Richard Dawkins on Jesus Dying for Sins

[syo]

This god couldn't think off a better way to interact with us?

Better way? How?

 

[Sunstone]

I don't know Sam Harris, I'm afraid.

One of the 'Four Horsemen" of contemporary atheism. His book, The End of Faith, kicked off Dawkins', Dennets', and Hitchen's books.

Harris was moved to attack faith by the events of 911. That is, the book is usually taken as an attack on religion, but technically speaking, it is an attack on faith (which, of course, is a core element of some religions). The book is heavily fact-laden, but not many of the facts would be new to someone who had studied the history of Christianity. That is, he is not a scholar of Christianity, but he knows more facts about it than most people who are not scholars.

The thing about Harris that is perhaps most impressive is his absolute refusal to divert from what he believes to be true -- for any reason in the world! As an undergraduate, Harris one day attended a lecture by a philosophy professor that -- according to Harris -- changed his life. The professor made what Harris thought was an airtight case to never lie, not even in the slightest. Harris vowed to live by that rule.

To me, his ideas range from the obvious all the way through to the downright bizarre, with the majority of them being reasonable (albeit not always proven). But even when I disagree with him, he has never come across to me as dishonest or manipulative.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I've seen this style of argument before. However we don't criticise the ideas of science based on what the man on the Clapham omnibus believes. We know that the average person has only a fairly hazy understanding of it. He just knows enough to get him through his day. The same goes for religion. Why, then, should we judge the ideas of religion by what the average person believes, rather than by what the scholars of it say?

No, the same doesn't go for religion. A religion is defined by the beliefs and practices of its adherents.

"The man on the Clapham omnibus" may go to the same church as a theology PhD, but both of them are a valid part of the spectrum of beliefs of that religion, and each is only a single voice in that religion's "chorus."

The voices of all the people who believe generally as the man on the Clapham omnibus believes are usually going to vastly drown out the theology PhD when we try to describe the overall "sound" of that "chorus."

.... and the world's foremost expert on what the man on the Clapham omnibus believes is the man on the Clapham omnibus.

Edit: another way to look at it: if someone wanted to know what "traffic" is like, which do you think would be a better measure of this?

- how people generally drive, on average.
- how an auto racing instructor say people ought to drive.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's an excellent point. I think it's unassailable when precisely understood (which, however, will never happen on RF )

The only grounds I can think of offhand for criticizing a religion on the basis of what the average person believes would be if one were to argue that what the average person believes is inimical to the well-being of others. e.g. the average person believes burning witches is acceptable sport due to their religion.

... or because "the religion" is our term for the collection of beliefs and practices of the religion's adherents, so what the average person believes is necessarily the mainstream of that religion by definition.

 

[ratiocinator]

Better way? How?

I'm actually struggling to think of a worse way to interact. Becoming a human so there can be endless confusion between real interaction and somebody who had just another "religious experience" or delusion, then the pointless death, then, centuries later, leaving no solid evidence at all.

 

[Sunstone]

... or because "the religion" is our term for the collection of beliefs and practices of the religion's adherents, so what the average person believes is necessarily the mainstream of that religion by definition.

So what the average person believes about evolution is necessarily the mainstream theory of evolution by definition?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Dawkins has claimed, or implied, many things at many times over the 20 odd years he's been banging this drum of his.

But it is true that latterly he seems to be calming down a bit. I understand he even grudgingly conceded, in his debate at the Sheldonian with Rowan Williams, that he is strictly speaking an agnostic rather than an atheist.

Even in that debate however, he wasted his time invoking Darwin, as if Darwin's ideas have anything to say about the existence of God or the value of religion: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/23/richard-dawkins-rowan-williams-bout. Invoking Darwin is a good way to attack creationism of course, but since mainstream Christianity has no quarrel with science, it's daft to bring forward Darwin as an argument in front of the ex-Archbishop of Canterbury.

He did a re-run at the Cambridge Union, in which he lost the debate heavily, but did manage a good penis joke for the students: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/01/richard-dawkins-rowan-williams-debate

I don't think you're paying attention to the reason Dawkins invokes Darwin in debates. His point is that living things are extremely complicated and certainly have the illusion of design. Before Darwin, Dawkins would have believed in God, as he states in The Blind Watchmaker, but Darwin solved what seemed to be an insurmountable problem for atheism. The remaining problems or "gaps" in science are less difficult than the problem of explaining the origins of biological complexity, so if we can explain the diversity and complexity of species without invoking a god, we should be able to explain anything else without a god. As he has stated many times, that is his reason for invoking natural selection aka "the blind watchmaker" so much. And it is a very good reason IMO.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

One of the 'Four Horsemen" of contemporary atheism. His book, The End of Faith, kicked off Dawkins', Dennets', and Hitchen's books.

Harris was moved to attack faith by the events of 911. That is, the book is usually taken as an attack on religion, but technically speaking, it is an attack on faith (which, of course, is a core element of some religions). The book is heavily fact-laden, but not many of the facts would be new to someone who had studied the history of Christianity. That is, he is not a scholar of Christianity, but he knows more facts about it than most people who are not scholars.

The thing about Harris that is perhaps most impressive is his absolute refusal to divert from what he believes to be true -- for any reason in the world! As an undergraduate, Harris one day attended a lecture by a philosophy professor that -- according to Harris -- changed his life. The professor made what Harris thought was an airtight case to never lie, not even in the slightest. Harris vowed to live by that rule.

To me, his ideas range from the obvious all the way through to the downright bizarre, with the majority of them being reasonable (albeit not always proven). But even when I disagree with him, he has never come across to me as dishonest or manipulative.

I've heard Harris make the argument that one should never lie. That is an area in which I strongly disagree with Harris. I think lying is often useful and necessary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So what the average person believes about evolution is necessarily the mainstream theory of evolution by definition?

No, because evolution is a physical process, not a collection of beliefs.

If you don't think that the beliefs and practices of a religion's adherents are what define the religion, what do you think defines a religion?

 

[Vouthon]

If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them? Who's God trying to impress? Presumably himself, since he is judge and jury, as well as execution victim.

-Richard Dawkins

As others have already opined before me, Dawkins is not exactly the most nuanced of public intellectuals when it comes to objective historical-criticism of religion or - even less so, arguably - the subtleties of theological reasoning (which tend to escape him pretty much in toto - 'how many angels dance on the head of a pin' is probably taken by him as a truthful depiction of medieval scholasticism, for example).

He is an accomplished evolutionary biologist and noted 'controversialist', however, so I do believe he provides valuable services in both of those respects. I likewise appreciate the merits of the argument from @Sunstone that his popular books offer much-needed solace, or comfort so to speak, to those living in highly conservative religious societies; assuring them that they are neither alone nor in anyway 'peculiar' for having rejected religious claims to truth about life but on the other hand brave, free-thinking spirits. That's obviously of benefit to millions of people worldwide.

Also, he is one of the most vocal "Jesusists" among modern atheists / religious sceptics / secularist free-thinkers (in the time-honoured tradition of enlightenment critics such as the American founding father Thomas Jefferson and his 'Jefferson Bible', which presented Jesus's moral teachings purged of their supernatural, mythic overlay):

Like his fellow Englishman and Oxford don, Philip Pullman (author of His Dark Materials and himself a pronounced opponent of organised religion), Dawkins finds it meaningful to distinguish between what the former labelled "the Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ" - that is, he is open and candid about his "cultural Christianity (Anglicanism)" even as he denounces superstitio, irrationality, unempirical claims to truth and organised 'churchianity':


BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

Scientist Richard Dawkins, an atheist known worldwide for arguing against the existence of God, has described himself as a "cultural Christian".

He told the BBC's Have Your Say that he did not want to "purge" the UK of its Christian heritage.

Professor Dawkins, author of the God Delusion, added that he liked "singing Carols along with everybody else".

Prof Dawkins, who has frequently spoken out against creationism and religious fundamentalism, replied: "I'm not one of those who wants to stop Christian traditions.

"This is historically a Christian country.

"So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history.

"If there's any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists."
​

In his 2017 book Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist:


Science in the Soul

Of course Jesus was a theist, but that is the least interesting thing about him. He was a theist because, in his time, everybody was. Atheism was not an option [in Judea], even for so radical a thinker as Jesus. What was interesting and remarkable about Jesus was not the obvious fact that he believed in the God of his Jewish religion, but that he rebelled against many aspects of Yahweh’s vengeful nastiness.

At least in the teachings that are attributed to him, he publicly advocated niceness and was one of the first to do so. To those steeped in the Sharia-like cruelties of Leviticus and Deuteronomy; to those brought up to fear the vindictive, Ayatollah-like God of Abraham and Isaac, a charismatic young preacher who advocated generous forgiveness must have seemed radical to the point of subversion. No wonder they nailed him.

I think we owe Jesus the honour of separating his genuinely original and radical ethics from the supernatural nonsense that he inevitably espoused as a man of his time.​

To which I say.......fair play.

With that being said, @exchemist is right to criticise his penchant for crass and caricatured antitheses for the purpose of rather cheap 'rhetorical' flourishes, hence the reason why I see fit to deem him a 'controversialist'. He has honed his provocative manner of argumentation into something of an art-form and I suppose there is a certain genius in that. I am thus 'torn' when it comes to Dawkins.

 

[Vouthon]

Regarding Dawkins' actual statement in the OP, though, I think it is superficially persuasive as a critique of Christian soteriology, even as it is substantively lacking in a number of respects.

In terms of its immediate historical context, the belief in a vicariously suffering messianic figure (although not a 'dying' one, so to speak) can be found even in traditions of the Babylonian Talmud, such as Sanhedrin 98b: "What is his name?" and various names are proffered by different rabbis. After several different views, we find: "And the Rabbis say, 'the leper' of the House of Rabbi is his name, for it says, 'Behold he has borne our disease,20 and suffered our pains, and we thought him smitten, beaten by God and tortured".

This midrash is likely what lies behind the touching image that appears only one page earlier in the Talmud of the Messiah sitting at the gates of Rome among the poor and those who suffer from painful disease:


The Messiah at the Gates of Rome - Wikipedia

"The Messiah at the Gates of Rome" is a traditional story, Mashal or parable in the Jewish tradition, from the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98a.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi (who lived in the first half of the third century), while meditating near the tomb of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai, was visited by the Prophet Elijah. "When will the Messiah come?" asked Joshua. "Ask him," replied the Prophet. "The Messiah is at the gates of Rome, sitting among the poor, the sick and wretched. Like them, he changes the bindings of his wounds, but does so one wound at the time, in order to be ready at a moment's notice."

​

For whatever reason, this concept - of a messianic figure selflessly bearing the wounds / disease of other people and being present with their suffering - was likely current in the Second Temple Judaic environment which spawned the gospels, such that it is not something utterly unique to early Christianity (even as the early church undeniably emphasised it to an hitherto unprecedented degree, on account of the manner of Jesus's death which demanded explanation for them, and because they combined it - as Jews do not - with this idea of Jesus being the incarnation of God).

At root, I view it as a thoroughly humanistic idea: the exoneration of 'victims' rather than of the 'oppressors' who, so often, have the social pedigree to be in the position to actually write the history. Unfortunately, we have no histories written from the perspective of the generations of enslaved and abused helots in Ancient Sparta, who were made to wear dogskin caps and "receive a stipulated number of beatings every year regardless of any wrongdoing, so that they would never forget they were slaves." Nor do most Jewish peasants living in a satellite state of the Roman Empire who were tortured and nailed to stakes by the occupying superpower, get a look in.

Typically, the 'strong' and elite classes were the educated, literate ones who were able live out their days into healthy old age - men like Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Suetonius - such that they had the leisure time to write official historical accounts under the patronage of the governing authorities. The Greek historian Thucydides (431 BC) articulated it best in his HISTORY OF THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR, when describing the policy of the Athenian Democracy, when it conquered the Melians and "the Melians surrendered at discretion to the Athenians, who put to death all the grown men whom they took, and sold the women and children for slaves, and subsequently sent out five hundred colonists and inhabited the place themselves".

With Jesus, I do think something changes rather dramatically. His rural, fishermen disciples don't give up on him after he dies - the movement spreads and before long, gains converts like St. Paul and the authors of the Four Gospels among the literati. And so hagiographical accounts are written within 30-50 years about the life and words of this radical poor man from Galilee, on the fringes of the Roman Empire, who suffered a horrific demise as a petty criminal on charges of sedition against Rome. If I might quote Professor Helen Bond:

"...Jesus’ crucifixion was an attempt by the rulers of his day to consign not only his body but also his memory to oblivion. In many ways, Mark’s bios can be seen as an act of defiance, a refusal to accept the Roman sentence and an attempt to shape the way in which both his life and death should be remembered.

His work takes the place of a funeral ovation, outlining Jesus’ way of life and pointing to the family of believers who succeed him.

While men of higher class and greater worldly distinction might have had their epitaphs set in stone, Mark provides his hero with a written monument to a truly worthy life. Mark redeems Jesus’ death not by casting it as ‘noble’ or conventionally ‘honourable,’ but by showing that it conforms perfectly to his counter-cultural teaching..."

(Bond, H 2018, 'A fitting end? Self-denial and a slave’s death in Mark’s life of Jesus' New Testament Studies)​

And the image of the cross - and what it represents, the subversion of the power of the strong through the perseverance and undying spirit of the weak and oppressed - suddenly grips the imagination of huge swathes of the Roman public, and the authorities start to get worried that this movement isn't just another oriental cult - but represents an actual threat to the social order. As St. Paul boasted, Christ's crucifixtion had “destroyed every rule and every authority and power” (1 Cor. 15:24) because "the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:25), "For He was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God." — (2 Corinthians 13:4)

I follow the late Catholic sociologist Rene Girard - whose thinking is compatible with Abelard's moral influence theory but is also an updated version of the Christus Victor paradigm (which was the main approach to salvation before Anselm's penal substitution in the 1100s) - in understanding His sacrifice on the cross as being redemptive in the sense that Jesus freely entered into the cycle of violence with the intention of halting it. He was perfectly aware of what the process involved and embraced the role of scapegoat, not to appease the wrath of a vengeful God but the rather the fury of sinful, selfish humans. He substituted himself in the place of all other scapegoats who have endured, and still endure, the unjust violence of society.

His death was "necessary" only to the extent that He willing offered himself up to a kangaroo court, corrupt elites, spurious charges and the fury of the baying mob to expose the sinful foundations of the institutionalized cycle of violence. The violence of the mob, of human beings, turned Jesus into a scapegoat. He gave up his life to liberate people from that mentality, the mentality that results in unjust human deaths like His own.

Christianity exonerates victims of collective violence through a supreme, innocent Victim: the Lord Jesus. The climax of scapegoating violence thereby collapses in on itself through itself. As Girard puts it: “God Himself reuses the scapegoat mechanism, at his own expense [in the person of Jesus], in order to subvert it.” An ancient symbol for Jesus – that of a mother pelican wounding herself, striking at her breast with the beak to feed her young with her blood to prevent starvation - captures this belief very well.

(continued....)

 

[Vouthon]

As the Archbishop of Yangon, Cardinal Charles Bo, has said in relation to the Rohingya Muslims persecuted by the Burmese authorities:

Pope Francis: Trekking his way to the fringes of the Catholic Church - La Croix International

"Scapegoating — a concept popularized by the French philosopher, Rene Girard — is a process by which violent and frustrated societies with a deep sense of collective victimization channel their anger onto individuals or groups to smother their frustration.

"The scapegoat is ‘sacrificed’ either through massacre or expulsion to the ‘desert'. Bosnia and Serbia, after long years of totalitarianism, went into a spiral of fratricidal genocide till the international community intervened.

"The large-scale exodus of Rohingya may be seen as the ‘scapegoat’ sent to the desert (for the frustrations and anger felt by many in Myanmar).”
​

As Rene Girard himself once put it:

"The earliest followers of Jesus did not make that mistake. They knew, or intuited, that in one sense it was like all other events of victimization "since the foundation of the world." But it was different in that it revealed the meaning of these events going back to the beginnings of humanity: the victimization occurs because of mimetic rivalry, the victim is innocent, and God stands with the victim and restores him or her. If the Passion is regarded not as revelation but as only a violent event brought about by God, it is misunderstood and turned into an idol. In the Gospels Jesus says that he suffers the fate of all the other prophets going back to Abel the just and the foundation of the world (Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:50).
​

And James Warren in Compassion or Apocalypse?, a section entitled, "Sacrificial Christianity and Atonement Theology," pp. 285-95. Near the conclusion he writes,

Combining Girard, Abelard, and Christus Victor, I would say that by nonviolently expressing limitless compassion and forgiveness in the face of human abuse, Jesus exposed the scapegoat mechanism and made himself the model for a new humanity. Imitation of Christ rewires our violent neuro-circuitry, links us together in community, and reconciles us to God. In the process, the Satan of anarchic mimetic rivalry and the Satan of sacred violence are both cast out. Christus Victor! ...

The word atonement first appears in print in Tyndale’s 1526 translation of the English Bible. It means, literally, “at-one-ment,” being a contraction of “at” and “one.” In other words, it means reconciliation. But we must bear in mind that while Jesus effected a reconciliation of humanity to God, God had no need to be reconciled to us. The rivalry had been all on one side; from God’s side there had always been unconditional love. Jesus’ death and resurrection has given us access to that love, as a result of the opening of our hearts in response to his infinite forgiveness.

In the place where our envy and anger should have been met with reciprocal violence, it encountered instead an absolutely unlimited font of compassionate forgiveness. As Paul wrote, “God’s love has been poured into our hearts...” (Romans 5:5) It was a great victory over the devil of mimetic rivalry and the satanic scapegoat mechanism. Something like this, I believe, is the meaning of “atonement.”
(pp. 294, 295)
​

The English classical historian Tom Holland - himself an atheist - wrote about this in an excellent article on Good Friday this year:


When Christ conquered Caesar - UnHerd

The utter strangeness of Easter does not lie in the notion that a mortal might become divine. As Nero well knew, the border between the heavenly and the earthly had always been viewed as permeable. Divinity in the Roman world, however, was understood to be for the very greatest of the great: for victors, and heroes, and Caesars. Its measure was the power to torture one’s enemies, not to suffer it oneself; to have a person stabbed in the womb, or gelded and made to live forever as a member of the opposite sex, or smeared in pitch and set to serve as a human torch.

That a man who had himself been crucified might be hailed as a god could not help but be seen by people everywhere across the Roman world as scandalous, obscene, grotesque. Nero, charging the Christians with arson and hatred of humanity, seems not to have undertaken any detailed interrogation of their beliefs — but doubtless, had he done so, he would have been revolted and bewildered.

Radically though Nero had sought to demonstrate to the world that the divine might be interfused with the human, the Christians he had tortured to death believed in something infinitely more radical. There was but the one God, and His Son, by becoming mortal and dying the death of a slave, had redeemed all of humanity. Not as an emperor but as a victim he had come. The message was novel beyond the wildest dreams even of a Nero; and was destined to endure long after all his works, and the works of the Caesars, had crumbled into dust.

This Sunday, when billions of people around the globe celebrate the triumph over death of a man laid in a tomb in a garden, the triumph they celebrate will not be that of an emperor. “For God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong" (1 Corinthians 1:7). ​

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, I've seen this style of argument before. However we don't criticise the ideas of science based on what the man on the Clapham omnibus believes. We know that the average person has only a fairly hazy understanding of it. He just knows enough to get him through his day. The same goes for religion. Why, then, should we judge the ideas of religion by what the average person believes, rather than by what the scholars of it say?

I'm not really in agreement. Particularly, I don't agree with the comparision with science.

When it comes to religions, I don't care what a handfull of scholars have to say. What I care about, is how it is actually practiced by the vast majority of people. And here's where religion differs IMMENSLY from science.

Science doesn't try to tell you how to live or how to organize society. Science merely informs you on how the world works and that information can in turn be used to develop technology and practical application.

If someone with a bad understanding of science, tries to develop a technology with it - I don't care, because his product won't work.

Religion however... if enough people practice it a certain way, then it most certainly impacts society and / or the people in their environment.


Let's have an example that is not from christianity, to drive this point home: Shariah.

Talk to a prominent internationally recognised islamic scholar and he'll tell you a rosegarden story about what that is about. Bring up the shariah courts in pakistan, afghanistan, etc and he'll tell you "ow, but that's not real shariah!"

Well, who cares?
I don't care what shariah is "supposed to be on paper". Eventhough I'ld be very willing to accept his scholarly knowledge on the topic. It doesn't matter. What matters is how it actually is practiced around the world.
And in the middle east, whenever "shariah court" is mentioned, you pretty much know that attrocity, injustice and barbarism is going to follow.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But it is true that latterly he seems to be calming down a bit. I understand he even grudgingly conceded, in his debate at the Sheldonian with Rowan Williams, that he is strictly speaking an agnostic rather than an atheist.

He "grudignly conceded" in a debate that which he simply flat out stated himself in his book The God Delusion?

Doesn't sound very legit, does it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One of the 'Four Horsemen" of contemporary atheism. His book, The End of Faith, kicked off Dawkins', Dennets', and Hitchen's books.

Harris was moved to attack faith by the events of 911. That is, the book is usually taken as an attack on religion, but technically speaking, it is an attack on faith (which, of course, is a core element of some religions). The book is heavily fact-laden, but not many of the facts would be new to someone who had studied the history of Christianity. That is, he is not a scholar of Christianity, but he knows more facts about it than most people who are not scholars.

The thing about Harris that is perhaps most impressive is his absolute refusal to divert from what he believes to be true -- for any reason in the world! As an undergraduate, Harris one day attended a lecture by a philosophy professor that -- according to Harris -- changed his life. The professor made what Harris thought was an airtight case to never lie, not even in the slightest. Harris vowed to live by that rule.

To me, his ideas range from the obvious all the way through to the downright bizarre, with the majority of them being reasonable (albeit not always proven). But even when I disagree with him, he has never come across to me as dishonest or manipulative.

Indeed. He's a pretty interesting fellow. Never seems to get annoyed or lose his calm...
Always polite, always respectful and yet not afraid at all to utterly and mercilessly destroy someone's view in the most polite manner I have ever witnessed, lol.

I like hearing him speak also. There's something really "peacefull" in his voice. He's like totally "zen" or something.

I think he makes a lot of sense too with his moral theory.

 

[james bond]

I think it's your statement that doesn't make sense.

Punishing a completely innocent person doesn't relieve you of any of the punishment that you deserve.

"Your honour... yes, I killed that man. I'm guilty of murder. But since you kept another guy who didn't commit the crime in jail for 15 years before you caught me, in all fairness, you should knock 15 years off my sentence."

Substitutionary atonement is a ridiculous idea, IMO.

Atheism came about from those who practiced pagan worship. Putting a false idol like no God would mean punishment for one's big sin.

 

[1213]

I came across this quote by Richard Dawkins today, and it is one of the most brilliant and concise illustrations of the absurdity of Christianity that I've seen. Christians, how would you respond to this?

If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them? Who's God trying to impress? Presumably himself, since he is judge and jury, as well as execution victim.

-Richard Dawkins

Bible tells that Jesus was sent declare forgiveness of sins:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, Because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim release to the captives, Recovering of sight to the blind, To deliver those who are crushed, And to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
Luke 4:18-19

He said to them, "Let's go elsewhere into the next towns, that I may preach there also, because for this reason I came forth."
Mark 1:38

And as the Bible tells, Jesus forgave sins when he was on earth and Jesus gave the right to forgive sins for his disciples:

The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

Whoever's sins you forgive, they are forgiven them. Whoever's sins you retain, they have been retained."
John 20:23

What is wrong with that?

 

[Vouthon]

"The man on the Clapham omnibus" may go to the same church as a theology PhD, but both of them are a valid part of the spectrum of beliefs of that religion, and each is only a single voice in that religion's "chorus."

In Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, it is the "sacred tradition" which expresses the teaching of the church and whilst there is an element of populism (the sensus fidelium, which includes the contemplation and insight of ordinary believers); church teaching is only an authoritative manifestation of the religious traditio if it has been "handed down" and defined by the bishops (the heirs to the apostolic succession) and in Catholicism, additionally, under the Magisterium (Teaching Office) of the Roman pontiff.

The church, via the imprimaturs from diocesan bishops acting as a college (collegium episcoporum) under their collegial head the supreme pontiff, decides which articles and/or writings merit the status of being "free from errors of faith or morals" and which don't.

As such, even though your definition of religion may have merit in an ethnographic or sociological sense, it doesn't match the self-understanding of dogmatic religions like my own in terms of "who" gets to define what that religion "is" (hint, it ain't left to the man on the street in Clapham).

There's an ancient distinction between faith as a set of doctrines / teachings (fides quae creditur) and faith as personal involvement (fides qua creditur). The man on the street has much to do with the latter but very little to do with the former (defining doctrine).

A holistic definition of religion must encompass both fides quae and fides qua surely? Personally, I think your definition is too reductionist.

 

[Sunstone]

No, because evolution is a physical process, not a collection of beliefs.

An interesting distinction, and I believe you made it in good faith, but it doesn't cut mustard with me. However, to explain why it doesn't I would need to take this thread off topic and into the realm of epistemology. I'm too lazy to do that, so I will not discuss the distinction further.

If you don't think that the beliefs and practices of a religion's adherents are what define the religion, what do you think defines a religion?

What is America? Cannot that question be legitimately answered in more than one way? e.g. a certain geographic area. A certain political entity. The homeland of a certain people. etc.

I agree with you -- up to a point -- that Christianity can be defined in terms of the beliefs and practices of its self-professed adherents. But do you have any rational grounds for restricting the definition of "Christianity" to those terms?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, it is the "sacred tradition" which expresses the teaching of the church and whilst there is an element of populism (the sensus fidelium, which includes the contemplation and insight of ordinary believers); church teaching is only an authoritative manifestation of the religious traditio if it has been "handed down" and defined by the bishops (the heirs to the apostolic succession) and in Catholicism, additionally, under the Magisterium (Teaching Office) of the Roman pontiff.

The church, via the imprimaturs from diocesan bishops acting as a college (collegium episcoporum) under their collegial head the supreme pontiff, decides which articles and/or writings merit the status of being "free from errors of faith or morals" and which don't.

As such, even though your definition of religion may have merit in an ethnographic or sociological sense, it doesn't match the self-understanding of dogmatic religions like my own in terms of "who" gets to define what that religion "is" (hint, it ain't left to the man on the street in Clapham).

There's an ancient distinction between faith as a set of doctrines / teachings (fides quae creditur) and faith as personal involvement (fides qua creditur). The man on the street has much to do with the latter but very little to do with the former (defining doctrine).

A holistic definition of religion must encompass both fides quae and fides qua surely? Personally, I think your definition is too reductionist.

I'm not sure I'm expressing myself well, because I think there's a disconnect between the point I was trying to make and the point I think you're making.

Yes: Catholicism has "Sacred Tradition" and a Magisterium. I'm not saying that individual Catholics consider their personal beliefs to be higher authorities than these sources; I'm saying that the reason that Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are viewed as authorities in Catholicism is because the rank and file Catholics accept them as so.

Catholics accept the teaching authority of the Magisterium, so they have a Magisterium. Protestants don't accept this, so the Magisterium isn't a component of their belief systems.

IOW, even with "faith as a set of doctrines," you still need buy-in from the general membership of the religion about what those doctrines - or at least the source of those doctrines - ought to be... otherwise, the doctrines don't get incorporated into the religion.