|
1
Nerd-It
|
|
current event
by David Paszkiewicz of the Kearny School District faces public scrutiny over religious discourse delivered in his high school history class. One of his students, Matthew LaClair, broke the story by providing taped recordings of Paszkiewicz's lectures (MP3 Audio | Transcript). In September, the teacher spoke on the fallacies of evolution and described dinosaurs as present on Noah's Ark. He continued telling his students that, "If you reject his [Jesus] gift of salvation, then you know where you belong ... If you reject that, you belong in hell." Although there are outliers, the people of Kearny generally support Paszkiewicz, even calling for the suspension of LaClair for his disruptions. Despite the non-disputed evidence of Paszkiewicz's behavior, no current action has been taken against the teacher by the school district, reflecting the community's partial consent.
Add a Comment (345)
Email This
Message Author
How ridiculous is this?
Has the schoolboard lost its mind? Or maybe the schoolboard consists of a bunch of ignorant, angry, Jesus flinging people like this guy!
So ranting about hell is ok, but in this school system, yoga was thrown out as a form of exercise for children b/c religious people didn't seem to think that it was good for their children. They claimed that you couldn't separate the exercise from the religious aspects of yoga.
Maybe they think that if a kid spends enough time with himself/herself...he/she might find that he/she disagrees..or agrees with something that his/her parents think he/she shouldn't. God forbid! A sense of self! An identity! Whoa...I'm getting a little too excited here. Gotta put those free thinkers back in the box. Hippies...all of them.
This guy gets to ecxercise his right to preach in school and gets away with it, but a yoga teacher can't teach exercise to kids b/c religious cooties might jump off of him and contaminate the kids. I went to a Baptist school where my Bible teacher told me that all the dinosaurs died in the flood because Noah couldn't put them on the Arc. It's statements like that that drive people away from what they're trying to draw you toward. Moderation seems to be the key that people are missing. Seems it's all or nothing these days.
I went to a Baptist school where my Bible teacher told me that all the dinosaurs died in the flood because Noah couldn't put them on the Arc.
Waaaaaait just a minute there! You mean the alternative-to-evolution and alternative-to-big-bang-to-present-history doctrines haven't been decided upon by their backers? Did Noah bring dinosaurs with him or not? This of all things should be a pretty simple decision for the church/preachers/etc to decide upon.
It sure must've been scary to be alive with all the dinosaurs running around. Oh wait, I almost forgot that I believe in the fossil record.
Just to set the record straight, I believe in the fossil record and also in God. I also don't believe that dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time as Noah. I don't want you to group all of those "believers" into one camp and say they all makeup stuff to get kids off of their backs.
How ridiculous is this?
I'm not sure I see why this is so ridiculous. It's a high school class, so I think the subject matter is ok as long as its not requiring them to acknowledge an opinion as truth (e.g., in a test). The transcript states:
- Teacher: Is it bothering anybody that we're taking this direction?
- Students: (unenergetic moans of "no")
- Teacher: Ok...
- Student J1: I kinda like this direction.
- LaClaire: Alright -
- Teacher: Do you like it or you don't like it? I don't want to step on your toes. We aim to please here.
... seems fair enough to me. Religion is a real thing, regardless of its truth. Don't you think it's healthy for a student to be able to engage in a discussion like this in public? To be able to hear the arguments of a believer and a doubter? Again, it doesn't mean that students should be accountable for such conversations, but it doesn't mean that they should be banned either.
And let's be fair, the quote in the news post is completely taken out of context. It's quoted as if the teacher were preaching this to his class, and not in the context of a back and forth "what if" conversation that's actually occurring. Read the transcript and you'll see what I mean.
So, I think the practice of Yoga on a regular basis is more questionable than an off-topic, two-sided religion conversation in a high school history (not science) classroom (though I wouldn't ban yoga either). With the yoga, it seems like it was a requirement. This conversation was not.
maybe the schoolboard consists of a bunch of ignorant, angry, Jesus flinging people like this guy!
It's funny, religious people love to oversimplify things so they can draw conclusions without facts and they often get called on it. Even funnier is when the people calling them on it are guilty of the same practice. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Jesus flinging. Wow. When I first read this I thought you were just trying to be nasty. Later, when I thought about it I realized that the description was poetically and descriptively correct.
Flinging: to throw, cast, or hurl with force or violence.
Usually when you “fling” something you do it without much control of direction also.
So this guy is flinging Jesus about and he’s landing hard in places he probably shouldn’t be, and maybe doesn’t even want to be, although I can’t speak for him on that one. He’s probably not too happy about being flung though.
This teacher needed to stick to the curriculum that he was hired to teach. If he didn’t agree with the curriculum to that degree, he should not have taken the job. There are probably plenty of private parochial schools in this area where he would have been much more suited to preach rather than teach; or he should have taken up ministry.
It is O.K. by me for the facts about different religions to be taught in an informative way in public schools. In our junior high they do this by presenting each major world religion, the beliefs they contain, and the culture that ensues from them. The students are encouraged to pick any one of them and do an informative presentation on it. But no one (that I have heard) has tried to force any one religion down the student’s throats. It is treated as information only; the belief part of it is left for home.
It is O.K. by me for the facts about different religions to be taught in an informative way in public schools.
Well, with one caveat: not in science class. The facts about religions are fine in history classes, not biology or physics.
In our junior high they do this by presenting each major world religion, the beliefs they contain, and the culture that ensues from them.
Do they cover Christianity in essentially the same way? That'd be pretty unusual - the "usual" approach is to skip Christianity on the grounds that the students are "already familiar" with it. Though the real reason is that by leaving Christianity out, the coverage of the other religions is done in the same tones as coverage of classical mythology - the "nobody believes this anymore, but in the old days they used to think..." kind of tone. You can pretend you're being "fair and balanced" and convey a really strong subtext of "these other religions are wrong".
If you take that tone on the subject of Christianity, the fundies cry foul.
Religion doesn't belong in the classroom. America is an athiest nation - love it or leave it.
America is an athiest nation - love it or leave it.
As much as I hate to say it, I don't entirely agree with that one. The state should be an atheist nation that shows favor to no one. But the public ... well, they are free to do what they want and [unfortunately] want to believe in religion.
I do completely agree with you with regards to how schools teach religion of the world. There is definitely a pretext that "those other" religions are exactly that, something "other people" do.
Well, with one caveat: not in science class. The facts about religions are fine in history classes, not biology or physics.
This I agree with as well. But if they are to come up in history, sociology, political, etc. classes ... there ought to be equal face time and legitimacy put into the others. I'd like to also hear a little about how members of that class would be re-incarnated as low caste people or cockroaches under the Hindu system. Or that ascension is not into heaven but into a Buddhist Nirvana. Damning the Muslim girl, though [from the NY Times article] ... that seems a little one-sided.
There is definitely a pretext that "those other" religions are exactly that, something "other people" do.
By and large they are. America is a Christian country, despite scottb's assertions to the contrary.
From Wiki:
79.8% Christian
1.4% Jewish
0.3% Muslim
0.2% Buddhist
0.1% Hindu
... there ought to be equal face time and legitimacy put into the others. I'd like to also hear a little about how members of that class would be re-incarnated as low caste people or cockroaches under the Hindu system.
Yet we're supposed to give "equal time" to all religions? In the name of what- diversity? What is the purpose of said diversity? There are 266 times as many Christians as Muslims in America, 399 Christians for each Buddhist, and 798 for every Hindu?
I can certainly see merit in studying these religions as a means to understanding the world, particularly the part of it where people's religion permits them to fly planes into buildings. That said, I don't understand what purpose Vnutz would have for giving "equal time" to a practiced by a sliver of the population.
Understanding Christianity, on the other hand, is central to understanding American history. All respect to the handful of Buddhists in the US, Buddhism didn't have a lot to do with what made this country what it is today.
I know you whining, rabid secularists will put a carat in front of the above quote and quote chapter and verse about how the Constitution protects all religions and guards against the establishment of any particular religion. I agree. However, explain to me how understanding any of the "less than 1% of the population" religions is central to understanding American history, and why every hour spent discussing Christianity should be balanced by an hour of discussing Hinduism.
I read the transcript after MarkMcB's illuminating post. It's hard to know the context of the conversation without seeing how they got to the starting point of the transcript, but my observations are thus:
1. The guy gave too much info about his chosen religion.
2. The student set him up.
The NY Times article is a typical liberal hit-job--for example where is the context and quote of the Muslim girl being damned to hell?
Finally, it appears the community has rallied behind the teacher, with the minority of whiny secularists and the ACLU taking a predictable stance.
Thank God -- or Allah for you 0.3% -- we live in a country where the majority rules.
I read the transcript after MarkMcB's illuminating post. It's hard to know the context of the conversation without seeing how they got to the starting point of the transcript.
I'll admit, I read the transcript after posting it and I was not impressed, either. The articles alluded to several recordings being made so I can only guess as to why they didn't provide everything. Perhaps the material is being held as evidence for the lawsuit the kid's dad was thinking of filing? Maybe the NY Times exaggerated or printed a fallacy? Or maybe the New Jersey Journal didn't want to go hosting the raw material with that content in it - fear of a lawsuit against them? I'm guessing. But so are you. All we have is what the newspapers have given us.
By and large they are. America is a Christian country ...
I was referring to the world, which according to Wikipedia is:
- 33% Christian
- 21% Islam
- 16% Not Religious
- 14% Hindu
- 6% Primal Indigenous
- 6% Chinese Traditional
- 6% Buddhist
- <1% Other
What are you afraid of with regard to giving equal face time to the major beliefs - that your kids might be exposed to Buddhism and like it? Is it offensive that a teacher introduce alternative religions with as much credence as your own?
But seriously - is a major part of your argument that Christianity "is the way to go" simply because of the numbers behind it?
Understanding Christianity, on the other hand, is central to understanding American history. All respect to the handful of Buddhists in the US, Buddhism didn't have a lot to do with what made this country what it is today.
How so? Just because a dude that did something historical is Christian doesn't mean Christianity gets the credit for his accomplishment. If he's the Pope ... then sure. But Joe Six-Pack? No.
I was referring to the world, which according to Wikipedia is ...
Which was exactly jmarkdavison's point -- yes, the world as a whole is diverse in its distribution of religion, and each probably deserves a brief mention in the context of a history class. But in an American History class, I think it would be reasonable to expect that the time spent discussing religions would be proportionate to the said religion's representation in American society and impact on the development of the nation.
In comparison to the other religions of the world, Christianity has had a significantly greater influence in American culture and history than the rest combined. While the 1st Amendment does place the "No Establishment" clause at the front and center of the Bill of Rights, that implies an inclusive nation or form of government, not an atheist nation (as scottb put it). The Declaration of Independence, for example, specifically mentions "God" and a "Creator."
But in an American History class, I think it would be reasonable to expect that the time spent discussing religions would be proportionate to the said religion's representation in American society and impact on the development of the nation.
Maybe I'm missing it ... but I only see the time period up the 17th century as demonstrably guiding the course of American history through religion. 18th century history seems predominantly political and warring. 19th century history seems predominantly exploratory and territorial mixed with Civil War and the coming industrialization. 20th century history is mostly economic, furthering industrialization and the emergence of America in foreign arenas.
Again, just because a member of the political system is religious, does not mean that it was the driving factor behind American development. If the logic is simply that attributes of our leaders define our history ... well, then we should all proclaim that women are inferior, those under 40 have no place making decisions and minorities are worthless.
The Declaration of Independence, for example, specifically mentions "God" and a "Creator."
Just curious - would you still feel such stalwart justification for your stance if the Declaration of Independence instead mentioned Shivah or Brahma as it's authority (and you were still Christian).
Just curious - would you still feel such stalwart justification for your stance if the Declaration of Independence instead mentioned Shivah or Brahma as it's authority (and you were still Christian).
Come on dude!
"If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle."
In comparison to the other religions of the world, Christianity has had a significantly greater influence in American culture and history than the rest combined. While the 1st Amendment does place the "No Establishment" clause at the front and center of the Bill of Rights, that implies an inclusive nation or form of government, not an atheist nation (as scottb put it). The Declaration of Independence, for example, specifically mentions "God" and a "Creator."
What I learned in history in high school was that many of the founders were deists, not quite Christians. Most of the moral foundations of the country can be found in enlightenment, Roman and classically liberal thought. How much time needs to be devoted to "accept Jesus as your savior or burn" or "Halloween is a pagan holiday" or "I don't want my kids to tolerate sexual deviancy" in a US history class?
Personally, I enjoyed classes that digressed into philosophical debates occasionally, but I can not see how relevant this rambling conversation was to the coursework, regardless of Christianity's impact on the nation. The teacher wanted to express some of his ethical beliefs to the class, that's pretty plain.
America is a Christian country, despite scottb's assertions to the contrary.
And clearly you didn't read my assertions. America, as a country isn't really distinguishable from the American government. This government is explicitly formulated to not acknowledge a deity. That means it's a-theist (though not anti-theist).
America is an atheist country, that happens to have a substantial population of Christians.
Furthermore, as I defend atheism in this forum, every theist seems to eventually insist that I accept their definition of Christianity when considering who counts as a Christian. If one must be "born again", as one poster claims, then that Christian population goes down under 10%. One guy appears to only count Mormons - under that definition, there are about as many Christians as Jews.
You only get that 70%+ number (the ARIS gives it as 76.5%) if you're willing to accept that anyone who says they're a Christian actually counts as being a Christian.
Yet we're supposed to give "equal time" to all religions? In the name of what- diversity? What is the purpose of said diversity? There are 266 times as many Christians as Muslims in America, 399 Christians for each Buddhist, and 798 for every Hindu?
If you lump Christianity into one big pile, you can get those numbers. If you look at Christianity the way it sees itself, then there are a few more Catholics (24.5%) than Baptists (16.3%), and a somewhat larger number (35.7%) if you combine all of the "other" Christian groups (each quite small). And around as many "non-religious" (14.1%) as Baptists. The non-Christian groups make up 3.7%.
If Christianity - in any of its flavors - deserves mention, then so do the many people who disregard religion.
Finally, it appears the community has rallied behind the teacher, with the minority of whiny secularists and the ACLU taking a predictable stance. Thank God -- or Allah for you 0.3% -- we live in a country where the majority rules.
Predictable, but necessary. The notion that "majority rules" is always relevant is plain stupid. The Constitution isn't designed to allow it, either. It explicitly prohibits the "tyrrany of the majority" in particular areas, and the Supreme Court's authority to give the final interpretation of the Constitution on those matters is designed to protect the rights of those who hold minority opinions.
Just want to point out that Mormons don't view all other Christian groups as non-Christian. As far as I know this is total crap. Whatever Brandon said to make you think that way was either misinterpreted (probably) or incorrect. Just want to clear that point up. Maybe you mean something else, but oversimplifying and generalizing don't make an argument stronger... especially when the generalizations are dead wrong.
Just want to point out that Mormons don't view all other Christian groups as non-Christian. As far as I know this is total crap. Whatever Brandon said to make you think that way was either misinterpreted (probably) or incorrect. Just want to clear that point up. Maybe you mean something else, but oversimplifying and generalizing don't make an argument stronger... especially when the generalizations are dead wrong.
I probably overstated the case there, but Brandon did indicate that there was a substantial difference between those who merely call themselves Christians, and true Christians. One assumes that this largely consists in the degree to which their beliefs and actions correlate to his own morality. Perhaps they don't call themselves Mormons, but from a Mormon's perspective, these true Christians are presumably close enough.
For the purpose of my argument, if there are some percentage of those who claim to be Mormon who aren't in the "true" Christian group, and a similar number of non-Mormons who are in the "true" group, it amounts to the same thing - a little tiny group of those who he argues may legitimately be called Christians. Overwhelmingly smaller than the group who declares no religious affiliation whatsoever.
Actually, my definition of "Christian" probably has two levels:
- professed Christian - those who believe Jesus Christ is the Savior
- model Christian - those who do their best to follow Christ's example / teachings
There is actually some overlap, as the first is subject to a number of issues regarding what it means to "believe" (i.e., how much action is implied). The important point, however, is that this has nothing to do with the interpretation of what Christ taught, which is where Christian sects differ. Whether a person fits #1, #2 or somewhere in between, I would consider them a Christian - and how much they agree with Mormon doctrine has essentially nothing to do with it.
Like I said, your definition was apparently misinterpreted. Cheers.
Ok, but I don't quite get the relevance of that distinction. I don't deny that there are Christians who behave well and do good things. However, there are very many people who claim to be Christian, thus falling into your "professed Christian" category, who do evil in the name of their faith. This is true of Islam as well.
Religion's insistence on belief in unprovable things is, in my assessment, the root cause of this behavior.
The importance of the distinction is those falling into category 1 (professed Christians) and not into category 2 (model Christians) are, by definition, not acting according to the principles of Christianity. Is it not obvious the fault involved in decrying Christianity due to the actions of those not acting according to Christian principles - simply because they say they are? If such were the case, it would be very easy to dismiss most anything (science included) as almost nothing is immune to misinterpretation and misuse.
The importance of the distinction is those falling into category 1 (professed Christians) and not into category 2 (model Christians) are, by definition, not acting according to the principles of Christianity.
Once again, you say "tomato"...
What you call "not acting according to the principles of Christianity", I call merely a different interpretation of the same scripture.
As I've covered before, that book has all kinds of evil acts being condoned or actively promoted by ostensibly "good" characters. It's easy to interpret the bible as condoning lots of horrid stuff. The fact that you call it a "misinterpretation" is irrelevant. It's an interpretation, and it's one that is defensibly supported by the text. It's not like the passages came color-coded or something to indicate which ones are literal and which are figurative.
Furthermore, these "misinterpretations" aren't exactly convoluted works of logical sophistry. To interpret Deuteronomy 13:6-11 as saying "Christians are required to kill non-Christian evangelists" is a very obvious conclusion. The fact that a more "sophisticated" interpretation can suggest otherwise is immaterial.
The principles and intentions of Christianity exist and are what they are, regardless of how they are interpreted. The mere fact that they are interpreted one way by some and another way by others does not support your contention that they should be discarded out of hand. Such logic, as I previously mentioned, would also support dismissing science as its use is most definitely not interpreted identically by everyone.
To interpret Deuteronomy 13:6-11 as saying "Christians are required to kill non-Christian evangelists" is a very obvious conclusion.
This conclusion is only reached by the ignorant and those with ulterior motives. Once you find anyone considered to be a "Christian authority" who agrees "Christians are required to kill non-Christian evangelists" is in any form or fashion a tenant of Christianity, then maybe we can talk. Until then, you are arguing on uneducated opinion and misinformation. (Please don't take offense at the use of words like "ignorant" and "uneducated;" I'm not meaning to degrade your general intelligence, only to point out its limitations on this topic.)
This conclusion is only reached by the ignorant and those with ulterior motives.
Perhaps that's true today. Given modern communications technology (thank you science) and religious tolerance (thank you secular governments), those who interpret the passage that way are considered "cranks".
Do you want to bet that serious theologians didn't use that very passage to justify atrocities of the Thirty Years War, and the Crusades?
It's absolutely certain that theologians in the Confederacy argued from biblical passages that slavery was god's will.
The notion that Christianity and the bible are all about "love" is just indefensible. The bible is full of horrible atrocities either committed by or endorsed by god. As Sam Harris points out in Letter to a Christian Nation...
Of course, many Christians believe that a harmless person like Martin Luther King, Jr., is the best exemplar of their religion. But this presents a serious problem, because the doctrine of Jainism is an objectively better guide for becoming like Martin Luther King, Jr., than the doctrine of Christianity is. While King undoubtedly considered himself a devout Christian, he acquired his commitment to nonviolence primarily from the writings of Mohandas K. Gandhi. In 1959, he even traveled to India to learn the principles of nonviolent social protest directly from Gandhi's disciples. Where did Gandhi, a Hindu, get his doctrine of nonviolence? He got it from the Jains.
I say that what you're calling "the principles and intentions of Christianity" are purely a late-20th century interpretation, caused by Christianity being brought to heel by an increasingly secular society. The Papal Legate Arnaud-Amaury at Beziers clearly didn't aspire to nonviolence and love when he said "Kill them all, God will know his own."
I never challenged you to come up with examples of those who misinterpret the principles and intentions of Christianity, the existence of which I've conceded all along. While we're on the topic, though, I think the problems come not from the lack of a secular influence but rather from the lack of divine influence during the Great Apostasy. I doubt we'd be able to get very far in professing to prove causation over correlation in either case, however.
To make an end, I can't help but comment on the irony of the following excerpt:
Given modern communications technology (thank you science) and religious tolerance (thank you secular governments)
It sounds much like the common religious interjections of "thanks be to God" or "Allah be willing."
I never challenged you to come up with examples of those who misinterpret the principles and intentions of Christianity, the existence of which I've conceded all along.
But my contention has been that calling these "misinterpretations" is sophistry. It's viewing them through the lens of contemporary society. You can't ensure that today's ecumenism and tolerance isn't a "fad" that will fall by the wayside, should secular restraint fail us. If love and kindness were truly at the core of Christianity, then its scripture wouldn't be full of stuff so easy to "misinterpret". Buddhist sutras don't have passages that literally say you should kill unbelievers. Jainist don't have a holy book that says you can't be saved unless you hate your parents. Neither one has to explain how the earthly embodiment of eternal love got pissed an put a magical whammy on a fig tree just because it didn't have fruit - out of season, no less.
While we're on the topic, though, I think the problems come not from the lack of a secular influence but rather from the lack of divine influence during the Great Apostasy.
I suppose you could view it that way. OTOH, was god asleep at the switch during that time? How come he waited over fifteen hundred years to take corrective action? Seems like he's got some 'splaining to do.
I doubt we'd be able to get very far in professing to prove causation over correlation in either case, however.
This because you want to apply inappropriate standards of proof to the questions. You can't "know" (in any absolute sense) the answers to these questions. I can't "know" that the water I just drank isn't going to combine with something in my stomach and kill me. But through reason I can determine that it's preposterously unlikely. While I can't say the probability is zero, I can say it's sufficiently close to zero as to not matter. I may as well call that high level of confidence in matters "knowing" - after all, there's no other kind of "knowing".
While I can't prove Jesus didn't come back from the dead, through reason I can say that it's preposterously unlikely. Sufficiently so that I can say I "know" he didn't.
As to the existence of god, if we drop the equivocal use of the term and restrict it specifically to the kind of god described by western monotheism, I have yet to hear a decent theodicy. Therefore, I maintain that the "problem of evil" means that that kind of god is impossible.
It sounds much like the common religious interjections of "thanks be to God" or "Allah be willing."
And was an intentional reference to them.
I understand that you don't like dubbing one viewpoint as a "misinterpretation" and another as the "proper interpretation," but that really is beside my point, which is you can't dismiss something simply because it has more than one interpretation or being some interpret it in a way that doesn't make sense to you. This happens with Christianity and it also happens with science. If you dismiss the former, you have to dismiss the latter.
OTOH, was god asleep at the switch during that time? How come he waited over fifteen hundred years to take corrective action? Seems like he's got some 'splaining to do.
It's not God's responsibility to force people to ready themselves for the restoration of the gospel.
While I can't prove Jesus didn't come back from the dead, through reason I can say that it's preposterously unlikely.
I don't know that you can. If you'd like to try, though, I suggest Baye's Theorem as a means of logically and objectively assessing its probability.
As to the existence of god, if we drop the equivocal use of the term and restrict it specifically to the kind of god described by western monotheism, I have yet to hear a decent theodicy. Therefore, I maintain that the "problem of evil" means that that kind of god is impossible.
I don't believe in that god, either.
you can't dismiss something simply because it has more than one interpretation or being some interpret it in a way that doesn't make sense to you. This happens with Christianity and it also happens with science. If you dismiss the former, you have to dismiss the latter.
You keep trying to put science and religion on the same footing. Religion is "revealed" truth (that is, founded on irrational sources). It presents itself as ultimate and infallible truth. Science is "reasoned" truth - repeatably verifiable.
It's entirely reasonable to call something a "misinterpretation" of science - misinterpretations don't correspond to the data. Scriptural exegisis has no such yardstick.
I don't know that you can. If you'd like to try, though, I suggest Baye's Theorem as a means of logically and objectively assessing its probability.
So, let's see. No other person in recorded history is has come back to life after being dead. Of the forty billion or so humans that have died, there's no evidence they're alive today. These all suggest that the posterior probability is quite low.
As for evidence supporting the claim, we have documents purporting to be copies of earlier documents containing accounts of the event, which were given decades after the event itself. The copies themselves are from centuries after the event. The claims to the authenticity of the documents and the reliability of the witnesses still inspire small amounts of dispute. None of these suggests a substantial increase in the posterior probability.
I therefore conclude that the event is unlikely in the extreme.
I don't believe in that god, either.
I didn't find any obvious reference to Mormon theology on the subject. Which of the three attributes of god (relevant to theodicy) do Mormons deny, then? It appears you do accept omniscience. That leaves omnipotence or omnibenevolence.
It's entirely reasonable to call something a "misinterpretation" of science - misinterpretations don't correspond to the data. Scriptural exegisis has no such yardstick.
You can interpret scripture or revealed truth in the same way. When data, whether revealed or scientific, is taken out of context or otherwise misconstrued, it is misinterpreted.
I therefore conclude that the event is unlikely in the extreme.
I suggested Baye's Theorem for a reason. You've left off a few critical elements in your argument, including (but not limited to) the probability that there would be evidence of a resurrection if such did occur.
I didn't find any obvious reference to Mormon theology on the subject. Which of the three attributes of god (relevant to theodicy) do Mormons deny, then? It appears you do accept omniscience. That leaves omnipotence or omnibenevolence.
By "three attributes of God" do you not mean omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence? In that case, I do not accept God as knowing everything, but only knowing everything that can be known. I don't accept Him as being omnipresent to the extent that it would prevent Him from having a body. I don't accept Him as being able to do everything, only everything that can be done. Whether or not you want to apply the three attribute labels to those things is up to you.
You can interpret scripture or revealed truth in the same way. When data, whether revealed or scientific, is taken out of context or otherwise misconstrued, it is misinterpreted.
There's no data for the revealed truth.
I suggested Baye's Theorem for a reason. You've left off a few critical elements in your argument, including (but not limited to) the probability that there would be evidence of a resurrection if such did occur.
I did use Bayes' Theorem. I don't have to give precise numerical probabilities for the events. I'm not arguing that the probability is less than 0.0000001 or something - I simply said it's "extremely unlikely".
Bayes' Theorem is about the plausibility of combined evidence, given the plausibility of the individual peices. Strong evidence of events with probabilities near zero or one have significant effects on plausibility (the posterior probability in the equation). Weak evidence, or evidence for events with middling probabilities have little effect.
The many billions of people who haven't returned from the dead means the event is quite rare. The probability that this particular guy did so is very tiny - one in billions. The supporting evidence for the claim that he did is very underwhelming - its provenance is suspicious, and the chain of evidence is weak. It would need to be of quite high quality to get the posterior probability up even to the level where one could reasonably say "I don't know".
By "three attributes of God" do you not mean omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence?
No. I'm talking about theodicy. The "problem of evil". To oversimplify:
- God is omnipotent.
- God is omniscient.
- God is omnibenevolent.
- An omnibenevolent entity would act so as to minimize evil.
- An omniscient entity is aware of all evil.
- An omnipotent entity can eliminate evil.
- Evil is present.
- Therefore, no entity exists with all three traits.
- Thefore god does not exist.
As I said, an oversimplification. I'm aware of counterarguments, but they don't hold water, as I've said elsewhere.
There's no data for the revealed truth.
I disagree.
I did use Bayes' Theorem.
Then why didn't you include the probability that if someone was resurrected that you would have evidence of it?
The "problem of evil".
I'm aware of the philosophical issue. Did my discussion of the omni-attributes not sufficiently show the God in which I believe is not the God being questioned therein?
< I disagree.
You keep saying that. But not producing.
Then why didn't you include the probability that if someone was resurrected that you would have evidence of it?
I didn't consider it relevant. Those billions of dead people are predominantly the recently dead - during recorded history. I expect that if any significant number of them had been resurrected, then at a minimum there'd be ample claims of it.
I'm aware of the philosophical issue. Did my discussion of the omni-attributes not sufficiently show the God in which I believe is not the God being questioned therein?
Nope. You thew in "omnipresence" and left out "omnibenevolence". For the purpose of theodicy, omnipresence is really no different than omniscience (and maybe part of omnipotence). In my argument, his awareness of all evils can be attributed to either omniscience or omnipresence. He was there or he knew about it. His capacity to fix evil relies on omnipotence or omnipresence - he's there to stop it, or he can stop it from anywhere.
So let me put it again... is your god less than omnipotent? Is he less than omniscient? Or less than omnibenevolent (that is, capable of doing evil)?
I expect that if any significant number of them had been resurrected, then at a minimum there'd be ample claims of it.
And that's where your argument goes wrong, in my opinion.
is your god less than omnipotent?
As I said before, I believe God is maximally able to do all that one being can do. I'm reasonably sure that is not the "able to do anything and everything" definition you are using.
Is he less than omniscient?
Again, as I said before, I do not accept God as knowing everything, but only knowing everything that can be known. This rules out things like the future, as it depends on the choices made by free agents.
Or less than omnibenevolent (that is, capable of doing evil)?
God has agency, so He could choose to do evil, although He would then cease to be God. As He does not cease to be God, I believe that He is 100% righteous.
And that's where your argument goes wrong, in my opinion.
Ok. Based on what? Why should there be little evidence for resurrections. After all, in the case in question, the resurrection is supposed to have resulted in the world's dominant religion.
In the OT, there's an incident where soldiers were supposedly resurrected after a battle. This is a claim for hundreds, if not thousands of resurrections, in a short period of time and a pretty small geographical area. No corroborating testimony can be found.
Given the degree of celebration when soldiers who don't die return from war today, any example of such a resurrection would be big news. This is likely to have been true much of recent history. So again - billions of deaths, no resurrections.
As I said before, I believe God is maximally able to do all that one being can do. I'm reasonably sure that is not the "able to do anything and everything" definition you are using.
I'm not entirely clear on what you mean. I think the definition you're giving might be circular, or maybe tautological - at least, I can't see what the implications of it are supposed to be.
The "standard" notion of omnipotence is that god can violate causality at will. He is not constrained by the laws of physics. Space and time are not obstacles to his action. This sort of god can do "superhero" stuff - see through walls, fly, raise the dead, and so on. The only limit to these abilities is logical consistency. He can't make a square circle. He can't create a rock so big he can't lift it. He can't create a universe in which he doesn't exist. That sort of thing.
That is omnipotence, as I'm defining it. Without that degree of omnipotence, it's hard to justify the idea that he created everything from nothing.
God has agency, so He could choose to do evil, although He would then cease to be God. As He does not cease to be God, I believe that He is 100% righteous.
Ok. That'll suffice to meet the maximal benevolence requirement.
So I'm not quite clear on omnipotence. If you agree that he's not limited by causality, only by logical consistency, then you've established a claim that your god has all three of the attributes I referenced in my argument. The argument then continues to establish that no entity can have all three, and therefore, the god in question cannot exist.
Ok. Based on what? Why should there be little evidence for resurrections.
Based on the nature of resurrection itself.
In the OT, there's an incident where soldiers were supposedly resurrected after a battle.
Which incident is that?
Given the degree of celebration when soldiers who don't die return from war today, any example of such a resurrection would be big news. This is likely to have been true much of recent history. So again - billions of deaths, no resurrections.
This is an argument for evidence of modern resurrection being big news, but you have yet to establish why there would be evidence of a resurrection if it did occur.
The "standard" notion of omnipotence is that god can violate causality at will. ... Space and time are not obstacles to his action. ... He is not constrained by the laws of physics.
I don't agree with these. (Although we don't have a very complete understanding of the laws of physics, I do think God is constrained by true physical laws.)
This sort of god can do "superhero" stuff - see through walls, fly, raise the dead, and so on. ... He can't make a square circle. He can't create a rock so big he can't lift it. He can't create a universe in which he doesn't exist.
Agreed.
it's hard to justify the idea that he created everything from nothing.
Agreed; I don't accept the concept of creation ex nihilo.
Which incident is that?
I can't lay my hands on the reference, right now. But it's definitely in there, and my argument doesn't really rely on the specific details. The same arguments could apply to the resurrection of Lazarus. The biblical accounts have it as being witnessed by a pretty sizable crowd, so one would expect more testimony to be available than just the synoptic gospels.
but you have yet to establish why there would be evidence of a resurrection if it did occur.
I don't see why I need to. People talk about unusual things, and coming back from the dead is sure to get you talked about.
I do think God is constrained by true physical laws.
Hm. So where'd the physical laws come from? Did God somehow create them and then bind himself to them?
If he can't violate causality, then how can miracles occur? Is this merely a symptom of our incomplete understanding of physics?
I don't accept the concept of creation ex nihilo.
So this must mean you don't think god created the universe ex nihilo. So corrollary to that, either god didn't create the universe, or he created it from something else?
The same arguments could apply to the resurrection of Lazarus. The biblical accounts have it as being witnessed by a pretty sizable crowd, so one would expect more testimony to be available than just the synoptic gospels. ... People talk about unusual things, and coming back from the dead is sure to get you talked about.
There are still all sorts of holes in your argument. There could have been many testimonies written of these things, but they didn't survive until now or haven't yet been found. There also could have been many "talking about" such events that were not able to record them due to illiteracy. I'm not saying this things are proved, I'm just saying you have to deal with them in your argument.
So where'd the physical laws come from? Did God somehow create them and then bind himself to them?
I'm not sure, but I think about that a lot. This is, of course, a very deep topic and it isn't directly relevant here, so I'll refrain from further discussion.
If he can't violate causality, then how can miracles occur? Is this merely a symptom of our incomplete understanding of physics?
Yes.
either god didn't create the universe, or he created it from something else?
From something else.
I'm not saying this things are proved, I'm just saying you have to deal with them in your argument.
Actually, I don't. You're the one insisting that a resurrection occurred - you need to justify why there wouldn't be such evidence.
As I mentioned before, the majority of those dead people are during recorded history. If any substantial number had been resurrected, the majority of those should have been during recorded history, and all that recording of history would have given us some evidence - after all, dead men walking get talked about.
If he can't violate causality, then how can miracles occur? Is this merely a symptom of our incomplete understanding of physics?
Yes.
So your god's powers are essentially the result of advanced technology. Sorry - I just don't see that indicating he's any sort of a being that's worthy of worship. We're talking an episode of Stargate, here, not religion.
you need to justify why there wouldn't be such evidence.
I did: due to the nature of the resurrection itself.
If any substantial number had been resurrected, the majority of those should have been during recorded history, and all that recording of history would have given us some evidence - after all, dead men walking get talked about.
As evidence by paragraphs like these, you have no idea what the resurrection is or what it entails. It's no wonder you have such a difficult time understanding it.
your god's powers are essentially the result of advanced technology.
If you are defining technology as being the application of knowledge, then yes. Of what else would it be the result?
I just don't see that indicating he's any sort of a being that's worthy of worship.
I can't imagine anything more worthy of worship than a maximally intelligent and powerful Father and Creator. What attribute does the God I've described lack that is necessary for being worthy of worship?
We're talking an episode of Stargate, here, not religion.
There was an episode of Stargate that featured a maximally intelligent and powerful being who created us and this world?! Is it on YouTube?
I did: due to the nature of the resurrection itself.
That's not a "reason", that's just handwaving. The term itself means dead people coming back to life. You've got some extra "magical" shit in your concept, but including that would mean we'd have to assign a probability to the fact that this resurrection was that kind of resurrection, and we're back to it being extremely unlikely. After all, we do have scenarios where people come back to life - largely because the line between life and death is a bit fuzzy. Hearts can stop beating, lungs stop breathing, and so on, but they can start again with proper medical care.
So it's far more likley that the nature of the "resurrection" was simply that his friends bribed a centurion and got him down from there before he was properly dead, and nursed him back to health. After all, by all accounts he was a pretty healthy guy. Crucifixion victims were known to last for days on the cross, and your boy gave it up in just one.
As evidence by paragraphs like these, you have no idea what the resurrection is or what it entails. It's no wonder you have such a difficult time understanding it.
Face it. Neither do you. You have no possible way of reliably knowing any significant facts about the event.
I can't imagine anything more worthy of worship than a maximally intelligent and powerful Father and Creator. What attribute does the God I've described lack that is necessary for being worthy of worship?
Divinity. What you've described is nothing more than some space alien with very advanced technology.
There was an episode of Stargate that featured a maximally intelligent and powerful being who created us and this world?! Is it on YouTube?
The entire premise of the show is aliens with advanced technology posing as gods to gullible primitives.
You can't know your god created the world, at best, you have his word for it. Since you granted that he's not omnipotent, then he's just powerful - that's an alien with advanced tech.
Teachers - what are your comments? by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 18 December 2006
I know we have teachers on this forum. While the theists and atheists have fought with one another over this before ... what do our teacher's think of the matter?