious. <ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/04/survey--uk-is-one-of-the-least-religious-countries-in-the-world Survey: UK is one of the least religious countries in the world]</ref> In England and Wales, people who say they have no religion now are a greater proportion of the population than Christians.<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/23/no-religion-outnumber-christians-england-wales-study]</ref> The 2021 census found that England and Wales were minority (i.e. less than 50% believers) Christian countries.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/29/leicester-and-birmingham-are-uk-first-minority-majority-cities-census-reveals England and Wales now minority Christian countries, census reveals]</ref><br />
<br />
The UK government does spend a significant amount of money on upkeep of historical church buildings, which arguably should be the responsibility of the owners. <ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2016/09/church-of-england-or-chancellor-of-the-exchequer-whos-setting-the-agenda]</ref><br />
<br />
==Religion in politics and religion==<br />
<br />
Although the Prime Minister is generally Christian (with exception of Benjamin Disraeli 1874-1880, 1868, being [[Jew]]ish), this is less significant than it might be because religion is often considered a private affair. Former prime minster Tony Blair's communications director Alastair Campbell (an [[atheist]]) famously interrupted an interviewer asking the PM about religion, saying "We don't do God". <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1429109/Campbell-interrupted-Blair-as-he-spoke-of-his-faith-We-dont-do-God.html]</ref> Prime Minister Theresa May is the only daughter of a clergyman:<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|I am a practising member of the Church of England and so forth, that lies behind what I do|Prime Minister Theresa May<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-reveals-how-her-faith-in-god-makes-her-certain-she-is-doing-the-right-thing-a7442616.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{wikipedia|Supreme Governor of the Church of England}}<br />
The monarch, currently Elizabeth II, is the head of state and the supreme governor of the [[Church of England]]. The office holder is banned by law from being a [[Catholic]]. Both roles are largely ceremonial. In 2011, a 300 year old ban on the monarch marrying a Catholic was lifted. <ref>[http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/10/31/ban-on-british-monarch-marrying-a-catholic-to-be-lifted/]</ref><br />
<br />
{{wikipedia|Dieu et mon droit}}<br />
The motto that appears on the royal coat of arms (outside of Scotland) is "Dieu et mon droit", meaning "God and my right". This references the supposed [[Divine right of kings|divine right for a monarch to rule]] {{Bible|Romans 13:1-7}}. The motto on the Scottish version is "In My Defens God Me Defend". These crests sometimes appear on government documents and newspaper mastheads.<br />
<br />
==Religious education and school prayer==<br />
{{main article|School prayer}}<br />
<br />
The UK allows religiously affiliated "[[faith schools]]", which allows administrators to select some of their pupil intake by religious affiliation. The UK government is considering removing this limit to allow the entire pupil intake to be selected by religion.<ref name="plans">[http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/10/plans-to-increase-discriminatory-faith-school-admissions-reveals-an-alarming-democratic-deficit]</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|By lifting the 50% cap the Government will be facilitating a proliferation of discriminatory and divisive faith schools. This may well serve the desires of some religious organisations but it fails to serve the needs of the majority of parents and pupils who simply want good schools, rather than religious schools – particularly ones that they will not have fair access to.<ref name="plans"/>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Can [the chair of the Education Select Committee] think of a single reason why the child of an atheist parent like myself should be excluded from a school because of their parents' lack of faith? Does he also share my concern that 100% selection by faith risks driving communities into further segregation and does nothing to improve social cohesion?|Sarah Wollaston MP<ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/11/conservative-mp-criticises-division-caused-by-faith-schools]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The Trojan Horse schools affair was an alleged incident in which a fundamentalist Islamic group attempted to take over the running of a group of schools in Birmingham. This lead to investigations by local and national government. <ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-28370552]</ref> The reports concluded there was a group that attempted to introduce "aggressive Islamism" and a "conservative religious agenda" into a few schools in Birmingham.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10983109/Trojan-horse-plot-report-disturbing-evidence-of-intolerant-Islamic-ethos.html]</ref><br />
<br />
Non-[[faith schools]] are required by law to have collective daily worship that is "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character". However, most schools are not compliant with this law and calls for its abolition have increased in recent years. <ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/06/religious-teaching-school-assemblies-axe-report Top judge leads calls to scrap mandatory daily Christian worship in UK schools]</ref><br />
<br />
In 2015, the High Court ruled that the government unlawfully excluded atheism from the religious studies GSCE. <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/12015859/Non-religious-views-should-not-have-been-left-out-of-new-GCSE-High-Court-rules.html]</ref> In response, the education secretary said that there is "no obligation for any school to give equal air time to the teaching of religious and non-religious views" and religious education should "reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are, in the main Christian". <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12070607/Schools-must-teach-children-that-Britain-is-a-Christian-country.html]</ref><br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/nov/20/oxfordshire-parents-win-right-to-prayer-free-school-assembly Parents win right to prayer-free alternative to religious assemblies]<br />
<br />
==Hate speech laws==<br />
{{wikipedia|Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom}}<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/26/preacher-found-guilty-after-telling-muslim-she-would-burn-in-hell Preacher found guilty after telling Muslim she would 'burn in hell']<br />
* [http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm Street preacher convicted by magistrates for displaying a sign saying homosexuality is immoral]<br />
<br />
==Sharia courts==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/11/britain-has-turned-a-blind-eye-to-abuse-of-women-by-sharia-courts Britain has “turned a blind eye” to abuse of women by sharia ‘courts’]<br />
<br />
A 2016 statement signed by 300 abused women said [[Sharia]] courts caused great harm:<br />
<br />
{{quote|We know from personal experiences that many religious bodies such as Sharia Councils are presided over by hard line or fundamentalist clerics who are intolerant of the very idea that women should be in control of their own bodies and minds. These clerics claim to be acting according to the word of God: but they are often corrupt, primarily interested in making money and abuse their positions of power by shaming and slandering those of us who reject those aspects of our religions and cultures that we find oppressive. We pay a huge price for not submitting to domestic violence, rape, polygamy and child abuse and other kinds of harm.<ref>[https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/pragna-patel/sharia-debate-who-will-listen-to-us]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Prayer in government meetings==<br />
<br />
Some government meetings have time allocated for prayer as an agenda item. This discriminates against non-Christians and non-theists.<ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/11/its-blasphemy-to-oppose-having-prayers-in-meetings-blasts-councillor]</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|I propose we keep the prayer and the Mayor can say if anyone doesn't want to take part they can leave. Otherwise we're going to be inundated with these things. I don't agree that Britain isn't a Christian country; that's blasphemy.<ref>[http://www.leek-news.co.uk/meeting-prayers-back-on-agenda/story-29924793-detail/story.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Northern Ireland: religion as a sectarian marker?==<br />
{{wikipedia|The Troubles}}<br />
During the Troubles, conflicting groups in Northern Ireland largely defined themselves in political-religious terms: nationalist-republican-Catholic or unionist-loyalist-Protestant.<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Religion is a label of in-group/out-group enmity and vendetta, not necessarily worse than other labels such as skin colour, language or preferred football team, but often available when other labels are not. Yes, of course the troubles in Northern Ireland are political. There really has been economic and political oppression of one group by another, and it goes back centuries. There really are genuine grievances and injustices, and these seem to have little to do with religion; except that - and this is important and widely overlooked - without religion there would be no labels by which to decide whom to oppress and whom to avenge. And the real problem in Northern Ireland is that the labels are inherited down many generations. Catholics, whose parents, grandparents and great-grandparents went to Catholic schools, send their children to Catholic schools. Protestants, whose parents, grandparents and great-grandparents went to Protestant schools, send their children to Protestant schools. The two sets of people have the same skin colour, they speak the same language, they enjoy the same things, but they might as well belong to different species, so deep is the historic divide. And without religion, and religiously segregated education, the divide simply would not be there.|[[Richard Dawkins]], ''[[The God Delusion]]''}}<br />
<br />
[[Chris Hedges]] argues this oversimplifies a complicated situation:<br />
<br />
{{quote|[Dawkins] sees the ethnopoliticial conflict in Northern Ireland, for example, as the fault of religion. The conflict, he assures us, would end if the religious belief of the warring factions evaporated. [...] He does not recognize the difference between a loyalist and a unionist or a nationalist and a republican.<ref>[[Chris Hedges]], ''[[I Don't Believe in Atheists]]''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Evangelical]] religious groups such as ECONI may have had a role in the peace process, by challenging the link between nationalism and religion in the loyalist's [[Calvinist]] Christian views.<ref>[http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionpublicsphere/2017/08/how-evangelical-religion-contributed-to-peace-in-northern-ireland-and-what-we-can-learn-from-it/]</ref><br />
<br />
Until recently, [[abortion]] remained illegal in Northern Ireland, largely due to religious influences. The ban was overturned on human rights grounds.<br />
<br />
==Media==<br />
<br />
The BBC is a publicly owned broadcaster, primarily operating in the UK but also around the world. It produces religious programs which are unpopular among most viewers. <ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2017/04/religious-programming-isnt-popular-and-no-amount-of-hounding-from-the-church-will-change-that Religious programming isn’t popular, and no amount of hounding from the Church will change that]</ref> Radio 4's flagship news program ''Today'' contains a ''Thought for the Day'' segment in which a religious speaker comments on current affairs. The National Secular Society has campaigned to have secular speakers included.<ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/thought-for-the-day.html]</ref><br />
<br />
==Foreign policy==<br />
<br />
* Mark Curtis, [http://markcurtis.info/2015/12/17/britains-collusion-with-radical-islam/ Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam], December 17, 2015<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/05/report-calls-for-public-inquiry-into-gulf-funding-of-british-extremism Report calls for public inquiry into Gulf funding of British extremism], The Guardian, 5 July 2017<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Genesis Expo]] - the largest creation museum in the UK.<br />
* [[C.S. Lewis]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.secularism.org.uk/ National Secular Society]<br />
* [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/05/pastor-who-said-islam-was-doctrine-spawned-in-hell-is-cleared-by-court Pastor who said Islam was 'doctrine spawned in hell' is cleared by court], The Guardian, 5th Jan 2016<br />
* [http://datashine.org.uk/#table=QS208EW&col=QS208EW0009&ramp=RdYlGn&layers=BTTT&zoom=12&lon=-0.1500&lat=51.5200 Map visualisation of religious affiliations in the UK]<br />
* [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/27/tory-messages-christian-values-faith-politics-vote-with-tribes-not-minds These Tory messages show us why faith has no place in politics], The Guardian, 27 March 2016<br />
* [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/08/tom-cruise-east-grinstead-scientology Tom Cruise will feel right at home in East Grinstead, Britain’s strangest town]<br />
* [http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jun/09/more-than-1200-fgm-cases-recorded-across-england-in-three-months More than 1,200 FGM cases recorded across England in three months]<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/15/desert-island-discs-bible-radio-4 The Bible? Not on my desert island, say majority of Britons]<br />
* [http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/06/man-flees-home-after-converting-to-christianity-from-islam-leads-to-attack-6239445/ Man forced to flee his home after converting from Islam to Christianity]<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs Nearly 50% are of no religion – but has UK hit ‘peak secular’?]<br />
* [http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/09/man-and-woman-arrested-after-burning-koran-in-racist-youtube-videos-6697146/ Man and woman arrested after burning Koran in racist]<br />
* [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-40948532 Paganism is 'second most popular' faith in south-west England], BBC, 29th Aug 2017<br />
<br />
[[Category:Countries]]<br />
[[Category:United Kingdom]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=44002United Kingdom2022-11-29T11:15:11Z<p>TimSC: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{fot2|http://freethoughtreport.com/countries/europe-northern-europe/united-kingdom/|The United Kingdom}}<br />
{{wikipedia|Religion in the United Kingdom}}<br />
<br />
The United Kingdom comprises [[England]], Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. It has a number of overseas sovereign territories that are not considered part of the UK itself.<br />
<br />
The Freedom of Thought Report 2014 found that there was "systemic discrimination" [[Discrimination against atheists|against atheists]] in the UK, saying:<br />
<br />
{{quote|This country is found to be in flux. Religion has little unwanted influence over most people in daily life, and the number identifying as non-religious in the most recent census has increased dramatically; however some education reforms in the past few years including in 2014 have increased the influence of religion in schools and removed secular options from some courses. <ref>[http://freethoughtreport.com Freedom of Thought Report 2014]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|There are three striking tends: [...] increase in the number of people with non-religious beliefs and identities [...] general decline in Christian affiliation, belief and practice [...] increased diversity amongst people who have a religious faith <ref name="corab">[https://corablivingwithdifference.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/living-with-difference-community-diversity-and-the-common-good.pdf]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Religious beliefs==<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" id="relgiousaffiliationsstats" style="margin-left:2em; width:30%; font-size:85%;" cellspacing="3"<br />
|+ Religions in Great Britain – BSA 2009<br />
|-<br />
!Religion/Denomination!!Percent<br />%<br />
|-<br />
|[[Irreligion|No religion]]||align="right"|50.7<br />
|-<br />
|[[Church of England]]||align="right"|19.9<br />
|-<br />
|[[Roman Catholic]]||align="right"|8.6<br />
|-<br />
|[[Presbyterian]]/[[Church of Scotland]]||align="right"|2.2<br />
|-<br />
|[[Methodist]]||align="right"|1.3<br />
|-<br />
|Other [[Protestant]]||align="right"|1.2<br />
|-<br />
|Christian (no denomination)||align="right"|9.3<br />
|-<br />
|Other Christian||align="right"|0.4<br />
|-<br />
|[[Muslim]]||align="right"|2.4<br />
|-<br />
|[[Hinduism in the United Kingdom|Hindu]]||align="right"|0.9<br />
|-<br />
|[[Sikh]]||align="right"|0.8<br />
|-<br />
|[[Judaism]]||align="right"|0.4<br />
|-<br />
|Other religions||align="right"|0.3<br />
|-<br />
|Refused / NA||align="right"|0.4<br />
|-<br />
| align="left" colspan="2" style="border-top: 0px solid;<!--<br />
--> border-right: 0px solid; border-bottom: 0px solid;<!--<br />
--> border-left: 0px solid;" |<br />
<br />
Source: British Social Attitudes Surveys 2009.<ref name="BSA 2009 Table">[https://web.archive.org/web/20150109025634/http://www.free-enterprises.co.uk/Religion-Statistics/British-Social-Attitudes/table-1999-2009/]</ref><br />
|}<br />
<br />
==On being a Christian nation==<br />
<br />
The former British prime minister David Cameron has repeatedly claimed Britain [[This is a Christian country|is a Christian country]]:<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|We are a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so|David Cameron <ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16224394]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
However, [[A. C. Grayling]] argued that the nation owes more to the Greeks and Romans:<br />
<br />
{{quote|First, Christianity not only does not have a monopoly on tolerance, kindness, and generosity – these are attitudes of individual human beings of any religion and none – but it has in a bloody and tumultuous past often exhibited the opposite of these characteristics. [...] Second, ‘being Christian’ was enforced on the residents of the British Isles for many centuries, on pain of punishment up to and including death. [...] Thirdly, for most of the time since the seventeenth century, Britain and its growing empire were run by graduates of the ancient universities. The main studies at those universities were the classics. [i.e.] the literature, philosophy and history of classical civilisation – ancient Greece and Rome.<ref>[http://www.acgrayling.com/a-christian-nation]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Also, the UK is one of the least religious countries in the world: in a WIN/Gallup international poll only 30% of people claimed to be religious. <ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/04/survey--uk-is-one-of-the-least-religious-countries-in-the-world Survey: UK is one of the least religious countries in the world]</ref> In England and Wales, people who say they have no religion now are a greater proportion of the population than Christians.<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/23/no-religion-outnumber-christians-england-wales-study]</ref> The 2021 census found that England and Wales were minority Christian countries.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/29/leicester-and-birmingham-are-uk-first-minority-majority-cities-census-reveals England and Wales now minority Christian countries, census reveals]</ref><br />
<br />
The UK government does spend a significant amount of money on upkeep of historical church buildings, which arguably should be the responsibility of the owners. <ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2016/09/church-of-england-or-chancellor-of-the-exchequer-whos-setting-the-agenda]</ref><br />
<br />
==Religion in politics and religion==<br />
<br />
Although the Prime Minister is generally Christian (with exception of Benjamin Disraeli 1874-1880, 1868, being [[Jew]]ish), this is less significant than it might be because religion is often considered a private affair. Former prime minster Tony Blair's communications director Alastair Campbell (an [[atheist]]) famously interrupted an interviewer asking the PM about religion, saying "We don't do God". <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1429109/Campbell-interrupted-Blair-as-he-spoke-of-his-faith-We-dont-do-God.html]</ref> Prime Minister Theresa May is the only daughter of a clergyman:<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|I am a practising member of the Church of England and so forth, that lies behind what I do|Prime Minister Theresa May<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-reveals-how-her-faith-in-god-makes-her-certain-she-is-doing-the-right-thing-a7442616.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{wikipedia|Supreme Governor of the Church of England}}<br />
The monarch, currently Elizabeth II, is the head of state and the supreme governor of the [[Church of England]]. The office holder is banned by law from being a [[Catholic]]. Both roles are largely ceremonial. In 2011, a 300 year old ban on the monarch marrying a Catholic was lifted. <ref>[http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/10/31/ban-on-british-monarch-marrying-a-catholic-to-be-lifted/]</ref><br />
<br />
{{wikipedia|Dieu et mon droit}}<br />
The motto that appears on the royal coat of arms (outside of Scotland) is "Dieu et mon droit", meaning "God and my right". This references the supposed [[Divine right of kings|divine right for a monarch to rule]] {{Bible|Romans 13:1-7}}. The motto on the Scottish version is "In My Defens God Me Defend". These crests sometimes appear on government documents and newspaper mastheads.<br />
<br />
==Religious education and school prayer==<br />
{{main article|School prayer}}<br />
<br />
The UK allows religiously affiliated "[[faith schools]]", which allows administrators to select some of their pupil intake by religious affiliation. The UK government is considering removing this limit to allow the entire pupil intake to be selected by religion.<ref name="plans">[http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/10/plans-to-increase-discriminatory-faith-school-admissions-reveals-an-alarming-democratic-deficit]</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|By lifting the 50% cap the Government will be facilitating a proliferation of discriminatory and divisive faith schools. This may well serve the desires of some religious organisations but it fails to serve the needs of the majority of parents and pupils who simply want good schools, rather than religious schools – particularly ones that they will not have fair access to.<ref name="plans"/>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Can [the chair of the Education Select Committee] think of a single reason why the child of an atheist parent like myself should be excluded from a school because of their parents' lack of faith? Does he also share my concern that 100% selection by faith risks driving communities into further segregation and does nothing to improve social cohesion?|Sarah Wollaston MP<ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/11/conservative-mp-criticises-division-caused-by-faith-schools]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The Trojan Horse schools affair was an alleged incident in which a fundamentalist Islamic group attempted to take over the running of a group of schools in Birmingham. This lead to investigations by local and national government. <ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-28370552]</ref> The reports concluded there was a group that attempted to introduce "aggressive Islamism" and a "conservative religious agenda" into a few schools in Birmingham.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10983109/Trojan-horse-plot-report-disturbing-evidence-of-intolerant-Islamic-ethos.html]</ref><br />
<br />
Non-[[faith schools]] are required by law to have collective daily worship that is "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character". However, most schools are not compliant with this law and calls for its abolition have increased in recent years. <ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/06/religious-teaching-school-assemblies-axe-report Top judge leads calls to scrap mandatory daily Christian worship in UK schools]</ref><br />
<br />
In 2015, the High Court ruled that the government unlawfully excluded atheism from the religious studies GSCE. <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/12015859/Non-religious-views-should-not-have-been-left-out-of-new-GCSE-High-Court-rules.html]</ref> In response, the education secretary said that there is "no obligation for any school to give equal air time to the teaching of religious and non-religious views" and religious education should "reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are, in the main Christian". <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12070607/Schools-must-teach-children-that-Britain-is-a-Christian-country.html]</ref><br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/nov/20/oxfordshire-parents-win-right-to-prayer-free-school-assembly Parents win right to prayer-free alternative to religious assemblies]<br />
<br />
==Hate speech laws==<br />
{{wikipedia|Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom}}<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/26/preacher-found-guilty-after-telling-muslim-she-would-burn-in-hell Preacher found guilty after telling Muslim she would 'burn in hell']<br />
* [http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm Street preacher convicted by magistrates for displaying a sign saying homosexuality is immoral]<br />
<br />
==Sharia courts==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/11/britain-has-turned-a-blind-eye-to-abuse-of-women-by-sharia-courts Britain has “turned a blind eye” to abuse of women by sharia ‘courts’]<br />
<br />
A 2016 statement signed by 300 abused women said [[Sharia]] courts caused great harm:<br />
<br />
{{quote|We know from personal experiences that many religious bodies such as Sharia Councils are presided over by hard line or fundamentalist clerics who are intolerant of the very idea that women should be in control of their own bodies and minds. These clerics claim to be acting according to the word of God: but they are often corrupt, primarily interested in making money and abuse their positions of power by shaming and slandering those of us who reject those aspects of our religions and cultures that we find oppressive. We pay a huge price for not submitting to domestic violence, rape, polygamy and child abuse and other kinds of harm.<ref>[https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/pragna-patel/sharia-debate-who-will-listen-to-us]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Prayer in government meetings==<br />
<br />
Some government meetings have time allocated for prayer as an agenda item. This discriminates against non-Christians and non-theists.<ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/11/its-blasphemy-to-oppose-having-prayers-in-meetings-blasts-councillor]</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|I propose we keep the prayer and the Mayor can say if anyone doesn't want to take part they can leave. Otherwise we're going to be inundated with these things. I don't agree that Britain isn't a Christian country; that's blasphemy.<ref>[http://www.leek-news.co.uk/meeting-prayers-back-on-agenda/story-29924793-detail/story.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Northern Ireland: religion as a sectarian marker?==<br />
{{wikipedia|The Troubles}}<br />
During the Troubles, conflicting groups in Northern Ireland largely defined themselves in political-religious terms: nationalist-republican-Catholic or unionist-loyalist-Protestant.<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Religion is a label of in-group/out-group enmity and vendetta, not necessarily worse than other labels such as skin colour, language or preferred football team, but often available when other labels are not. Yes, of course the troubles in Northern Ireland are political. There really has been economic and political oppression of one group by another, and it goes back centuries. There really are genuine grievances and injustices, and these seem to have little to do with religion; except that - and this is important and widely overlooked - without religion there would be no labels by which to decide whom to oppress and whom to avenge. And the real problem in Northern Ireland is that the labels are inherited down many generations. Catholics, whose parents, grandparents and great-grandparents went to Catholic schools, send their children to Catholic schools. Protestants, whose parents, grandparents and great-grandparents went to Protestant schools, send their children to Protestant schools. The two sets of people have the same skin colour, they speak the same language, they enjoy the same things, but they might as well belong to different species, so deep is the historic divide. And without religion, and religiously segregated education, the divide simply would not be there.|[[Richard Dawkins]], ''[[The God Delusion]]''}}<br />
<br />
[[Chris Hedges]] argues this oversimplifies a complicated situation:<br />
<br />
{{quote|[Dawkins] sees the ethnopoliticial conflict in Northern Ireland, for example, as the fault of religion. The conflict, he assures us, would end if the religious belief of the warring factions evaporated. [...] He does not recognize the difference between a loyalist and a unionist or a nationalist and a republican.<ref>[[Chris Hedges]], ''[[I Don't Believe in Atheists]]''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Evangelical]] religious groups such as ECONI may have had a role in the peace process, by challenging the link between nationalism and religion in the loyalist's [[Calvinist]] Christian views.<ref>[http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionpublicsphere/2017/08/how-evangelical-religion-contributed-to-peace-in-northern-ireland-and-what-we-can-learn-from-it/]</ref><br />
<br />
Until recently, [[abortion]] remained illegal in Northern Ireland, largely due to religious influences. The ban was overturned on human rights grounds.<br />
<br />
==Media==<br />
<br />
The BBC is a publicly owned broadcaster, primarily operating in the UK but also around the world. It produces religious programs which are unpopular among most viewers. <ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2017/04/religious-programming-isnt-popular-and-no-amount-of-hounding-from-the-church-will-change-that Religious programming isn’t popular, and no amount of hounding from the Church will change that]</ref> Radio 4's flagship news program ''Today'' contains a ''Thought for the Day'' segment in which a religious speaker comments on current affairs. The National Secular Society has campaigned to have secular speakers included.<ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/thought-for-the-day.html]</ref><br />
<br />
==Foreign policy==<br />
<br />
* Mark Curtis, [http://markcurtis.info/2015/12/17/britains-collusion-with-radical-islam/ Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam], December 17, 2015<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/05/report-calls-for-public-inquiry-into-gulf-funding-of-british-extremism Report calls for public inquiry into Gulf funding of British extremism], The Guardian, 5 July 2017<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Genesis Expo]] - the largest creation museum in the UK.<br />
* [[C.S. Lewis]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.secularism.org.uk/ National Secular Society]<br />
* [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/05/pastor-who-said-islam-was-doctrine-spawned-in-hell-is-cleared-by-court Pastor who said Islam was 'doctrine spawned in hell' is cleared by court], The Guardian, 5th Jan 2016<br />
* [http://datashine.org.uk/#table=QS208EW&col=QS208EW0009&ramp=RdYlGn&layers=BTTT&zoom=12&lon=-0.1500&lat=51.5200 Map visualisation of religious affiliations in the UK]<br />
* [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/27/tory-messages-christian-values-faith-politics-vote-with-tribes-not-minds These Tory messages show us why faith has no place in politics], The Guardian, 27 March 2016<br />
* [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/08/tom-cruise-east-grinstead-scientology Tom Cruise will feel right at home in East Grinstead, Britain’s strangest town]<br />
* [http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jun/09/more-than-1200-fgm-cases-recorded-across-england-in-three-months More than 1,200 FGM cases recorded across England in three months]<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/15/desert-island-discs-bible-radio-4 The Bible? Not on my desert island, say majority of Britons]<br />
* [http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/06/man-flees-home-after-converting-to-christianity-from-islam-leads-to-attack-6239445/ Man forced to flee his home after converting from Islam to Christianity]<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs Nearly 50% are of no religion – but has UK hit ‘peak secular’?]<br />
* [http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/09/man-and-woman-arrested-after-burning-koran-in-racist-youtube-videos-6697146/ Man and woman arrested after burning Koran in racist]<br />
* [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-40948532 Paganism is 'second most popular' faith in south-west England], BBC, 29th Aug 2017<br />
<br />
[[Category:Countries]]<br />
[[Category:United Kingdom]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=44001United Kingdom2022-11-29T11:14:22Z<p>TimSC: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{fot2|http://freethoughtreport.com/countries/europe-northern-europe/united-kingdom/|The United Kingdom}}<br />
{{wikipedia|Religion in the United Kingdom}}<br />
<br />
The United Kingdom is state comprises [[England]], Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. It has a number of overseas sovereign territories that are not considered part of the UK itself.<br />
<br />
The Freedom of Thought Report 2014 found that there was "systemic discrimination" [[Discrimination against atheists|against atheists]] in the UK, saying:<br />
<br />
{{quote|This country is found to be in flux. Religion has little unwanted influence over most people in daily life, and the number identifying as non-religious in the most recent census has increased dramatically; however some education reforms in the past few years including in 2014 have increased the influence of religion in schools and removed secular options from some courses. <ref>[http://freethoughtreport.com Freedom of Thought Report 2014]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|There are three striking tends: [...] increase in the number of people with non-religious beliefs and identities [...] general decline in Christian affiliation, belief and practice [...] increased diversity amongst people who have a religious faith <ref name="corab">[https://corablivingwithdifference.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/living-with-difference-community-diversity-and-the-common-good.pdf]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Religious beliefs==<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" id="relgiousaffiliationsstats" style="margin-left:2em; width:30%; font-size:85%;" cellspacing="3"<br />
|+ Religions in Great Britain – BSA 2009<br />
|-<br />
!Religion/Denomination!!Percent<br />%<br />
|-<br />
|[[Irreligion|No religion]]||align="right"|50.7<br />
|-<br />
|[[Church of England]]||align="right"|19.9<br />
|-<br />
|[[Roman Catholic]]||align="right"|8.6<br />
|-<br />
|[[Presbyterian]]/[[Church of Scotland]]||align="right"|2.2<br />
|-<br />
|[[Methodist]]||align="right"|1.3<br />
|-<br />
|Other [[Protestant]]||align="right"|1.2<br />
|-<br />
|Christian (no denomination)||align="right"|9.3<br />
|-<br />
|Other Christian||align="right"|0.4<br />
|-<br />
|[[Muslim]]||align="right"|2.4<br />
|-<br />
|[[Hinduism in the United Kingdom|Hindu]]||align="right"|0.9<br />
|-<br />
|[[Sikh]]||align="right"|0.8<br />
|-<br />
|[[Judaism]]||align="right"|0.4<br />
|-<br />
|Other religions||align="right"|0.3<br />
|-<br />
|Refused / NA||align="right"|0.4<br />
|-<br />
| align="left" colspan="2" style="border-top: 0px solid;<!--<br />
--> border-right: 0px solid; border-bottom: 0px solid;<!--<br />
--> border-left: 0px solid;" |<br />
<br />
Source: British Social Attitudes Surveys 2009.<ref name="BSA 2009 Table">[https://web.archive.org/web/20150109025634/http://www.free-enterprises.co.uk/Religion-Statistics/British-Social-Attitudes/table-1999-2009/]</ref><br />
|}<br />
<br />
==On being a Christian nation==<br />
<br />
The former British prime minister David Cameron has repeatedly claimed Britain [[This is a Christian country|is a Christian country]]:<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|We are a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so|David Cameron <ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16224394]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
However, [[A. C. Grayling]] argued that the nation owes more to the Greeks and Romans:<br />
<br />
{{quote|First, Christianity not only does not have a monopoly on tolerance, kindness, and generosity – these are attitudes of individual human beings of any religion and none – but it has in a bloody and tumultuous past often exhibited the opposite of these characteristics. [...] Second, ‘being Christian’ was enforced on the residents of the British Isles for many centuries, on pain of punishment up to and including death. [...] Thirdly, for most of the time since the seventeenth century, Britain and its growing empire were run by graduates of the ancient universities. The main studies at those universities were the classics. [i.e.] the literature, philosophy and history of classical civilisation – ancient Greece and Rome.<ref>[http://www.acgrayling.com/a-christian-nation]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Also, the UK is one of the least religious countries in the world: in a WIN/Gallup international poll only 30% of people claimed to be religious. <ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/04/survey--uk-is-one-of-the-least-religious-countries-in-the-world Survey: UK is one of the least religious countries in the world]</ref> In England and Wales, people who say they have no religion now are a greater proportion of the population than Christians.<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/23/no-religion-outnumber-christians-england-wales-study]</ref> The 2021 census found that England and Wales were minority Christian countries.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/29/leicester-and-birmingham-are-uk-first-minority-majority-cities-census-reveals England and Wales now minority Christian countries, census reveals]</ref><br />
<br />
The UK government does spend a significant amount of money on upkeep of historical church buildings, which arguably should be the responsibility of the owners. <ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2016/09/church-of-england-or-chancellor-of-the-exchequer-whos-setting-the-agenda]</ref><br />
<br />
==Religion in politics and religion==<br />
<br />
Although the Prime Minister is generally Christian (with exception of Benjamin Disraeli 1874-1880, 1868, being [[Jew]]ish), this is less significant than it might be because religion is often considered a private affair. Former prime minster Tony Blair's communications director Alastair Campbell (an [[atheist]]) famously interrupted an interviewer asking the PM about religion, saying "We don't do God". <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1429109/Campbell-interrupted-Blair-as-he-spoke-of-his-faith-We-dont-do-God.html]</ref> Prime Minister Theresa May is the only daughter of a clergyman:<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|I am a practising member of the Church of England and so forth, that lies behind what I do|Prime Minister Theresa May<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-reveals-how-her-faith-in-god-makes-her-certain-she-is-doing-the-right-thing-a7442616.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{wikipedia|Supreme Governor of the Church of England}}<br />
The monarch, currently Elizabeth II, is the head of state and the supreme governor of the [[Church of England]]. The office holder is banned by law from being a [[Catholic]]. Both roles are largely ceremonial. In 2011, a 300 year old ban on the monarch marrying a Catholic was lifted. <ref>[http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/10/31/ban-on-british-monarch-marrying-a-catholic-to-be-lifted/]</ref><br />
<br />
{{wikipedia|Dieu et mon droit}}<br />
The motto that appears on the royal coat of arms (outside of Scotland) is "Dieu et mon droit", meaning "God and my right". This references the supposed [[Divine right of kings|divine right for a monarch to rule]] {{Bible|Romans 13:1-7}}. The motto on the Scottish version is "In My Defens God Me Defend". These crests sometimes appear on government documents and newspaper mastheads.<br />
<br />
==Religious education and school prayer==<br />
{{main article|School prayer}}<br />
<br />
The UK allows religiously affiliated "[[faith schools]]", which allows administrators to select some of their pupil intake by religious affiliation. The UK government is considering removing this limit to allow the entire pupil intake to be selected by religion.<ref name="plans">[http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/10/plans-to-increase-discriminatory-faith-school-admissions-reveals-an-alarming-democratic-deficit]</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|By lifting the 50% cap the Government will be facilitating a proliferation of discriminatory and divisive faith schools. This may well serve the desires of some religious organisations but it fails to serve the needs of the majority of parents and pupils who simply want good schools, rather than religious schools – particularly ones that they will not have fair access to.<ref name="plans"/>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Can [the chair of the Education Select Committee] think of a single reason why the child of an atheist parent like myself should be excluded from a school because of their parents' lack of faith? Does he also share my concern that 100% selection by faith risks driving communities into further segregation and does nothing to improve social cohesion?|Sarah Wollaston MP<ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/11/conservative-mp-criticises-division-caused-by-faith-schools]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The Trojan Horse schools affair was an alleged incident in which a fundamentalist Islamic group attempted to take over the running of a group of schools in Birmingham. This lead to investigations by local and national government. <ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-28370552]</ref> The reports concluded there was a group that attempted to introduce "aggressive Islamism" and a "conservative religious agenda" into a few schools in Birmingham.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10983109/Trojan-horse-plot-report-disturbing-evidence-of-intolerant-Islamic-ethos.html]</ref><br />
<br />
Non-[[faith schools]] are required by law to have collective daily worship that is "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character". However, most schools are not compliant with this law and calls for its abolition have increased in recent years. <ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/06/religious-teaching-school-assemblies-axe-report Top judge leads calls to scrap mandatory daily Christian worship in UK schools]</ref><br />
<br />
In 2015, the High Court ruled that the government unlawfully excluded atheism from the religious studies GSCE. <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/12015859/Non-religious-views-should-not-have-been-left-out-of-new-GCSE-High-Court-rules.html]</ref> In response, the education secretary said that there is "no obligation for any school to give equal air time to the teaching of religious and non-religious views" and religious education should "reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are, in the main Christian". <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12070607/Schools-must-teach-children-that-Britain-is-a-Christian-country.html]</ref><br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/nov/20/oxfordshire-parents-win-right-to-prayer-free-school-assembly Parents win right to prayer-free alternative to religious assemblies]<br />
<br />
==Hate speech laws==<br />
{{wikipedia|Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom}}<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/26/preacher-found-guilty-after-telling-muslim-she-would-burn-in-hell Preacher found guilty after telling Muslim she would 'burn in hell']<br />
* [http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm Street preacher convicted by magistrates for displaying a sign saying homosexuality is immoral]<br />
<br />
==Sharia courts==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/11/britain-has-turned-a-blind-eye-to-abuse-of-women-by-sharia-courts Britain has “turned a blind eye” to abuse of women by sharia ‘courts’]<br />
<br />
A 2016 statement signed by 300 abused women said [[Sharia]] courts caused great harm:<br />
<br />
{{quote|We know from personal experiences that many religious bodies such as Sharia Councils are presided over by hard line or fundamentalist clerics who are intolerant of the very idea that women should be in control of their own bodies and minds. These clerics claim to be acting according to the word of God: but they are often corrupt, primarily interested in making money and abuse their positions of power by shaming and slandering those of us who reject those aspects of our religions and cultures that we find oppressive. We pay a huge price for not submitting to domestic violence, rape, polygamy and child abuse and other kinds of harm.<ref>[https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/pragna-patel/sharia-debate-who-will-listen-to-us]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Prayer in government meetings==<br />
<br />
Some government meetings have time allocated for prayer as an agenda item. This discriminates against non-Christians and non-theists.<ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/11/its-blasphemy-to-oppose-having-prayers-in-meetings-blasts-councillor]</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|I propose we keep the prayer and the Mayor can say if anyone doesn't want to take part they can leave. Otherwise we're going to be inundated with these things. I don't agree that Britain isn't a Christian country; that's blasphemy.<ref>[http://www.leek-news.co.uk/meeting-prayers-back-on-agenda/story-29924793-detail/story.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Northern Ireland: religion as a sectarian marker?==<br />
{{wikipedia|The Troubles}}<br />
During the Troubles, conflicting groups in Northern Ireland largely defined themselves in political-religious terms: nationalist-republican-Catholic or unionist-loyalist-Protestant.<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Religion is a label of in-group/out-group enmity and vendetta, not necessarily worse than other labels such as skin colour, language or preferred football team, but often available when other labels are not. Yes, of course the troubles in Northern Ireland are political. There really has been economic and political oppression of one group by another, and it goes back centuries. There really are genuine grievances and injustices, and these seem to have little to do with religion; except that - and this is important and widely overlooked - without religion there would be no labels by which to decide whom to oppress and whom to avenge. And the real problem in Northern Ireland is that the labels are inherited down many generations. Catholics, whose parents, grandparents and great-grandparents went to Catholic schools, send their children to Catholic schools. Protestants, whose parents, grandparents and great-grandparents went to Protestant schools, send their children to Protestant schools. The two sets of people have the same skin colour, they speak the same language, they enjoy the same things, but they might as well belong to different species, so deep is the historic divide. And without religion, and religiously segregated education, the divide simply would not be there.|[[Richard Dawkins]], ''[[The God Delusion]]''}}<br />
<br />
[[Chris Hedges]] argues this oversimplifies a complicated situation:<br />
<br />
{{quote|[Dawkins] sees the ethnopoliticial conflict in Northern Ireland, for example, as the fault of religion. The conflict, he assures us, would end if the religious belief of the warring factions evaporated. [...] He does not recognize the difference between a loyalist and a unionist or a nationalist and a republican.<ref>[[Chris Hedges]], ''[[I Don't Believe in Atheists]]''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Evangelical]] religious groups such as ECONI may have had a role in the peace process, by challenging the link between nationalism and religion in the loyalist's [[Calvinist]] Christian views.<ref>[http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionpublicsphere/2017/08/how-evangelical-religion-contributed-to-peace-in-northern-ireland-and-what-we-can-learn-from-it/]</ref><br />
<br />
Until recently, [[abortion]] remained illegal in Northern Ireland, largely due to religious influences. The ban was overturned on human rights grounds.<br />
<br />
==Media==<br />
<br />
The BBC is a publicly owned broadcaster, primarily operating in the UK but also around the world. It produces religious programs which are unpopular among most viewers. <ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2017/04/religious-programming-isnt-popular-and-no-amount-of-hounding-from-the-church-will-change-that Religious programming isn’t popular, and no amount of hounding from the Church will change that]</ref> Radio 4's flagship news program ''Today'' contains a ''Thought for the Day'' segment in which a religious speaker comments on current affairs. The National Secular Society has campaigned to have secular speakers included.<ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/thought-for-the-day.html]</ref><br />
<br />
==Foreign policy==<br />
<br />
* Mark Curtis, [http://markcurtis.info/2015/12/17/britains-collusion-with-radical-islam/ Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam], December 17, 2015<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/05/report-calls-for-public-inquiry-into-gulf-funding-of-british-extremism Report calls for public inquiry into Gulf funding of British extremism], The Guardian, 5 July 2017<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Genesis Expo]] - the largest creation museum in the UK.<br />
* [[C.S. Lewis]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.secularism.org.uk/ National Secular Society]<br />
* [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/05/pastor-who-said-islam-was-doctrine-spawned-in-hell-is-cleared-by-court Pastor who said Islam was 'doctrine spawned in hell' is cleared by court], The Guardian, 5th Jan 2016<br />
* [http://datashine.org.uk/#table=QS208EW&col=QS208EW0009&ramp=RdYlGn&layers=BTTT&zoom=12&lon=-0.1500&lat=51.5200 Map visualisation of religious affiliations in the UK]<br />
* [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/27/tory-messages-christian-values-faith-politics-vote-with-tribes-not-minds These Tory messages show us why faith has no place in politics], The Guardian, 27 March 2016<br />
* [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/08/tom-cruise-east-grinstead-scientology Tom Cruise will feel right at home in East Grinstead, Britain’s strangest town]<br />
* [http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jun/09/more-than-1200-fgm-cases-recorded-across-england-in-three-months More than 1,200 FGM cases recorded across England in three months]<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/15/desert-island-discs-bible-radio-4 The Bible? Not on my desert island, say majority of Britons]<br />
* [http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/06/man-flees-home-after-converting-to-christianity-from-islam-leads-to-attack-6239445/ Man forced to flee his home after converting from Islam to Christianity]<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs Nearly 50% are of no religion – but has UK hit ‘peak secular’?]<br />
* [http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/09/man-and-woman-arrested-after-burning-koran-in-racist-youtube-videos-6697146/ Man and woman arrested after burning Koran in racist]<br />
* [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-40948532 Paganism is 'second most popular' faith in south-west England], BBC, 29th Aug 2017<br />
<br />
[[Category:Countries]]<br />
[[Category:United Kingdom]]</div>TimSChttps://religions.wiki/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=44000United Kingdom2022-11-29T11:13:30Z<p>TimSC: /* On being a Christian nation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{fot2|http://freethoughtreport.com/countries/europe-northern-europe/united-kingdom/|The United Kingdom}}<br />
{{wikipedia|Religion in the United Kingdom}}<br />
<br />
The United Kingdom is state comprises [[England]], Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. It has a number of overseas sovereign territories that are not considered part of the UK itself.<br />
<br />
The Freedom of Thought Report 2014 found that there was "systemic discrimination" [[Discrimination against atheists|against atheists]] in the UK, saying:<br />
<br />
{{quote|This country is found to be in flux. Religion has little unwanted influence over most people in daily life, and the number identifying as non-religious in the most recent census has increased dramatically; however some education reforms in the past few years including in 2014 have increased the influence of religion in schools and removed secular options from some courses. <ref>[http://freethoughtreport.com Freedom of Thought Report 2014]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|There are three striking tends: [...] increase in the number of people with non-religious beliefs and identities [...] general decline in Christian affiliation, belief and practice [...] increased diversity amongst people who have a religious faith <ref name="corab">[https://corablivingwithdifference.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/living-with-difference-community-diversity-and-the-common-good.pdf]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Religious beliefs==<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" id="relgiousaffiliationsstats" style="margin-left:2em; width:30%; font-size:85%;" cellspacing="3"<br />
|+ Religions in Great Britain – BSA 2009<br />
|-<br />
!Religion/Denomination!!Percent<br />%<br />
|-<br />
|[[Irreligion|No religion]]||align="right"|50.7<br />
|-<br />
|[[Church of England]]||align="right"|19.9<br />
|-<br />
|[[Roman Catholic]]||align="right"|8.6<br />
|-<br />
|[[Presbyterian]]/[[Church of Scotland]]||align="right"|2.2<br />
|-<br />
|[[Methodist]]||align="right"|1.3<br />
|-<br />
|Other [[Protestant]]||align="right"|1.2<br />
|-<br />
|Christian (no denomination)||align="right"|9.3<br />
|-<br />
|Other Christian||align="right"|0.4<br />
|-<br />
|[[Muslim]]||align="right"|2.4<br />
|-<br />
|[[Hinduism in the United Kingdom|Hindu]]||align="right"|0.9<br />
|-<br />
|[[Sikh]]||align="right"|0.8<br />
|-<br />
|[[Judaism]]||align="right"|0.4<br />
|-<br />
|Other religions||align="right"|0.3<br />
|-<br />
|Refused / NA||align="right"|0.4<br />
|-<br />
| align="left" colspan="2" style="border-top: 0px solid;<!--<br />
--> border-right: 0px solid; border-bottom: 0px solid;<!--<br />
--> border-left: 0px solid;" |<br />
<br />
Source: British Social Attitudes Surveys 2009.<ref name="BSA 2009 Table">[https://web.archive.org/web/20150109025634/http://www.free-enterprises.co.uk/Religion-Statistics/British-Social-Attitudes/table-1999-2009/]</ref><br />
|}<br />
<br />
==On being a Christian nation==<br />
<br />
The former British prime minister David Cameron has repeatedly claimed Britain [[This is a Christian country|is a Christian country]]:<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|We are a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so|David Cameron <ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16224394]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
However, [[A. C. Grayling]] argued that the nation owes more to the Greeks and Romans:<br />
<br />
{{quote|First, Christianity not only does not have a monopoly on tolerance, kindness, and generosity – these are attitudes of individual human beings of any religion and none – but it has in a bloody and tumultuous past often exhibited the opposite of these characteristics. [...] Second, ‘being Christian’ was enforced on the residents of the British Isles for many centuries, on pain of punishment up to and including death. [...] Thirdly, for most of the time since the seventeenth century, Britain and its growing empire were run by graduates of the ancient universities. The main studies at those universities were the classics. [i.e.] the literature, philosophy and history of classical civilisation – ancient Greece and Rome.<ref>[http://www.acgrayling.com/a-christian-nation]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Also, the UK is one of the least religious countries in the world: in a WIN/Gallup international poll only 30% of people claimed to be religious. <ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/04/survey--uk-is-one-of-the-least-religious-countries-in-the-world Survey: UK is one of the least religious countries in the world]</ref> In England and Wales, people who say they have no religion now are a greater proportion of the population than Christians.<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/23/no-religion-outnumber-christians-england-wales-study]</ref> The 2021 census found that England and Wales were minority Christian countries.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/29/leicester-and-birmingham-are-uk-first-minority-majority-cities-census-reveals England and Wales now minority Christian countries, census reveals]</ref><br />
<br />
The UK government does spend a significant amount of money on upkeep of historical church buildings, which arguably should be the responsibility of the owners. <ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2016/09/church-of-england-or-chancellor-of-the-exchequer-whos-setting-the-agenda]</ref><br />
<br />
==Religion in politics and religion==<br />
<br />
Although the Prime Minister is generally Christian (with exception of Benjamin Disraeli 1874-1880, 1868, being [[Jew]]ish), this is less significant than it might be because religion is often considered a private affair. Former prime minster Tony Blair's communications director Alastair Campbell (an [[atheist]]) famously interrupted an interviewer asking the PM about religion, saying "We don't do God". <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1429109/Campbell-interrupted-Blair-as-he-spoke-of-his-faith-We-dont-do-God.html]</ref> Prime Minister Theresa May is the only daughter of a clergyman:<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|I am a practising member of the Church of England and so forth, that lies behind what I do|Prime Minister Theresa May<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-reveals-how-her-faith-in-god-makes-her-certain-she-is-doing-the-right-thing-a7442616.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
{{wikipedia|Supreme Governor of the Church of England}}<br />
The monarch, currently Elizabeth II, is the head of state and the supreme governor of the [[Church of England]]. The office holder is banned by law from being a [[Catholic]]. Both roles are largely ceremonial. In 2011, a 300 year old ban on the monarch marrying a Catholic was lifted. <ref>[http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/10/31/ban-on-british-monarch-marrying-a-catholic-to-be-lifted/]</ref><br />
<br />
{{wikipedia|Dieu et mon droit}}<br />
The motto that appears on the royal coat of arms (outside of Scotland) is "Dieu et mon droit", meaning "God and my right". This references the supposed [[Divine right of kings|divine right for a monarch to rule]] {{Bible|Romans 13:1-7}}. The motto on the Scottish version is "In My Defens God Me Defend". These crests sometimes appear on government documents and newspaper mastheads.<br />
<br />
==Religious education and school prayer==<br />
{{main article|School prayer}}<br />
<br />
The UK allows religiously affiliated "[[faith schools]]", which allows administrators to select some of their pupil intake by religious affiliation. The UK government is considering removing this limit to allow the entire pupil intake to be selected by religion.<ref name="plans">[http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/10/plans-to-increase-discriminatory-faith-school-admissions-reveals-an-alarming-democratic-deficit]</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|By lifting the 50% cap the Government will be facilitating a proliferation of discriminatory and divisive faith schools. This may well serve the desires of some religious organisations but it fails to serve the needs of the majority of parents and pupils who simply want good schools, rather than religious schools – particularly ones that they will not have fair access to.<ref name="plans"/>}}<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Can [the chair of the Education Select Committee] think of a single reason why the child of an atheist parent like myself should be excluded from a school because of their parents' lack of faith? Does he also share my concern that 100% selection by faith risks driving communities into further segregation and does nothing to improve social cohesion?|Sarah Wollaston MP<ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/11/conservative-mp-criticises-division-caused-by-faith-schools]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
The Trojan Horse schools affair was an alleged incident in which a fundamentalist Islamic group attempted to take over the running of a group of schools in Birmingham. This lead to investigations by local and national government. <ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-28370552]</ref> The reports concluded there was a group that attempted to introduce "aggressive Islamism" and a "conservative religious agenda" into a few schools in Birmingham.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10983109/Trojan-horse-plot-report-disturbing-evidence-of-intolerant-Islamic-ethos.html]</ref><br />
<br />
Non-[[faith schools]] are required by law to have collective daily worship that is "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character". However, most schools are not compliant with this law and calls for its abolition have increased in recent years. <ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/06/religious-teaching-school-assemblies-axe-report Top judge leads calls to scrap mandatory daily Christian worship in UK schools]</ref><br />
<br />
In 2015, the High Court ruled that the government unlawfully excluded atheism from the religious studies GSCE. <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/12015859/Non-religious-views-should-not-have-been-left-out-of-new-GCSE-High-Court-rules.html]</ref> In response, the education secretary said that there is "no obligation for any school to give equal air time to the teaching of religious and non-religious views" and religious education should "reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are, in the main Christian". <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12070607/Schools-must-teach-children-that-Britain-is-a-Christian-country.html]</ref><br />
<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/nov/20/oxfordshire-parents-win-right-to-prayer-free-school-assembly Parents win right to prayer-free alternative to religious assemblies]<br />
<br />
==Hate speech laws==<br />
{{wikipedia|Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom}}<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/26/preacher-found-guilty-after-telling-muslim-she-would-burn-in-hell Preacher found guilty after telling Muslim she would 'burn in hell']<br />
* [http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm Street preacher convicted by magistrates for displaying a sign saying homosexuality is immoral]<br />
<br />
==Sharia courts==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/11/britain-has-turned-a-blind-eye-to-abuse-of-women-by-sharia-courts Britain has “turned a blind eye” to abuse of women by sharia ‘courts’]<br />
<br />
A 2016 statement signed by 300 abused women said [[Sharia]] courts caused great harm:<br />
<br />
{{quote|We know from personal experiences that many religious bodies such as Sharia Councils are presided over by hard line or fundamentalist clerics who are intolerant of the very idea that women should be in control of their own bodies and minds. These clerics claim to be acting according to the word of God: but they are often corrupt, primarily interested in making money and abuse their positions of power by shaming and slandering those of us who reject those aspects of our religions and cultures that we find oppressive. We pay a huge price for not submitting to domestic violence, rape, polygamy and child abuse and other kinds of harm.<ref>[https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/pragna-patel/sharia-debate-who-will-listen-to-us]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Prayer in government meetings==<br />
<br />
Some government meetings have time allocated for prayer as an agenda item. This discriminates against non-Christians and non-theists.<ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/11/its-blasphemy-to-oppose-having-prayers-in-meetings-blasts-councillor]</ref><br />
<br />
{{quote|I propose we keep the prayer and the Mayor can say if anyone doesn't want to take part they can leave. Otherwise we're going to be inundated with these things. I don't agree that Britain isn't a Christian country; that's blasphemy.<ref>[http://www.leek-news.co.uk/meeting-prayers-back-on-agenda/story-29924793-detail/story.html]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Northern Ireland: religion as a sectarian marker?==<br />
{{wikipedia|The Troubles}}<br />
During the Troubles, conflicting groups in Northern Ireland largely defined themselves in political-religious terms: nationalist-republican-Catholic or unionist-loyalist-Protestant.<br />
<br />
{{quote-source|Religion is a label of in-group/out-group enmity and vendetta, not necessarily worse than other labels such as skin colour, language or preferred football team, but often available when other labels are not. Yes, of course the troubles in Northern Ireland are political. There really has been economic and political oppression of one group by another, and it goes back centuries. There really are genuine grievances and injustices, and these seem to have little to do with religion; except that - and this is important and widely overlooked - without religion there would be no labels by which to decide whom to oppress and whom to avenge. And the real problem in Northern Ireland is that the labels are inherited down many generations. Catholics, whose parents, grandparents and great-grandparents went to Catholic schools, send their children to Catholic schools. Protestants, whose parents, grandparents and great-grandparents went to Protestant schools, send their children to Protestant schools. The two sets of people have the same skin colour, they speak the same language, they enjoy the same things, but they might as well belong to different species, so deep is the historic divide. And without religion, and religiously segregated education, the divide simply would not be there.|[[Richard Dawkins]], ''[[The God Delusion]]''}}<br />
<br />
[[Chris Hedges]] argues this oversimplifies a complicated situation:<br />
<br />
{{quote|[Dawkins] sees the ethnopoliticial conflict in Northern Ireland, for example, as the fault of religion. The conflict, he assures us, would end if the religious belief of the warring factions evaporated. [...] He does not recognize the difference between a loyalist and a unionist or a nationalist and a republican.<ref>[[Chris Hedges]], ''[[I Don't Believe in Atheists]]''</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Evangelical]] religious groups such as ECONI may have had a role in the peace process, by challenging the link between nationalism and religion in the loyalist's [[Calvinist]] Christian views.<ref>[http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionpublicsphere/2017/08/how-evangelical-religion-contributed-to-peace-in-northern-ireland-and-what-we-can-learn-from-it/</ref><br />
<br />
Until recently, [[abortion]] remained illegal in Northern Ireland, largely due to religious influences. The ban was overturned on human rights grounds.<br />
<br />
==Media==<br />
<br />
The BBC is a publicly owned broadcaster, primarily operating in the UK but also around the world. It produces religious programs which are unpopular among most viewers. <ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2017/04/religious-programming-isnt-popular-and-no-amount-of-hounding-from-the-church-will-change-that Religious programming isn’t popular, and no amount of hounding from the Church will change that]</ref> Radio 4's flagship news program ''Today'' contains a ''Thought for the Day'' segment in which a religious speaker comments on current affairs. The National Secular Society has campaigned to have secular speakers included.<ref>[http://www.secularism.org.uk/thought-for-the-day.html]</ref><br />
<br />
==Foreign policy==<br />
<br />
* Mark Curtis, [http://markcurtis.info/2015/12/17/britains-collusion-with-radical-islam/ Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam], December 17, 2015<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/05/report-calls-for-public-inquiry-into-gulf-funding-of-british-extremism Report calls for public inquiry into Gulf funding of British extremism], The Guardian, 5 July 2017<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[Genesis Expo]] - the largest creation museum in the UK.<br />
* [[C.S. Lewis]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.secularism.org.uk/ National Secular Society]<br />
* [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/05/pastor-who-said-islam-was-doctrine-spawned-in-hell-is-cleared-by-court Pastor who said Islam was 'doctrine spawned in hell' is cleared by court], The Guardian, 5th Jan 2016<br />
* [http://datashine.org.uk/#table=QS208EW&col=QS208EW0009&ramp=RdYlGn&layers=BTTT&zoom=12&lon=-0.1500&lat=51.5200 Map visualisation of religious affiliations in the UK]<br />
* [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/27/tory-messages-christian-values-faith-politics-vote-with-tribes-not-minds These Tory messages show us why faith has no place in politics], The Guardian, 27 March 2016<br />
* [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/08/tom-cruise-east-grinstead-scientology Tom Cruise will feel right at home in East Grinstead, Britain’s strangest town]<br />
* [http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jun/09/more-than-1200-fgm-cases-recorded-across-england-in-three-months More than 1,200 FGM cases recorded across England in three months]<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/15/desert-island-discs-bible-radio-4 The Bible? Not on my desert island, say majority of Britons]<br />
* [http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/06/man-flees-home-after-converting-to-christianity-from-islam-leads-to-attack-6239445/ Man forced to flee his home after converting from Islam to Christianity]<br />
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs Nearly 50% are of no religion – but has UK hit ‘peak secular’?]<br />
* [http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/09/man-and-woman-arrested-after-burning-koran-in-racist-youtube-videos-6697146/ Man and woman arrested after burning Koran in racist]<br />
* [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-40948532 Paganism is 'second most popular' faith in south-west England], BBC, 29th Aug 2017<br />
<br />
[[Category:Countries]]<br />
[[Category:United Kingdom]]</div>TimSC