A defense of Christianity helped unlock the secrets of the brain • Hacker News Board

Re: A defense of Christianity helped unlock the secrets of the brain

#61

Post by danielam » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 7:04 PM UTC

jabv wrote: post #26

badkungfu wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am reminded of Fulton Sheen's comments on Jesus - a man that claimed to be God is either a liar, a lunatic, or God; to say such a man is a great teacher but not God stretches the limit of rationality. That always sounded like an unimaginative argument. Another possibility is that his followers exaggerated his words and deeds after his death.

I think lucozade's reply (just below yours) gets closer to why Sheen's argument matters at all (admitting that it is more of a, "Hey, have you thought about it this way?" than a serious argument, the latter of which Sheen also focused on) - whether we transfer the content to Jesus' followers or not, we still these condensed narratives containing historical claims as well as general teaching, and the claims are extrao…

While I agree that it is impossible to take Jesus seriously without also taking seriously his claim to divinity, I do not understand the example you've given concerning adultery. Not everything that Jesus taught was a matter of revelation. Much of it can be arrived at with the use of unaided reason. In this case, adultery and lust are moral concerns that do not require an appeal to Jesus' authority. It is entirely possible for a non-Christian to come to the same conclusion just as it is possible to consider many moral questions without appealing to God. Whether something is good for human beings depends on human nature. God comes in when we wish to account for the existence of human nature (or anything at all) in the first place. Typically, those who base morality on arbitrary divine command hold to a mechanistic metaphysics that permits no other basis for morality.

Re: A defense of Christianity helped unlock the secrets of the brain

#62

Post by tsm » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 7:26 PM UTC

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #56

inkaudio wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jesus Christ never claimed to be God but the Son of God, one single verse was taken completely out of context, but if you're familiar with his teaching it clearly emphasised his subordination to God. Bible book of John chapter 14 verse 28 latter part: the father is greater than I am The vast majority of mainstream Christian is corrupt. This is important to note cause much debate about the merits of Christianity are b…

In case anyone's wondering, I suspect that the "one single verse [...] taken completely out of context" is John 10:30, "I and the Father are one". To the best of my knowledge, this is the only place in the Bible where Jesus seems to directly claim to actually be God rather than doing his work, representing/channeling his authority, making allusions to prophecy, etc.. The context can be read as suggesting that he was…

This doesn't contradict Trinitarian theology, by the way—Jesus and God being one falls into "three in one and one in three".

It's perhaps also worth noting that trinitarianism is so fundamental to mainstream orthodox Christianity that mainstream orthodox Christians consider it deeply heretical to reject the Trinity. This was a major result of some of the early ecumenical counsels. They put together the Nicene Creed (and by virtue of being a "creed", not a "catechism", disagreement with it is heretical by definition) that defines the three persons of the Trinity, including "Jesus Christ…eternally begotten of the Father; God from God, Light from Light; true God from true God; begotten, not made; of one being with the father"

Re: A defense of Christianity helped unlock the secrets of the brain

#63

Post by benharrison » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 7:39 PM UTC

dkersten wrote: post #57

benharrison wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're logic is correct, but it's not the great teacher part that is in question. The part that is always in question is about whether or not he is really God. Take that same analogy and replace "great teacher" with "great person". If Jesus told people that he is God, and convinced them to put their trust in him, but he happens to be wrong about being God (regardless of whether that's an intentional lie or an honest…

I'm saying that whether or not he was a great teacher is independent of whether or he was god. He can be a great teacher and still not be god. Are people saying he's a great person because he's god; god because he's a great person; or independently both god and a great person? I'm arguing that they don't necessarily have to have a causal relationship and neither implies the other. (Ok ok maybe being god implies you a…

I get what you're saying; that these characteristics are not mutually necessary. And I agree with you.

As for the other question, I suppose you could separate those characteristics as well. For a moment, let's ignore the Bible and focus on an abstract concept of "God". It is possible to be good, and not be God. It is also possible to be God, and not be good. And in that case, we don't have to redefine the word "good" to mean (a bad) God, just because he is "God". So yes, ultimately these are independent concepts that are not mutually necessary.

> "Are people saying he's a great person because he's god"?

Jesus is described in the Bible as being a man that lived a sinless life. That's where the "good person" description comes from. He was tempted just the same as any of us are, and he could have given into any of those temptations. According to the Bible that didn't happen, but if it did, it leads right back to your original point: he could have theoretically been God and simultaneously not have been good. The problem with that (not the problem with your logic, but the problem with him being an impure God) is he would no longer be an innocent sacrifice and his whole mission falls apart.

Re: A defense of Christianity helped unlock the secrets of the brain

#64

Post by prmph » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 7:50 PM UTC

jabv wrote: post #10

zzalpha wrote: post #7

Clickbait title. A great deal of science is rooted in the works of individuals who held a variety of religious beliefs, and in many of those cases, their works were directly motivated by those beliefs. So the fact that Bayes came up with his theorem because of a desire to justify a belief in the resurrection of Christ is, I suppose, somewhat interesting, but not so much so that it needed to be the headline of the sto…

The fact that Bayes' work, which is more popular and possibly relevant than ever, answers a serious philosophical challenges to claims about the nature of reality (a consequence of any claims of divinity) is a mere historical accident worthy of overlooking? I am reminded of Fulton Sheen's comments on Jesus - a man that claimed to be God is either a liar, a lunatic, or God; to say such a man is a great teacher but not…

Small quibble: Jesus did not claim to be God; he claimed to be the son of God. Slightly off topic, but I think this clarification is useful especially for people who have not read the bible

Re: A defense of Christianity helped unlock the secrets of the brain

#65

Post by posterboy » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 8:23 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #32

eneifert wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But his followers were all willing to die because they believed Jesus rose from the dead and they saw it. Seems unreasonable that they would die for something they know is a lie. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_Christian_martyrs

> But his followers were all willing to die because they believed Jesus rose from the dead and they saw it. There is very little objective reason to believe that to be the case. There are (themselves mostly unsubstantiated) stories that a number of the inner circle of contemporaries, some of whom are also identified as witnesses of the resurrection, died for the faith, which is both considerably less than "all of his…

>You can't rest a claim

Well that's the right idea, though. Taking it a few steps further, what would be more likely, that the vatican is a power hungry institution like any other, or that a pope is chosen by god himself, sometimes two of opposing believe at the same time even.

Re: A defense of Christianity helped unlock the secrets of the brain

#66

Post by sanderjd » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 1:36 AM UTC

lucozade wrote: post #42

sanderjd wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that the most useful definition of "lie" is one where it does not include un-truths due to diminished faculty or simply being mistaken. I would not call Newton a "liar" because he wasn't aware of relativity...

Indeed. But one can't have it both ways. You either use your definition and call out ignorance/mistaken explicitly or you define lying as covering all unthruths. Fulton Sheen cheats by pretending to use your definition but subsuming more than deliberately lying under the liar banner. Very sneak these philosophers.

You may be operating on a deeper level than me here, but it seems like that Fulton Sheen quote just claims that being mistaken or ignorant about whether or not you are God makes you "a lunatic". Whether you use that terminology or just replace it with "incorrect about stuff", it still seems distinct from being "a liar".

(I think we're in agreement that being mistaken about things is not incompatible with being a "great teacher", as I say in another comment here.)

Re: A defense of Christianity helped unlock the secrets of the brain

#67

Post by jospoortvliet » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 10:14 AM UTC

danielam wrote: post #60

lucozade wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The value of Bayes' work is somewhat orthogonal to his use of it to prove the truth of the Resurrection. It was valuable to show that Hume's approach was flawed but limited value to prove the truth per se. To apply probabilities to the events you'd have to make an awful lot of assumptions about the accuracy of the, non-eye witness, reporting. However, it was an excellent approach for such an evaluation. As to the Ful…

Lying requires the intent to deceive. "Diminished faculty" or a disorder of mental faculties would fall under the normal definition of insanity, whatever the cause of that insanity. The claims Jesus made are too radical and too consistent to be described as mere mistakes.

Well, no, most of his claims were quite common in the time, not much is radical. Also most of those we only know 2nd or third hand and we know it's been heavily redacted on the way. If radical claims are a reason to consider someone divine, Buddha has much better cards.

Re: A defense of Christianity helped unlock the secrets of the brain

#68

Post by jospoortvliet » Wed, Dec 21, 2016, 10:15 AM UTC

eneifert wrote: post #22

badkungfu wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am reminded of Fulton Sheen's comments on Jesus - a man that claimed to be God is either a liar, a lunatic, or God; to say such a man is a great teacher but not God stretches the limit of rationality. That always sounded like an unimaginative argument. Another possibility is that his followers exaggerated his words and deeds after his death.

But his followers were all willing to die because they believed Jesus rose from the dead and they saw it. Seems unreasonable that they would die for something they know is a lie. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_Christian_martyrs

Lots of Muslims blow themselves up, believing in 77 virgins and stuff like that. Is that proof of those virgins or merely their belief?

I appreciate the list of martyrs but it is hardly unique to Christianity.

Re: A defense of Christianity helped unlock the secrets of the brain

#69

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 9:03 AM UTC

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #50

eneifert wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But his followers were all willing to die because they believed Jesus rose from the dead and they saw it. Seems unreasonable that they would die for something they know is a lie. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_Christian_martyrs

Lots of people die for lots of different reasons. That they die doesn't validate their beliefs.

[deleted]

Re: A defense of Christianity helped unlock the secrets of the brain

#70

Post by eneifert » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 9:09 AM UTC

jospoortvliet wrote: post #68

eneifert wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But his followers were all willing to die because they believed Jesus rose from the dead and they saw it. Seems unreasonable that they would die for something they know is a lie. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_Christian_martyrs

Lots of Muslims blow themselves up, believing in 77 virgins and stuff like that. Is that proof of those virgins or merely their belief? I appreciate the list of martyrs but it is hardly unique to Christianity.

A suicide bomber really believes in what they are dying for and that is the point. With the disciples the fact that they were eye witnesses to the central point of their religion is unique. Either they saw Jesus rise from the dead or they were lying. If they were lying, then why would they be willing to die for a lie? Just doesn't add up in my book.