Chess Fan, I'm not very hot on the details of events that will mark the end of the current system of things. As I'm sure you know, that there are lots of different views, though, so could you point me towards a website or something which outlines your particular view on things? Ta.

And, for those of you who might not be aware of it, the "Jehovah's Witnesses" and the "Watchtower Society", are *NOT* Christian organizations at all; instead, both the "Jehovah's Witnesses", (and the "Watchtower Society" information that flows out of the "Jehovah's Witnesses" organization), are non-Christian, non-Biblical cults.


Chess Fan

Most parts there is no good explanation. If an organization you trust tells you that this particular Greek word in this context with this ending implies "other", are you going to look it up yourself? The more complex ones just lose people in the muddle especially when one side is making up tenses that simply don't exist.

The 'theos' translation from first chapter of John is quite complex. It was complex enough that the Watchtower even misread Dr. J. Mantey's explanation and thought he was agreeing with them, although if they had kept reading for another page in his book they'd have realized what he was saying (I had the book and checked for myself).

For an example of a somewhat 'straight-forward' translation and how that has been muddled up by those who don't like it, see Ego eimi. Then compare that to the JW's explanation of Ego eimi. Which explanation would you read? If you are one of the very few who would read both, which explanation would you believe? Would you be willing to spend some time really trying to understand both sides points and then double-checking things with original sources yourself...perhaps even teaching yourself some basic Koine Greek so you would know who was telling the truth? Very rare is the person who would do this...and even if you would, what will be the cost to you if you find out you've been wrong?



I think that and the trust they have in their organization is the main explanation. In people everywhere we can see evidence of misplaced trust and a refusal to examine anything that might contradict an already formed opinion. And even when confronted with facts that can't be denied people will still refuse to change their minds....and that is just dealing with relative minor external issues.

How much more difficult would it be for someone to question what they know when that may lead to rejecting everything they've based their life on, and admitting those people you trusted have lied to you? It is one thing to change your mind about a political leader/world-science issue, it is quite another to change your mind about something that would affect your personal relationship with God, your entire belief system and the community in which you've grown up-->reject the Watchtower, you reject your friends, support group, and sometimes even the family...or more accurately, they will reject you if you don't turn from your apostasy. Difficult decisions indeed and I certainly can't blame people if they don't want to examine their beliefs more closely.

Good points all, Ken. I sometimes wonder how I would react if someone came up with truly compelling evidence that Christianity was a load of rubbish. Mind you, what could that compelling evidence be, considering that we're talking about events that happened 2000 years ago?

I think it's more of an issue for people like JWs whose faith is so completely bound up in a human organisation that claims to be the sole gateway to God. I am committed to a church but if some scandal (like deliberate mis-translations of the Bible, say...) were to hit that church then my entire belief system would not come crashing down. I would be surprised and saddened but I would find another church, maybe from my church movement or maybe from another.

A few implosions ago someone posted a bunch of claims that if true provide sufficient evidence for doubting the literal truth of Christianity, or any other religious point of view.

If any religious point of view had a compelling, objective base of evidence this thread wouldn't exist because there would be only one religion. If you do not believe, there is no objective base of evidence that is sufficient to change your mind.

Religious beliefs are based on FAITH, not on evidence. And there is nothing wrong with that.

But these were truly faithful born again Christians. They quite their jobs, sold their homes, and gave everything to their church.

By comparison your faith is pretty weak.

Why should I believe you rather than them?

Do you happen to remember their nature? I like Kevin's implied question about what such evidence would look like. I find that many people really have no idea. For example, it's not uncommon to hear it argued that Christianity (or some other religion) must be false because it shares elements in common with earlier religions. Many certainly do share such elements, but the conclusion that therefore they must be false in no way follows from that premise. This is religion we're discussing, not copyright law.




People do change their minds about this stuff. Granted, many of them who do seem to sort of get "cajoled" out of their positions rather than argued out of them, but people do change their mind for more specific reasons. Even Anthony Flew adopted a form of mild theism a few years back, after years of teaching atheism, so it does happen. That many minds are closed to logical thinking is a true statement, but it's a truth sort of like "Many people have unhealthy eating habits". It's a regrettable truth that can sometimes be countered if we fight against it, rather than something we should just accept as a given.

We should also draw a distinction between

• a) believing without evidence,
• b) believing with evidence but without conclusive evidence,
• c) believing in the face of evidence to the contrary.

People talk about faith as though it were a virtue, but really b) is the only one that can make the claim, I think.

For an example of a), believing with no evidence either for or against, imagine that I've just met you, you tell me that you're off to play in a chess tournament, and, without knowing anything about you, I say "I'm sure you'll win." Is there anything virtuous about that? Maybe indirectly, in the sense that I'm trying to be polite and politeness is a virtue. But is there anything virtuous in thinking you're going to win a tournament when I have no idea how strong a player you are? I don't think so.


Now, let's take b), believing with evidence, but without conclusive evidence. Say that I do know you, know you to be really good. It's the last round, you're in trouble, but I've seen you in equally tough situations many times, and know that you often pull them out. I say "I've got faith that he's going to save this game." Is there anything virtuous in that? Yes, I think you could make that case. I don't have proof positive that you're going to save the game, but I certainly have reason for thinking so. And I'm not ignoring any evidence saying that you won't save it.


Which brings us to c), believing in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. Is there any virtue in that? Nah, I'd call that anti-virtuous, and a form of dishonesty to believe something that you KNOW is wrong.




Nothing wrong per se, as long as you're not actually flying in the face of evidence. Flying in the face of public opinion can be virtuous, but flying in the face of evidence isn't.

There used to be an old joke about a guy in a mental ward who was convinced that he was dead. A doctor tries to argue him out of it. "Would you accept that dead people don't have a pulse?" Yes, he says, he'd agree that dead people don't have a pulse. So the doctor hooks him to a machine, lets him listen to his own heartbeat, and rather than being convinced, the guy says "Sonofagun! So dead people do have a pulse!"

There's nothing virtuous in faith like that. And if there were, if the point of faith were to believe the most outlandish thing imaginable, so as to display the most faith, it would be easier to imagine things much harder to believe than any of the world's major religions. Suppose I said I believed that God existed as a physical object in space, who remained just out of range of our strongest telescopes. Every time the telescopes were improved, he moved that much farther away, and that his prime directive was for everyone to eat more peanut butter. I think believing that would take more "faith" than believing in any major religion. But if I said I believed it, would you congratulate me on my virtue, or would you call the wagon?




Hmmm, actually your faith that there's any chance of getting an honest answer out of Chess Fan to a question like that beats my peanut butter God example hands down. I'm calling the wagon.

Spock, I don't think this is always the case. Are there not people who still believe, in the face of all the evidence, that the earth is flat? And there are certainly many people who believe in young earth creationism as opposed to evolution, despite the fact that evolution is completely accepted by the scientific community as the mechanism by which life on earth has developed.

And some sceptics-turned-Christians have written books about how logical argument played a big part in their conversion [EDIT from 'conversation']. I'm thinking of Frank Morrison, who wrote Who Moved the Stone?, and Alister McGrath, who has written a couple of books in response to the 'New Atheism' of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and others.

I certainly think that many people hold beliefs in spite of the evidence (or at least in the absence of evidence) but some people can be swayed by evidence and logical argument. Although, as I've said here before, I think many more people are converted to Christianity by seeing Christians in community. living out the way of life recorded in the New Testament.

If we assume that Christianity is based on the assumption that there was in fact an actual person "Jesus" who taught and did certain things. Anything that casts doubt on that person's existence is evidence against Christianity. It could be that Jesus said the same thing as someone else, that he borrowed heavily from other traditions. But when we consider the nature of oral traditions and the variety and wealth of borrowed material it certainly points to a hypothetical Jesus representing a composite religious ideal.

If we view Christianity as a way of viewing the world, then the evidence of Jesus' non-existence is irrelevant--we need only a symbolic Jesus. My comments were addressing the former rather than the latter. If you are addressing the latter then we have no disagreement.

You and Petro raise some interesting points but I stand by my original claim, with minor qualification:

If there were a sizable body of empirical, objective evidence associated with a particular religious viewpoint then the overwhelming majority of us would belong to that religion. Religion would be as controversial in the main-stream as plate tectonics or heliocentrism.

Yes there would be fringe groups who deny such things, but 5.9 of 6 billion would have a shared religion.

The rest of what you and petro discuss is largely tangential to my claim. Of course people change their mind because they re-evaluate the limited evidence that exists. Some change their mind because of logic. So what? If we become emotionally uncomfortable with an atheistic point of view we will change our mind based on "the evidence" or "logic" because we want to believe in something greater than ourselves.

Religion is not evidence based in the manner of science. There can be no consensus conclusion based on the evidence. When we decide what (not) to believe we selectively attend to the evidence and logic that supports those conclusions. That's true for both theists and atheists alike.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that many people reject religion in their teen/early adult years only to become religions later on--see CF for example. Religion is, I believe, important to psychological well being of most humans--that explains why every culture on earth has some sort of religious practice. That doesn't mean that there is objective, empirical evidence favoring a particular religious view.