Pragmatism versus Fact

[Fooloso4]

This topic is fraught with conceptual confusion starting with the title. Pragmatism does not stand in opposition to facts. Evangelical Christianity is a subset of Christianity, and Christianity is a subset of religion. Religion can be defined so narrowly or broadly as to be virtually meaningless. The ‘Bible’ can include or exclude books that other religions or sects or believers exclude. Claims can be made or rejected on the basis of a ‘literal’ interpretation, but there is no general agreement as to what a literal interpretation means. Some people who identify themselves as religious accept miracles but others do not, and some will accept some miracles but not others. Some might accept religion on the basis of miraculous transformational promises which cut across the distinction between claims about miracles and a way of life. Some emphasize what we do but others claim that it is a matter of what is done to us through faith. Some emphasize joy and understanding but others acknowledge a crushing burden and lack of understanding. Some will find in religion a reason to reject small-mindedness but for many religion is synonymous with small-mindedness, even when condemning others for being small-minded for not believing as they do. It is often the case that, with an eye to eternal, unchanging truth, there is a willful, self-imposed ignorance that treats historical studies of the changes within a religion as an attack that attempts to discredit faith; as if whatever it is that they believe is what true believers have always believed even though their beliefs can be shown to have contemporary roots and a long, varied historical genealogy.

[Vijaydevani]

Jesus had a tendency to speak in parables and metaphors his flesh and blood represented something of a mystical significance regarding himself, God and eternal life using bread and wine for symbolic or spiritual value for his followers. Something isn't automatically insane just because you have a hard time understanding it.

Why? why did he speak in parables? why did he not just make himself clear? He was the son of God. Surely he would have anticipated that people would misunderstand and attack the very beliefs he was trying to instill in people if he did not make himself clear. So why did he do it? Why make it so hard to understand that only a few understand what is a parable and what is to be taken literally? What kind of reasoning went into it?

-- Updated August 11th, 2015, 11:41 pm to add the following --

Ignore that. I think I am done. The same things are discussed again and again over and over.

[Wilson]

Wilson, there are a few problems in your argument. First, you seem to assume that religion is nothing more than a "belief system" as you put it. My belief that capitalism is better than communism or my belief that the moon landing was a fraud or that bigfoot exists is not the same as religion. There are many beliefs that frankly do not change my life, that do not make me a better person or give me a reason to live. Secondly, you claim that I am changing my belief system for something that makes me happy even though it may not be true. By adopting a religion, you are not changing any beliefs. If someone says red meat is bad, and I stop eating red meat, have I changed my belief system? Not really since I was eating red meat out of ignorance. Now knowing the truth, I can choose to continue to eat red meat or not. I have simply changed my habits and my discipline. Thus changing my health. You are placing belief systems as more important than how people live their lives. Praying to God maybe more useful to me than knowing that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around or that my neighbor is cooking eggs and bacon as I type this sentence. Do you think that by believing that the earth revolves around the sun, that that makes you smarter, more honest, more humble, more courageous, a harder worker, friendlier, tougher than the rest of us? Because if that is all it takes, sign me up brother.

Nelvan, I was quoting your statement that "A person becomes Muslim, Buddhist, or Christian because it improves their life or outlook on life or instructs on how to live life or what they ought to do." I interpret that as saying that the reason they adopt a religion is that it improves their life or instructs them how to live. Those could indeed be good reasons for some people to become religious, in that they might make the person happier and a better individual. What disturbs me is that the existence of God and the truth of the dogma are ordinarily not investigated in any depth. So many people adopt a particular religion because it gives them peace, without ever wondering if the whole thing is pure fantasy. I lose a little respect for people who do that. I may have great respect for them in other areas, but if people believe something because they want to believe it, rather than because the preponderance of evidence convinces them, I think just slightly less of them. Can't help it.

I couldn't take on a set of beliefs that I thought was b.S. even if they were to my benefit. I have too much self-respect for that. I'm going to believe whatever seems most likely to be true, and I'll do my best to arrive at that belief regardless of if it's good for me or bad for me. I guess I have a scientific bent. A search for truth is important to me.

[Belinda]

The words that are attributed to Jesus are not always Jesus' ethical teaching.

I strongly suspect you're right but how do you decide which are which since he doesn't appear to have actually left anything written.

I guesstimate largely according to what my significant others have taught me. Better historians than I, The Jesus Seminar, have researched and published their findings. I don't know how to turn a reference into a live button but the Jesus Seminar is easily googled.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects ... s-seminar/

[Mark1955]

Better historians than I, The Jesus Seminar, have researched and published their findings. I don't know how to turn a reference into a live button but the Jesus Seminar is easily googled.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects ... s-seminar/

Not very inspiring reading, effectively that most of the gospels are false.

-- Updated 12 Aug 2015 18:53 to add the following --

It doesn't appear clear; I'd like to know what other contemporary documents they read apart form gospels, canonical or not.

[Belinda]

Better historians than I, The Jesus Seminar, have researched and published their findings. I don't know how to turn a reference into a live button but the Jesus Seminar is easily googled.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects ... s-seminar/

Not very inspiring reading, effectively that most of the gospels are false.

-- Updated 12 Aug 2015 18:53 to add the following --

It doesn't appear clear; I'd like to know what other contemporary documents they read apart form gospels, canonical or not.

I did an arts undergraduate course with a 'Gospels' module in it. No big deal, but I was taught a few pointers to how to separate the wheat from the chaff. I forget most of it now, but I bet it's easy to get scholarly information regarding the historicity of Jesus.

Quite difficult but short and from a proper academic address:

http://home.sandiego.edu/~kathrynv/wk13 ... 20Paul.pdf

[Mark1955]

(Nested quote removed.)

Not very inspiring reading, effectively that most of the gospels are false.

-- Updated 12 Aug 2015 18:53 to add the following --

It doesn't appear clear; I'd like to know what other contemporary documents they read apart form gospels, canonical or not.

I did an arts undergraduate course with a 'Gospels' module in it. No big deal, but I was taught a few pointers to how to separate the wheat from the chaff. I forget most of it now, but I bet it's easy to get scholarly information regarding the historicity of Jesus.

I'm not so sure if you want primary data, not second hand - I think because someone else thinks. Assuming anyone wrote about JC in the first 100 years who wasn't one of the team, he would quite possibly have been fairly anti, can't see the Romans or the Judean authorities writing much positive about him.

[Belinda]

Primary sources are best of course, but I don't think there is any archaeology with DNA and almost certainly no primary documents. So we have secondary sources that need careful sifting. The link I posted in my last shows just how careful one should be.

Assuming anyone wrote about JC in the first 100 years who wasn't one of the team, he would quite possibly have been fairly anti, can't see the Romans or the Judean authorities writing much positive about him.

In the link I just posted anti material in The Gospels is one of the criteria for authentic Jesus, although there are limitations.

[Nelvan]

Wilson, I get your point about history, and of course it should be investigated. Those Christians that avoid it is due to their faith resting on shaky ground. I recommend Bart D. Ehrman. You may be familiar with him but if not he is an agnostic (or atheist) historian, expert on Christianity. I have seen two of his lecture series "The Great Courses", one on the New Testament and the other on the history of early Christianity. I have also read his book on whether Jesus existed or not, which he claims he did, and I read a book on his theory how and why Jesus was believed to be God by his followers. Though Ehrman is not a Christian, he still believes that Jesus existed. Many atheists claim that Jesus did not exist at all. That is a big mistake in my opinion. It is one thing to believe that Jesus did not do miracles or rise from the dead but another thing entirely to believe that Jesus did not exist at all. When that is questionable, then most of ancient history is questionable. There seems to be a dismissal of history by some materialists that if it is not about Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and so on, that it is unimportant. Anything other than the life of scientists is looked upon cynically, not just popes, but from kings down to slaves. On the other hand, I see your point. Christians are quite dismissive of Mormonism and Scientology, even ridicule it, though they are very touchy about their own religion. There is certainly a double standard there.