Or perhaps the prophet was psychotic, talked to god, and then lied about what he said. Of all these though I think my number four sounds like the most “rational” explanation. Given what we know about the physical world, man’s incredible imagination, his propensity for psychosis, his capacity for self delusion and the depths of the anxieties involved would you not agree that it seems like the most “rational” explanation?
Here it is again…
Nope, I wouldn’t. There’s zero evidence that prophets in the Bible were psychotic. What you are doing is guessing. You can call it a hypothesis, but you can’t actually test your hypothesis.
So, no, it isn’t any more rational than any other explanation.
They said they talked to God for pete’s sake. Jesus said he “was” God. If anybody pushed that issue today they’d put him in a rubber room and pump him full of Halidol before dumping him half naked on skid row three days later.
Yeah. That’s what you get for being a false prophet. Shoot, Jesus really was God and he got even worse treatment.
OK, bob, although you won’t find me defending RDO’s opinions most of the time, I gotta say:
Foucault and Deleuze both point out the irrationality of using modern-day psychology to try to reverse-analyze the shamen, prophets and nutbars of history. If you tell me that based on the recorded evidence, Gauguin had syphilis (a disease of the body), i’m inclined to agree. However, if you tell me that Moses had a chemical imbalance in the brain, which was the cause of all his visions, I gotta doubt it. Psychology and psychiatry today, as we understand them, are far from exact sciences. I believe that mental illnesses are at least partially socially constructed. I don’t think that if you simply gave Moses lithium he’d become a regular jewish farmer dude.
That’s not to say that he had legitimate visions of the supernatural. It’s only arguing that applying the psychiatric knowledge of the last century to every other century of history will not yield conclusive answers. For Aaron and Moses to toss down their rods and have their rods change into snakes which ate the snakes of pharoah’s priests requires a mass hallucination (assuming the reportage is believeable).
You can’t turn the lens of psychiatry on the bible and get believable answers. It’s not carbon dating.
The rods turned into snakes that ate the snakes of the pharoh’s priests? Sounds like a gay porno on acid. Anyway, what did happen there anyway, and does RDO believe it?
I think the question is:
I concur with RDO that we have no evidence whatsoever to conclude the Biblical authors were insane. To the contrary, insane people do not write cohesive narratives about multiple historical events, explaining in detail names, places, battles, the rise and fall of kingdoms, even the specific genealogies of dozens of families.
But we also lack any credible evidence the Biblical authors were inspired by God. And yet hundreds of millions of people believe they were, to a greater or lesser extent (some believers recognize Biblical errancy, some don’t, etc.). So the question is, on what basis do they believe? The usual answer is “faith.” But faith based on what? A gut feeling? I’m hoping our theist friends will tell us.
The rods turned into snakes that ate the snakes of the pharoh’s priests? Sounds like a gay porno on acid. Anyway, what did happen there anyway, and does RDO believe it?[/quote]
Heh. It was Aaron who threw his staff to the ground, which turned into a serpent. This was meant to demonstrate Yahweh’s power. Pharoah’s magicians did the same thing to demonstrate their own power. Aaron’s serpent ate the others to demonstrate Yahweh’s power over Pharoah’s magicians. It’s symbolic. Get it?
[quote=“lurkky”]OK, bob, although you won’t find me defending RDO’s opinions most of the time, I gotta say:
Foucault and Deleuze both point out the irrationality of using modern-day psychology to try to reverse-analyze the shamen, prophets and nutbars of history. If you tell me that based on the recorded evidence, Gauguin had syphilis (a disease of the body), I’m inclined to agree. However, if you tell me that Moses had a chemical imbalance in the brain, which was the cause of all his visions, I gotta doubt it. Psychology and psychiatry today, as we understand them, are far from exact sciences. I believe that mental illnesses are at least partially socially constructed. I don’t think that if you simply gave Moses lithium he’d become a regular jewish farmer dude.
That’s not to say that he had legitimate visions of the supernatural. It’s only arguing that applying the psychiatric knowledge of the last century to every other century of history will not yield conclusive answers. For Aaron and Moses to toss down their rods and have their rods change into snakes which ate the snakes of pharoah’s priests requires a mass hallucination (assuming the reportage is believeable).
You can’t turn the lens of psychiatry on the bible and get believable answers. It’s not carbon dating.[/quote]
Within our own world there are thousands of shaman, medicine men, practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine, etc. who are of sound minds and would probably not be called “crazy.” Of course, crazy, insane, loony, nutty, are not remotely scientific terms. Medical science abandoned the normal/insane dichotomy a century ago. But then those shamans etc. cannot demonstrate that their “magic” or “medicine” is anymore effective than a standard placebo.
I agree wholeheartedly. My point is not that the shamen of 2000 years ago are somehow more reliable than those of today. My point is that in this day and age, we know what “placebo” means — and use it to distinguish a sugar pill from a pill that ‘actually has an effect.’ For centuries, in a variety of cultures, both doctors and shamen were at a loss to explain why, how and if any given presciption might work. The clear division between ‘western’ and ‘chinese’ medicines is clear to us now: one is tested scientifically, the other ‘backed up anecdotally.’ In THIS day and age, I know why I choose one over the other. But for hundreds of years, medicine required as much ‘blind faith’ as religion does today.
to bring things back to the topic: The reason I’m mentioning this is that I think it was far, far easier for a person living 1,500 or 2,000 years ago to believe in something unprovable, like religion, since so many things in his life (almost all of them) were unprovable. By extension, although our scientific knowledge has only really scratched the surface today, the theist of today finds it necessary to discard things like Revelation as “symbolic” (a foil for other bible books that are presumably “literal” or “almost literal”). The theist of today seems forced to accept many of the religious positions suggested 500 or 1500 years ago, while being fully aware that so many other aspects of that time’s worldview have been completely discarded. It just seems hard, to me, to do that.
Next lurkky question:
If you’re a theist, and you intend to have children, are you going to raise them in the same denomination you have accepted? (Or if you have kids, are you already doing so?) The reason I ask is Mr. Dawkins’ point: few Democrats these days would consider raising their kids as Democrats, or Republicans as Republicans: they tend to think that when the kids grow up, they’ll be able to vote for whoever they respect. That is to say, political affiliation is not inherited, but it seems religious affiliation is by default. What is your opinion on this matter?
You are contradicting yourself. First you say…
Then you say…
Medical science abandoned the normal/insane dichotomy a century ago.Which is it?
Anyway, I am not suggesting that Moses, Jesus or the other prophets were all full time psychos. What I am saying is that they lived in a certain time, with certain irrational belief structures in place, maybe their heads got a little hot one day… one thing lead to another with a bunch of philosophical types adding their analysis, interpretations, exagerations, flat out lies etc. and the next thing you know Bingo! It’s 2007 and here we are on the internet talking about The Bible, snake eating rods, and soon, water turning into wine quite likely. It’s all quite logical, and certainly proof that they were correct in dropping the sane/insane dichotomy a century ago.
[quote=“lurkky”]I agree wholeheartedly. My point is not that the shamen of 2000 years ago are somehow more reliable than those of today. My point is that in this day and age, we know what “placebo” means — and use it to distinguish a sugar pill from a pill that ‘actually has an effect.’ For centuries, in a variety of cultures, both doctors and shamen were at a loss to explain why, how and if any given presciption might work. The clear division between ‘western’ and ‘Chinese’ medicines is clear to us now: one is tested scientifically, the other ‘backed up anecdotally.’ In THIS day and age, I know why I choose one over the other. But for hundreds of years, medicine required as much ‘blind faith’ as religion does today.
to bring things back to the topic: The reason I’m mentioning this is that I think it was far, far easier for a person living 1,500 or 2,000 years ago to believe in something unprovable, like religion, since so many things in his life (almost all of them) were unprovable. By extension, although our scientific knowledge has only really scratched the surface today, the theist of today finds it necessary to discard things like Revelation as “symbolic” (a foil for other bible books that are presumably “literal” or “almost literal”). The theist of today seems forced to accept many of the religious positions suggested 500 or 1500 years ago, while being fully aware that so many other aspects of that time’s worldview have been completely discarded. It just seems hard, to me, to do that.[/quote]
Excellent points.
Dawkins believes that raising a child to be a member of any particular religion, or raising them to be an atheist, is child abuse. I don’t take it that far, but I agree that parents should encourage their children to think for themselves and make rationale decisions. Pretty much every atheist/agnostic I know was raised, to a greater or lesser extent, to be Christian or Jewish, and yet rejected their parents religion when they became adults.
Because there’s a lot of symbols in it.[/quote]
Sure. Dawkins on child abuse is like Dworkin on rape: they make a mockery of any legal definion. You’d have to lock everyone up.
I’m in agreement with you on where most of the atheists/agnostics are coming from, and you can group me into that category. If I may spin off on a tangent temporarily, my mother is a Northern Ireland Catholic: the very idea of separating one’s politics from one’s religion is ridiculous. (or, i hope, was ridiculous).
See, the problem with the childraising analogy is: If you raise your kid to be a democrat and he votes republican, the democratic system worked perfectly. But if you raise your kid to be religious and he rejects it, he’s on a highway to hell (for many theists. I still don’t see how any rejection of hell so far in this thread or the other is any more than a feel-good reaction. Are hitler and the holocaust victims all going to the same heaven? sorry … off topic again).
[quote=“bob”]You are contraditing yourself. First you say…
Then you say…
Medical science abandoned the normal/insane dichotomy a century ago.Which is it?[/quote]
A fair point. I am using the general understanding the term insane. As in, someone who has lost control of his mental faculties. But lurkky referenced two people who apparently believe we should not use modern psychology/psychiatry to analyze past prophets, shamans, etc., and I just felt like noting that modern medicine has long abandoned the idea of the mind as being normal or insane. Applying modern psychology/psychiatry to historical figures would not result in labelling them “insane.” However, it’s undeniable that some people have lost control of themselves, and the fact I can’t name their particular mental illness or illnesses does not change that. But I doubt such people could write coherent books.
Maybe so. But the real question is why modern day believers continue to believe in miracles and such that are alleged to have happened thousands of years ago. Do they read the Bible, and get a “feeling” that it’s the truth? Or is just they want to believe it and we can’t prove it wrong so nana-na-nana. Seems pretty childish to me. Reminds me of a “Calvin and Hobbes” comic strip where Calvin is explaining to Hobbes that he is writing a report on whether the T-Rex was a scavenger who feasted on dead animals that others killed, or a mighty predator who stalked the ancient world in search of his cowering prey. Hobbes asked him which position he’s taking, and Calvin replies, “Oh, the predator of course.” Hobbes asked, “Why do you think the T-Rex was a predator?” Calvin replies, “Because their so much cooler that way.”
I think most Christians take a similar view on God. Some Christian churches preach fire and brimstone, but plenty focus instead on God’s love and compassion. The idea of a supernatural protector looking out for you and keeping your best interests at heart can be very comforting. The church environment itself can be very, very positive, and provide a unique experience that can’t be found anywhere else, at least for most people. And when bad stuff happens -a wife gets cancer, a child falls off a cliff, etc.- people really need to believe the world is something other than the cold cruel place that it is. And the other side of the coin is the fire and brimstome stuff you hear in fundamentalist Churches. This is what philosophers call the “double bind.” Christians want to love and be loved by God, and fear not doing so.
Right. That overly simplistic difference has been rejected by modern medicine, mostly for the bad implications. But it still stands in most democratic legal systems: either you were capable of making decisions, or you weren’t.
Either way, what Deleuze and Foucault were getting at is, what would be called insane today was called prophetic back in the day. The ramblings of people that today would be called madmen were then considered to be the gods speaking through mediums (media?).
One good example is the following one from my favorite author of all time, Petronius, recently repopularized by T. S. Eliot:
“I saw with my own eyes the sybil at Cumae, and I asked her, ‘what do you want, sybil?’ and she replied, ‘I want to die.’”
To the romans (and Mr. Eliot), this statement was full of deeper meaning - a philosophical rumination on immortality. Today, if someone posted an identical sentiment on their myspace page, we’d assume that personal was suicidal, and out of touch with reality.
Anyway, my boring comments here notwithstanding, I’d rather hear theists’ responses to my previous questions.
Only if you love your children. If you want them to burn in hell, you try to get them to reject what you think saves you from hell and have them become homicidal murderers to ensure you get the job done.
Now, if you don’t actually believe in the bonafides of your religion and take it all as allegorical, I can see maybe letting my kid grow up however they want.
Um, ok. Assuming one loves one’s children, but still maintains a somewhat flexible view of christianity, isn’t it possible that the son of a methodist could be raised as nothing in particular and would choose to become an anglican, or whatever? Since you seem to be maintaining that there are many denominational paths to salvation, that wouldn’t imply a lack of love.
And anyway, although I don’t pretend to understand your complete conception of hell / heaven / “the kingdom of heaven,” if there’s no hell, the kid won’t end up in a bad place. Or at the very least, the kid’ll end up in a kind of limbo / purgatory / halfway house: it could be much worse. It could be oblivion.
Yes, a very good question. And I can’t answer for all theists. I can generalize about some theists, and I can answer for myself in particular. I actually did address that early in the “other” thread while discussing the rationality of theism, but didn’t go into much detail since I was focused on atheism rather than theism.
At least 50% of the time, the initial belief in God comes from teaching from parents. The percentage is probably quite higher. Continuing to believe in God is based on experience, confirmation bias, and/or revelation.
Sure. But a Methodist wouldn’t want his/her child to become Mormon or a Buddhist.
Actually, you misinterpreted. I’m only maintaining there are many rational beliefs. Different sects have different beliefs about what does and doesn’t qualify you for salvation.
Would you like your child to have his arm ripped off by a chainsaw? Even if you know later on he’ll eventually go to heaven, you’d still try to prevent him from being mangled by a chainsaw, right? It is necessary to have pain in life to learn and grow, but not all pain is necessary. And a trip to hell certainly isn’t necessary by any Christian standard that I know of.
And again, my beliefs are not orthodox ones.