Comment by prewett | Hacker News Reader

Comment by prewett | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> The only possible outcomes were a) missionary, or b) non-Christian.

That seems like an unnecessarily tiny set of possibilities, and pretty much guaranteed from the beginning you were going to choose (b), since "non-Christian" allows a huge flexibility of options, while "missionary" is one specific vocation and chosen only by a small subset of Christians. It's sort of like a person saying he will only stay an American if he's going to be a federal judge otherwise he'll emigrate.

Now, Evangelical thought lends itself to the sort of conclusion you came to: it really only values spiritual activities, so there is not any value for daily life in and of itself. I've heard pastors say "the reason why God doesn't take us to heaven immediately when we're saved is so that we can bring others to Christ" and "there is nothing for you in this world [because the Bible says 'the world is evil']". Which I'm coming to regard as functionally heretical, since there is no balance at all, certainly no celebration that the world God made is good and very good, and functionally limits you to careers of evangelist or pastor.

The larger history of Christian thought is more robust, though. Consider Paul: "make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: you should mind your own business and work with your hands" (1 Thess 4:11, emphasis added) Or Tim Keller on work: your work is your gift to the people around you; by extension, your work is bringing God's gift to the people you interact with. ("Gift" here not meaning you don't get paid; there was a great barbecue place where I lived, and it was a gift to me to have fantastic barbecue, but I can assure you that it was not cheap)

For me, the truth of Christianity always rested on its objective historical truth claims, especially the resurrection. And for many years I believed these truth claims had sufficient evidence going for them.

But then I was hoping to find evidence that would convince a rational non-believer, so I looked closer. I found out that Adam and Eve didn't exist, the flood didn't happen, the exodus didn't happen, Daniel was written much later than it claims to be, the slaughter of the innocents in Matthew didn't happen, and the founding miracles of Christianity aren't that different from other religions of that time and place. I started giving the benefit of the doubt to skeptics instead of Christian apologists. It became impossible to make the leap that, despite all these issues, the bodily resurrection of Jesus was nevertheless historical.

I never wanted to lose my faith, but once I saw that its historical truth claims didn't hold up to scrutiny, it just kind of crumbled.

I understand that others have a different standard of proof for these miracles than I do. Plenty of people I've talked to over the years have said that looking for evidence is foolish, but I find that ridiculous: if Christianity doesn't have enough of a foothold in reality that we can find evidence for its unique claims, then why should we think it's true? If I should "just have faith", why is it Christianity that I should just have faith in?

I also understand that there are other ways of being Christian that don't depend on any of the miracles in the Bible being historical. But that never made any sense to me either: if we're dismissing huge swaths of the Bible because "we know better," how is what's left not just the religion we've made up? What would be the point of that?

I agree that dismissing large swaths of the Bible makes the whole thing pointless. But what if the Bible, especially the Old Testament, was never the modern-style historical catalog of events that Evangelicals assume it is? The most recent pieces were written two millenia ago, and people had a very different idea of what a history was supposed to do. The Old Testament is even older, and as far as I can tell it is the collection of Israel's understanding of what happened to them, who they think God is, and what they think God wants of them. So the truth claims are about who man is and who God is, not "these are the events exactly as they happened". George Washington didn't cut down the cherry tree, but the point of the story is that he was truthful, which is historically attested to. So is the story wrong? Yes, the events never happened, but no, it is correct about Washington's character.

Gen 1-11 (Adam and Eve, the flood) should be read in the context of the mythology of the other nations. [1] Most creation myths had the gods create man to serve the gods, and they got too noisy, so they wiped them out with a flood, except one of the gods saved one family. In contrast, Yahweh creates people in his image, and it is our disobedience that leads to the flood. Whether or not there was a flood is not really the point--everyone at the time assumed there had to have been a flood, because you find fossils of sea creatures on the tops of mountains. (And perhaps more relevant is that God separated the waters of Chaos to make an orderly creation, and our sin almost resulted in the undoing of creation but for the faithfulness of Noah.)

Ultimately the only historical claim that Christianity really rests on is the resurrection. We know there was a guy named Yeshua from both Josephus and references in the Talmud, and they fit the general picture of the Gospels (keeping in mind that the authors of the Talmud were obviously not favorable to him). Beyond that we don't have much history. I've always found C.S. Lewis' argument persuasive: a first-century Jew would not think to claim that they are God yet Jesus did, and his twelve followers maintain that assertion in the face of death. Nobody could produce a body, even though it would be in the disciples' self-interest to. Either Paul or Luke claims there are 400 people that saw Jesus after the resurrection, with the strong implication of "go talk to them if you don't believe me".

I've also found the argument of a psychologist I met persuasive as I've gotten older: each of us has some minimum standard of behavior which we require of ourselves yet fail to meet, and at some level we are not okay with it and feel guilty. That's rather odd. C.S Lewis' argument about beauty (beauty serves no utilitarian purpose; there's no reason the world need to be beautiful--indeed, American suburbs are not--yet it is beautiful. That's odd.) I think the one of the strongest arguments is that the Bible's description of human nature is pretty accurate.

But generally all we get is a bunch of places where having no God creates problems with the model, and if God does exist, it resolves the problem. Of course, the reverse is true, and so you find the Bible dealing with those (why evil in Job, Psalms, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, for instance). I'm still in the process of resolving these questions myself, but I think the question in this stage is "do I want to follow God/Jesus if he does exist with the character described in the Bible?" God might not exist, in which case I will be heartbroken, not only because I want that God, but also because the only other option is meaningless. The atheism of the twentieth century offers a grim warning of this path: you can see it in art, where a toilet was a poignant piece; you can see it in the destruction wrought by atheistic Communism which destroys beauty and killed more people than WWII; you can see it in our own society right now, with elites finding meaning in activism, which has to be ever more extreme in order to still have something to change. If Christ was resurrected there is beauty, there is redemption of man to God and man to man, there is purpose in life. Some days I'm not sure if the evidence favors God, but fortunately Christianity is based on more than just historical claims from projecting a modern expectation onto an ancient text.

[1] I recommend Understanding Genesis by Nahum Sarna (written from a Jewish perspective). There's a summary at http://geoffprewett.com/BookReviews/UnderstandingGenesis.htm...

I appreciate the time and effort you put into this response. I'm afraid we still don't see eye to eye, but that's ok. My goal isn't to try to influence you, I'm also writing for my own benefit -- in some ways I'm still working through my own worldview.

> The most recent pieces were written two millenia ago, and people had a very different idea of what a history was supposed to do.

Yet there were contemporary Roman historians who had a rather modern idea of what history was supposed to do.

> Gen 1-11 (Adam and Eve, the flood) should be read in the context of the mythology of the other nations.

Yet Paul treats Adam's existence as a key theological fact in Romans 5:11-21. His argument doesn't make sense if Adam didn't really exist. Do we know better than Paul? If so, what else is Paul wrong about?

I much prefer C.S. Lewis's brand of Christianity, but I remember being bothered by the fact that he doesn't seem to take the Bible that seriously, and his arguments from aesthetics never carried much weight for me. His view that an individual is either in harmony with God and is set free, or is in stubborn rebellion against God and in slavery, doesn't mirror reality: atheists aren't rebelling against God any more than a Christian is rebelling against Thor.

> I think the one of the strongest arguments is that the Bible's description of human nature is pretty accurate.

Have you looked at descriptions of human nature in other religions? Buddhism and Taoism in particular seem to have a lock on the ups and downs of being human. Yet what Christian would take that as evidence for their supernatural truth claims?

> The atheism of the twentieth century

But there isn't a single atheism of the twentieth century. Stalin and Sartre were both atheists, but their values couldn't have been more different. This is where words like "humanism" are helpful. I've certainly met plenty of atheists who are wonderful, genuine, fulfilled people.

You make some really fantastic points here.

> His argument doesn't make sense if Adam didn't really exist.

I think you are completely correct. CS Lewis provides and extensive set of thoughts about paradisal man in 'The Problem of Pain'. He does this in a way that incorporates an understanding that man evolved from lower common ancestors while attempting a faithful, albeit not literalistic view of the story of the garden. You may or may not have read those chapters, but either way do you think that a possible reconciliation along these lines can exist?

More concretely Pope Pius XII lays out just such a reconciliation in the encyclical Humane Generis that asserts two points: (1) The theory of evolution should be taken seriously and there is strong evidence that human beings evolved from a common ancestors with the apes and (2) The story of Adam and Eve is a story about a real event, although the language expressing the truth of the event should not be interpreted strictly literally.

If you're still on the thread I would be curious to get your thoughts.

Yeah, I'm similiarly working through my worldview, which at the moment involves exploring a Bible that is true but need not be literally true. One nice resource is http://thetorah.com, which are essays by orthodox (and Orthodox) academic Jews discussing Judaism and biblical interpretation in light of current historical understanding. They are solid academics and faithful Jews, so it is a good example of the synthesis.

> Yet there were contemporary Roman historians who had a rather modern idea of what history was supposed to do.

I'm not sure that is true, although I haven't read any Roman historians. My understanding is that ancient histories were written to fit a theme. I think that Gospels are pretty factual, but in the introduction to Luke the author specifically states his purpose: "that you may know the certainty of the things you were taught" (Luke 1:4). Presumably accurate facts are indispensable to this end, but the point is not "this are the events of Jesus and possibly how socio-political events shaped them" like a modern history of, say, Rome or Venice would be. I think Polybius and Josephus are regarded as fairly accurate, but I think Polybius was trying to figure out why the Romans were successful, and Josephus had an agenda of making Romans (or certain Romans) look good. But I think Tacitus simply made up German-barbarian characteristics without even ever travelling to Germany, since his goal was to comment on Rome's decadence. [1] Although my point was more towards the Old Testament, which was written/edited/collated five hundred years earlier and modern detached analytical objectivity-as-far-as-possible was not their goal.

> [Adam, Romans 5]

Personally, I've never thought Paul's argument made any sense even with a historical Adam... I've never thought that the Catholic argument for original sin, being transmitted through Adam made any sense, either. I thought I've read somewhere that Paul saw Adam as representational, but I have no idea how I'd find that. Certainly Paul is happy to symbolize: in Gal 4:24 he says that we can take Hagar and Sarah symbolically, representing two different convenants. If Gen 1 is of the myth genre, then Adam representing humanity makes sense. It's always been my view that regardless of the existence of Adam, each of us has made the same choice and willfully sinned, so in that sense each of as is Adam, and Gen1-Adam "represents" each of us. (I'm not sure that's an orthodox argument, though) I guess I don't see Paul being wrong about events before recorded history as a problem, though. He's making a point about who Jesus is, not an archaeological assessment, although his archaeology reflects the Jewish consensus of his day.

> C.S. Lewis

I've always thought C.S. Lewis had a high view of the Bible, so I curious where you felt he didn't take it seriously. Was it from _Mere Christianity_ where he more or less says that Gen 1 - 11 is of the myth genre? He was a literature professor, so it seems like he's likely to have a quality opinion.

> atheists aren't rebelling against God any more than a Christian is rebelling against Thor

I think Lewis would disagree with you. Lewis was Anglican, so if NT Wright is representational of (orthodox) Anglican thought, God created a temple on earth (the garden, can't remember why this is a temple) where the image of the deity is humanity. We were to be co-creators and be his partners in finishing creation, but we rebelled. Christ fixed that problem, so the co-creation project is back on track. Atheists, by definition, are not co-creating with God, they are doing their independent thing. Elsewhere I think Lewis sees independence as essentially rebellion; imagine if, say, the southern States decided to ignore the government in Washington. Last time that happened, the government considered it rebellion.

(This gets complicated, though, since I don't think American Christians are on board either. And I expect that some non-Christians are acting more onboard than some Christians. I'm not convinced that simply "praying the prayer" gets you into heaven, but Jesus said we don't have the information to judge someone's salvation, only the fruit that we see. But given that Jesus expects to say to some people doing miracles for him "depart, I never knew you", I think that if there is a Last Judgment, a lot of people are going to be in for a surprise, in both directions. Kind of like the Calormene guy in Lewis' _The Last Battle_)

> Buddhism, Taoism

I have read some about both. A friend gave me a great book _Why you are NOT a Buddhist_, which is really clear. The author had really good insights about American (Western?) culture, too, some of the best I've seen. I think he wrote it to disabuse Americans who consider themselves Buddhist because they slap some meditation into their lives. As I understand Buddhism, it's essentially that life is pain and we can escape into nirvana-nothingness (except nirvana is beyond concepts) by realizing that everything is impermanent and detaching from our desires. (I'm sure this is a gross simplication) I think Buddhism is a rational choice if there is no possibility of our desires being fulfilled. But if Christ has reconciled all things, death is vanquished, earth will be recreated/restored, evil will be banished, I'll take that route if it's viable. Besides, I'm not convinced that we can really get rid of our deep desires; and if they are there because God put them there, we won't be able to.

I'm not really sure what Taoism says, beyond life is ambiguous and you need to flow with the inherent tensions (if that is even right). The book _Taoism_ by Holmes Welch is a brilliant analysis of Lao Zi's work, and goes into several levels of interpretation, which are insightful, and end up concluding that one of Lao Zi's goals was the instruction of a method of mystical experiences. Unfortunately I have completely forgotten all the details. It didn't seem relevant, though.

Obviously Christianity has no monopoly on insight into human nature and how to live. But as far as I can tell, Buddhism is escape-from-the-world, but I'd rather co-create with God. To be fair, American Evangelicals are largely escape-from-the-world as well. Anyway, my original argument was for the truth of Christianity, and I think it offers more truth about human nature than Buddhism. It certainly offers a better future, if it's true.

[1] https://acoup.blog/2020/02/07/collections-the-fremen-mirage-...

One interesting book I read on this topic was Discovering God by Rodney Stark. The author discusses the development of other early religions and compares Christianity to other current religions. It's one of the most logical books I've read on the topic.

As a passionate atheist, it was quite interesting to listen to the "no dumb question" podcast - a pretty down to earth priest (Matt Whitman) just chatting casually with a renowned engineer (Destin from "smarter every day").

The questions of faith and christianity often come up, but the most interesting episode for me was the one when Matt was telling about his travels to Jerusalem and how different the American version of christianity felt compared to the one practiced in the holly lands.

It's better to listen to it yourself of course but in brief his idea was that the closer you are to the "source" of christianity the more its old school, filled with pegan beliefs and the need for divine objects, miracles etc - concrete manifestations of the religion itself. And further out its more abstract - like your personal belief and values that don't depend on anything specific.

It was fascinating to me to discover how different and "realistic" christian faith in US can be, as it seems it has distilled the essence of the value system itself, shedding away the pageantry and mysticism and other unnecessary trappings, making it a lot stronger to my mind in the process. By this point I could easily see myself following the commandments and values, while not having a shred of faith in the religion itself, since they are quite nice and consistent system.

It's just a model to interpret and react to the world around us, and as the saying goes - all models are flawed and imprecise, some models are useful.

Thanks, that sounds like an interesting conversation and I'll check it out.

Btw, not sure if you were aware but Destin is a Christian. He's a great guy who does cool stuff.

> By this point I could easily see myself following the commandments and values, while not having a shred of faith in the religion itself, since they are quite nice and consistent system.

If you're looking for a turnkey solution for a community of good people with good values, you could do a lot worse than certain kinds of Christianity. It's definitely been a struggle for me to find a similar community that isn't built around faith, but that's important for me because of my own journey.

Its more about shared passion than shared values, but Social latin dances (salsa/bachata/kizomba) has allowed me to easily connect with so many people in the far corners of the earth.

Since all of you have soo much invested in training for the dance people usually have a lot of respect with one another, and people also come from so many diverse backgrounds its quite interesting to listen to everyone’s stories.

You could end up with carpenters, government security experts, philosophy professors, yoga instructors and regular ol IT guys like me all hanging around at a single table, everyone sharing their opinions in a non judgmental way, quite magical I must admit.

It's like the Evangelicals forgot Luther's doctrine of vocation.

https://credomag.com/article/martin-luther-and-the-doctrine-...

Thank you so much for your response. Christianity is so often misrepresented in HN / Reddit that it’s ridiculous how often it’s forced into false dichotomies. Your references in the last paragraph were exactly in line of what I was going to link.

I think though also we should be careful to judge things as heretical. It’s always been a dangerous word, and it’s unlikely that any one person or group of people are capable of fully grasping a religion or even God himself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com