Ask a Theologian IV

[Plotinus]

Do you think that there might have been two Jesuses who lived roughly at the same time in Israel - One who was a prophet and one who was crucified for a crime and then rose from the dead? Both were remembered and the two stories merged when all the witnesses were dead. Is that plausible with the historical data?

I think that if two people are significant enough to be remembered for decades after their death, they're significant enough not to be confused like that, at least not by their own followers.

I can't imagine any reason why the scenario you suggest would be more likely than the much more plausible one that there was only one (relevant) Jesus. If you're going to accept that there existed a Jesus who was crucified and rose from the dead I don't see why it would be such a great stretch of the imagination to suppose that he was also a prophet.

That seems to be what I've noticed too. The ESV is very popular among the various evangelicals I know. What do you think of the ESV as a translation?

I really don't know it at all, but if it's based on the RSV then I imagine it to be decent, since the RSV (or its derivations) is the most standard scholarly translation.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

ESV is a decent formal equivalence translation which is vastly superior to the dynamic equivalence paraphrases like NIV. In many regards ESV is much better than KJV or NKJV too, but I find it really irritating that it uses the term "hell" to refer to both Hades and Gehenna.

 

[-Perceval-]

Ok i got a question, today the religion get less and less influence, first i was thinking that it was cause of the biggest influence of rationnality and science.

But why does horoscopes, amulets, soothayer(by phone) get more and more sucess and influence? Why does people who get no religion but who believe only in rationnality and science get so influenced by these stupid things that just SPAMMED ALL THE TIME ON TV, MAGAZINE AND RADIO?

 

[Plotinus]

Because people aren't rational. Or more accurately, people are no more rational than they ever were. The kind of people who today reject reason on rational grounds aren't new. In the past, these same people would have practised rational versions of religion. In early modern times they would have been latitudinarians or deists or whatever. In medieval times they would have been philosophers. Today they're atheists. But the underlying rationality is no different. So don't take the decline of religion (in some countries) to mean society is more rational - it just means that rationality is expressed in different ways. So too is irrationality.

Plus, it's not necessarily the case that believing in your horoscope or a psychic or a medium or whatever is irrational. It's quite possible that at least some people have rational reasons for believing them. I doubt that most do, though.

 

[civ2]

Ok i got a question, today the religion get less and less influence, first i was thinking that it was cause of the biggest influence of rationnality and science.

But why does horoscopes, amulets, soothayer(by phone) get more and more sucess and influence? Why does people who get no religion but who believe only in rationnality and science get so influenced by these stupid things that just SPAMMED ALL THE TIME ON TV, MAGAZINE AND RADIO?

Wanna know MY answer???
Cause belief in G-d is more rational than superstitions - and people nowadays are LESS rational.
They just pretend to be such.
It's not more rational to believe a billion/million-old long theory than to believe in creation.
But they claim that one is more rational than another.
It's NOT.
In both cases you believe in something:
1. You can nor could ever witness any of those yourself.
2. There are personal proofs (of totally different kinds, yet there are) for both theories.
3. Yet NONE of those proofs are objective (subjectiveness is different, yet exists in both cases).
4. People believe what they choose - OK, just don't call it FACTS.

I'm sure I'll get attacked by saying "science is subjective".
But that's PART of its subjectiveness, as well as religion's.
People must search themselves to find the truth - and it might take a lifetime for some.

You know what?
WHATEVER...

 

[Plotinus]

Wanna know MY answer???
Cause belief in G-d is more rational than superstitions - and people nowadays are LESS rational.
They just pretend to be such.
It's not more rational to believe a billion/million-old long theory than to believe in creation.
But they claim that one is more rational than another.
It's NOT.
In both cases you believe in something:
1. You can nor could ever witness any of those yourself.
2. There are personal proofs (of totally different kinds, yet there are) for both theories.
3. Yet NONE of those proofs are objective (subjectiveness is different, yet exists in both cases).
4. People believe what they choose - OK, just don't call it FACTS.

You left out evidence. You are right that there is no objective proof for the claim that the universe is billions of years old. But there is overwhelming evidence that it is. The evidence that the universe is created is much thinner. I won't say that there is none at all, but I don't think there is much.

That is why you can't realistically compare the two beliefs, as far as rationality goes. I agree with you that a person may have good reasons for believing in a Creator and that such reasons may be quite rational. I take it that this what you mean by "personal proofs" - for example, an individual's religious experience. However, the objective evidence for the existence of such a Creator is poor. One cannot say this for the scientific claims you mention. That is why, overall, it is more rational to believe that the universe is billions of years old than it is to believe that it was created, because the former claim is supported by evidence to an extent that the latter is not.

As for the claim that people are less rational than they used to be, I see no evidence for that at all. I think that whenever people make sweeping claims about people today compared to those in the past - whether it is that they are more rational or less rational, or more moral or less moral, or less respectful to their elders or more idealistic or whatever it is, that is just a sign that they don't really know what people used to be like. People don't change - they're always just people.

 

[Jehoshua]

Thing is rationality in itself is subjective. What is rational for one, is irrational to another even looking at objective evidence. Two people looking at the same data, or hearing word of anothers observations or theories may come to two very different conclusions.

An atheist and a theist looking at the big bang theory for example could both accept that it is plausible, supported by observable evidence and yet still disagree quite extensively over what caused the big bang and the origination of the universe to begin with. Its really a question of individuals coming to different conclusions in regards to the same objective reality with their own subjective rationalities.

 

[Kyriakos]

In my view the issue of a god existing is being pursued in a fundamentally wrong way. Plotinus may be aware of analogous claims by philosophers and theologians of old. My opinion is that one has to first make clear what he means by a god, so that there is some hope of agreeing on a common terminology, for most people have different ideas of this term.
Also one should note that "when you ask and the answer does not come immediately, it means that there is no answer" (Kafka on internal questions), by which i meant to point out that there is a wealth of knowledge to be gained by examining what each person senses as the notion of a deity.
Surely no matter if a deity (whatever that is) exists, the notion of one does indeed exist, and therefore it seems more logical to begin one's quest by examining the object which definitely has some existence, and not something else which may be nonexistent.

 

[civ2]

Plotinus
The can't be evidence of something outside the scope of this world (aka G-d).
Therefore, automatically there is more evidence (or, as alternative, lack of any at all) for the idea that is based on the inter-system reality (regardless how right or wrong the idea is).
There is evidence that universe LOOKS old.
There is no evidence what REALLY happened.
And if you add to this the inability to witness ANYTHING that would prove either idea - you're STUCK with belief and belief ONLY.
You can't PROVE the "Beginning of the world".
That's why it's subjective.
About people - ok, whatever.
Wasn't really meaning it either way.
I actually said this, cause I think nowadays people do more crazy things (drugs and other nonsenses) that they did before.
Even if I'm wrong - no connection to the rationality issue.

Jehoshua
Exactly my point:
One sees the process of creation, another sees just a physical anomaly.
Or to make it even stronger, one says "G-d made this BANG", another says "It just happened itself".
You know what???
You can actually apply these quotes to EVERY event in our EVERYDAY LIFE.
For an atheist - it's nature.
For a believer - it's miracle.
Cause from the believer's point, the difference between "nature" and "miracle" is only in how often it happens - but BOTH are being made by G-d, and G-d ONLY.

Kyriakos
For the future note:
When I say G-d, I always mean (all points TOGETHER):
1. Creator and constant sustainer of this (and other) world(s).
2. Infinite, limitless, unlimited, all-in-one-yet-only-One...
3. All-powerful, all-able, all-knowing, all-good, all-EVERYTHING...
4. Gave people instructions how to live, for THEIR sake, cause He doesn't need anything, see 2/3.
5. There doesn't exist ANYTHING outside G-d, contrary to what WE feel and think.
6. Extending 5. - G-d is the only TRUE existence, cause all other things are part of Him AND exist only due to Him, not so He Himself, see 2/3/4.
Etc.

 

[Kyriakos]

Kyriakos
For the future note:
When I say G-d, I always mean (all points TOGETHER):
1. Creator and constant sustainer of this (and other) world(s).
2. Infinite, limitless, unlimited, all-in-one-yet-only-One...
3. All-powerful, all-able, all-knowing, all-good, all-EVERYTHING...
4. Gave people instructions how to live, for THEIR sake, cause He doesn't need anything, see 2/3.
5. There doesn't exist ANYTHING outside G-d, contrary to what WE feel and think.
6. Extending 5. - G-d is the only TRUE existence, cause all other things are part of Him AND exist only due to Him, not so He Himself, see 2/3/4.
Etc.

Ok, but if you define god as all that then in a sense you are limiting what god is or can be. Any definition inevitably is placing limits on what you are searching for, and moreover not all people would agree with all the points you mentioned or at least there is no reason to claim all would see it that way.
My own suggestion was not to define elements of god's abilities, but seek what the idea of god actually is; why it exists by itself, is it innate or developed and attributable in some way to our past experience as a species?
This is a vast question. Maybe the very idea of god goes back to animistic existence, but not further back, ie back into the cosmos.

 

[civ2]

Kyriakos
Funny that a guy with a GREEK nick asks this question.
I'll answer by going deeper in the history of one Jewish holiday, Chanukah.
The main plot is:
1. Israel was under Greek rule.
2. They were oppressing Jews.
3. Jews rebelled.
4. Then miraculously won (way much smaller villager army vs professional warriors).
5. Then freed the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (I hope you know, there ever was only ONE Temple, though built twice, unlike synagogues that are multitude).
6. Then the actual "holiday miracle" happened - and HERE lies the answer to your question.
7. The miracle was that the Jews found a SINGLE jar of spiritually-pure oil (basically, untouched by Greeks).
8. It was enough to burn for only ONE day, yet the miracle was that it burned for EIGHT.
(Until they made new oil to continue the lighting of the Menorah - the Jewish Temple candelabrum.)

NOW, let's go DEEPER.
The commentaries say:
1. Greeks weren't really against Jews PHYSICALLY (unlike NAZIS).
2. They were totally against JUDAISM.
3. But they based in on "cultural reasons" - you can learn your Torah as much as you want...
4. ...just say it's NOT HOLY, not G-d-GIVEN..!!! It's just "Jewish CULTURE".
5. This was the difference between Greeks and Jews - for Jews, G-d was REAL, not just "cultural".
6. And therefore the Jews rebelled. They couldn't "demote" G-d to just "culture", it was unspeakable.
7. And the miracle was of the adequate type - supernatural, to show that the REALITY is supernatural, it's G-d.
8. More over, the EIGHT days is a symbol of miraculous. SEVEN are the days of the WEEK, it's "NATURE". EIGHT, though, is above it, the "SUPERNATURAL", G-dly.
BTW, one of the reasons the circumcision takes place on the EIGHT day, is cause it's the SUPERNATURAL bond between a Jew and G-d, not limited nor connected to "Mr. All-Knowing INTELLECT".

And back to your question.
For Jews, G-d IS the REALITY, G-d IS everything and BEYOND.
I wasn't limiting G-d - I was using closest HUMAN terms to "describe" what G-d should be TO US, not TO HIMSELF.
G-d doesn't need us, He created and constantly recreates the world just that WE could search for Him - and FIND!
Sorry for such long post.
Hope it was of any help.

 

[Jehoshua]

Thing is Kyriakos for one who believes, fundamentally in his soul, in God, God is not some hypothetical idea, some intellectual proposition to ponder over but truly a present vivifying reality. This is something that is exceedingly difficult for an atheist or someone for whom religion is just a cultural thing to understand intrinsically.

 

[Kyriakos]

Maybe so, but i think it does not overrule my position, namely that nomatter how you sense god, with whatever intellectual, spiritual, sensory, emotional charge you feel that term, still the point is that you feel something. That something is indeed real, and it does not matter if a deity is real or not, for the idea of a deity exists, even in atheists ( i am agnostic btw).

Kyriakos
Funny that a guy with a GREEK nick asks this question.

Not only do i have a greek nickname, it is my real name, and it means "Lordian"

 

[Jehoshua]

ah, but God is not some idea that gains power purely through the fact man acts on it or acknowledges his presence, He simply is!

 

[Kyriakos]

ah, but God is not some idea that gains power purely through the fact man acts on it or acknowledges his presence, He simply is!

Ok, but for something to BE it has to presuppose an observer of it. I mean god could exist and you would not be there to observe god, thus for you it would not be there in some way, eg physically. But the term exist [yparcho in greek, which seems to mean "starting/ruling/existing under something" since yp means under (the power of) and archo is to rule or to begin] signifies always something that notes said existence. It is of course a religious saying that god exists by itself, or is all existence, but this alters the object that is god, since effectively it grants it particular characteristics. Surely not all theists ever believed that god is everything.

 

[civ2]

Kyriakos
With all positive notions towards you and any other person, Greeks or not (cause we're talking about philosophy here, not personal issues).
The clash of Judaism vs Greekism.

 

[Plotinus]

Thing is rationality in itself is subjective. What is rational for one, is irrational to another even looking at objective evidence. Two people looking at the same data, or hearing word of anothers observations or theories may come to two very different conclusions.

An atheist and a theist looking at the big bang theory for example could both accept that it is plausible, supported by observable evidence and yet still disagree quite extensively over what caused the big bang and the origination of the universe to begin with. Its really a question of individuals coming to different conclusions in regards to the same objective reality with their own subjective rationalities.

I'm not so sure that rationality is subjective. Certainly two people may disagree about what is rational, but that doesn't mean they're both right; there can be a fact of the matter. And in your example of the atheist and the theist disagreeing about what caused the Big Bang, I don't see why they must disagree about rationality. It's perfectly possible that they could both think that the claim that God caused the Big Bang is a rational one, but that they disagree over its truth. Truth and rationality are not the same thing. It's quite possible to think that somebody else believes something rationally but erroneously, although you might not think it from the state of public discourse.

Personally, I would say that if someone believes something on the basis of their own experience - that is, they believe it because their experience suggests that it is true - then that belief is or could plausibly be rational. And I would say that if someone believes something because the evidence appears to support it, then that belief is also rational. I would say that these are objective standards, and in fact I don't see how anyone could reasonably deny the second criterion, i.e. the fact that a belief that is based upon what the evidence appears to support is a rational belief (irrespective of whether it is true).

Plotinus
The can't be evidence of something outside the scope of this world (aka G-d).
Therefore, automatically there is more evidence (or, as alternative, lack of any at all) for the idea that is based on the inter-system reality (regardless how right or wrong the idea is).

Of course there can be evidence of something outside the universe, as long as that thing interacts in some way with the universe. You say yourself in your definition of God:

"Gave people instructions how to live, for THEIR sake..."

If it's part of your definition of God that he gave instructions, then the existence of those instructions would be evidence for God. If there is good reason to suppose that the existence of those instructions is best explained by saying that God gave them, then that would be even better evidence.

You also said as part of your definition of God:

"G-d is the only TRUE existence, cause all other things are part of Him AND exist only due to Him..."

And that is inconsistent with the claim that God is wholly outside the scope of the world. On the contrary, if you really think this, then you are at least a panentheist and you think that although God transcends the physical universe he is not really distinct from it. In which case, if we are all parts of God, I don't see why there couldn't be evidence for this.

There is evidence that universe LOOKS old.
There is no evidence what REALLY happened.

The fact that the universe looks old is evidence that it is old. It doesn't prove that it is really old, of course. There are alternative explanations for the aged appearance of the universe. But it is certainly evidence for the hypothesis that the universe actually is old. And, further, I would say that this is the hypothesis that best explains it.

In general, if something appears X, then this is evidence that it is X.

And if you add to this the inability to witness ANYTHING that would prove either idea - you're STUCK with belief and belief ONLY.

Yes, but that would apply even if you could witness these things. We can never have perfect certainty about any contingent fact, whether we see it or not; our eyes could be deceiving us. However, although all we have is belief, belief comes in different degrees of rationality. While belief in God may be rational, belief in the antiquity of the universe is more rational because it is better supported by the evidence. The fact that it nevertheless remains (mere) belief and not certain knowledge is not a count against it.

You can't PROVE the "Beginning of the world".
That's why it's subjective.

The facts of the matter aren't subjective - either the world was created by God or not, and either it is billions of years old or not, and whatever the truth is, it remains the truth irrespective of what people believe. People may have all kinds of different beliefs about these matters and none of them can be proved, but that does not mean that these beliefs cannot be ranked by rationality, plausibility, and evidential support.

 

[Jehoshua]

@Kyriakos

Ah, but there would be an observor to God, that would be God who would be engaged in self-contained observation of Himself. Either way your deviating from my point, which is that the religious believer would say that God is not dependant on his creation, or the fact that the idea of God is manifest in the human intellect for his being. Rather they would say that God is eternal and independent of creation itself, He is beyond it, and the He is fundamentally self-contained and self-existent.

I'm not so sure that rationality is subjective. Certainly two people may disagree about what is rational, but that doesn't mean they're both right; there can be a fact of the matter. And in your example of the atheist and the theist disagreeing about what caused the Big Bang, I don't see why they must disagree about rationality. It's perfectly possible that they could both think that the claim that God caused the Big Bang is a rational one, but that they disagree over its truth. Truth and rationality are not the same thing. It's quite possible to think that somebody else believes something rationally but erroneously, although you might not think it from the state of public discourse.

Personally, I would say that if someone believes something on the basis of their own experience - that is, they believe it because their experience suggests that it is true - then that belief is or could plausibly be rational. And I would say that if someone believes something because the evidence appears to support it, then that belief is also rational. I would say that these are objective standards, and in fact I don't see how anyone could reasonably deny the second criterion, i.e. the fact that a belief that is based upon what the evidence appears to support is a rational belief (irrespective of whether it is true).

It is true, one could hold that the others argument is rational but that the conclusion is erroneous. This very fact however implies the subjectivity of the idea of rationality as what is rational is determined by the observor, ergo its a product of humna perception. Since the determination of the rationality of a particular act thus is the product of the individual, who is therefore to say that a person, lacking any discernible objective criterion, acts irrationally in his actions? In his mind he has a particular reason why he would engage in such and such act and thus it can be said that he has his own rationality, even if said action is fundamentally devoid of reason and by the standards of anyone but himself is irrational.

 

[Kyriakos]

Kyriakos
With all positive notions towards you and any other person, Greeks or not (cause we're talking about philosophy here, not personal issues).
The clash of Judaism vs Greekism.

Thank you for the Rabbi's article

It seems to argue that greek notion of the cosmos was pretty much what is (either falsely or not) largely understood today as Darwinian. Namely that man is part of nature, and science is also a study of nature, and all are explained by epistemic study of nature.

But you should know that there existed apocryphal schools of thought in Greece too, prior to the influence by Judaism. The Kawirean mysteries, Apollonious of Tyana, other mystical theories and mystics did exist, they just were no more mainstream than cutting edge philosophy, and also were in the world of shadows, instead of light that philosophical thought assumed.

Basically it is in my view false to think, like the Rabbi who wrote that article, that Greeks are one thing and Jews are another and they do not mix. I for one write dark fiction, and very often mix logic with emotion and a touch of metaphysics (although i keep a psychological explanation possible).

Also the Byzantine Empire was clearly an amalgam of Hellenism and Judaism (and Romanism)

 

[Kyriakos]

@Kyriakos

Ah, but there would be an observor to God, that would be God who would be engaged in self-contained observation of Himself. Either way your deviating from my point, which is that the religious believer would say that God is not dependant on his creation, or the fact that the idea of God is manifest in the human intellect for his being. Rather they would say that God is eternal and independent of creation itself, He is beyond it, and the He is fundamentally self-contained and self-existent.

Yes, but YOU are the one making these thoughts, that is if you were the sole person alive you could argue that without yourself these thoughts would not exist. Which is why it is part of the issue to ask why there is the possibility itself of making such thoughts of a deity