Both of them wrote to me
Greg has sent me an article quoting Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan William’s opinion that creationism (in the guise of intelligent design) should not be taught in schools. However, I particularly liked this section of the article, on the difference between the American and the UK religious scene:
“Religion has become politicized in America. That is not the case here. This is not a major issue,” religious commentator and broadcaster Clifford Longley said.
“There is no intellectual credibility given to creationism in this country. There is no parallel between English evangelicals and American evangelicals.
“When I wrote an article saying there were no creationists in Britain, they both wrote to me.”
I find it interesting that creationism (intelligent design) is one area in which the conservative evangelical church often described as the “religious right” departs from the orthodoxy expressed by Catholicism and the Church of England. In many other areas, the “new evangelical conservatism” (for want of a better term) coincides with the socially and theologically conservative expressions of many protestant, catholic and orthodox traditions. The other point of difference in my observation is the elevation of and obsession with the End Times a la Left Behind.
April 7th, 2006 at 7:04 am
Many authors can write convincing characterisations. When I read fiction, no matter how involved in the story I become, I am always aware that it is fiction and not reality. Do you have that experience too, Nigel, or am I abornmal in this regard?
April 7th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Many biographers can write convincing novelisations of people. When I read them and I don’t believe that a particular section is 100% representive of reality I don’t immediately feel that the person described is imaginary. Do you have that expreriance too, David, or am I abnormal in this regard?
April 7th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Good response.
In the case of Mark, it seems that some regard it as more biographical than fictional. I don’t think it is possible to ascertain if Mark’s gospel does correspond to any historical reality.
April 7th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
I think that Nigel is referring to the fact that the gospels, letters and other writings about Jesus (including the mentions by historian Josephus) seem to provide more substantial evidence (in terms of the number of documents, copies of documents etc which we have which refer to Jesus) than many other people in history whose existence we do not doubt. I have a really cheesy video involving white shoes and white belts and bad haircuts which for all its faults stacks the sheer amount of evidence against each other for Plato, Jesus and Aristotle and it is pretty convincing.
April 7th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
The same untruth copied a thousand times on ancient scrolls is not more convincing than a truth found on one piece of parchment.
April 7th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
So you doubt that Plato and Aristotle existed?
April 7th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Sorry for the double post but I forgot to comment on the real thrust of my previous post.
Few people dispute that Jesus was a real person and that had some religous asperations. Joseph Smith was a real person, Mohamad was a real person, Buddah was a real person, Moses and King David were possibly real people, Adam and Eve are up for open debate. To what extent the stories about each of these people is accurate is obviously varied.
Also its hard to say that words on thousands of old scrolls are less convincing than whats found on just 1 old scroll
April 7th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
David
all the proofs that i would contend are convincing relate to proving Theism or at the very least Deism as opposed to Christianity….
I think that the proof for Jesus is compelling however not of the same order of the proofs for Theism. Eg the ontological proof of Gods existence entails the necessary existence of a God however Jesus is only necessary if the Christian worldview is correct.
April 7th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Proof of Theism is philosophical logical and scientific
Proof of Jesus, archeological documentary historical and hearsay and evidence from eyewitnesses
April 8th, 2006 at 9:20 am
“Evidence for Jesus thin on the ground’?… with respect, I’d be very surprised if you’ve investigated this with any seriousness… it was the compelling weight of evidence that led me to become a Christian.
The issue with the accuracy of the gospels is not simply how widely they were copied and quoted, but the dating of these and the character and credentials of the authors. All of the gospels were written within the lifetime of the “12 apostles”. John and Matthew were (probably) members of the 12… Luke and Mark were very closely associated with leaders of the early church. Luke in particular would note down many relevant historical details in his writings (who was king here, governor there, customs of the people here etc.) and did so with compelling accuracy based on extra biblical evidence. There were many eyewitnesses to the life of Christ at the time these were written, and these documents were in wide circulation… so any errors or inaccuracies should have been promptly disputed. Au contraire… the early church fathers quoted these writings as if they were authoritative from an astonishingly early era.
There is evidence that the 12 memorised the teachings of Jesus… this was a common practice at the time… so large slabs of the teaching of Jesus in the gospel are probably word for word as they were taught.
As for the motives of the authors… the gospels were written against the backdrop of persecution… the tradition of the church suggests all the apostles (excepting John) were martyred for their beliefs about Jesus. You would have to be fairly convinced about what you have seen and heard to face torture and death in preference to recanting.
Evidence for the historical death and resurrection of Christ are compellingly outlined in the Christian classic “Who Moved the Stone?” by Frank Morrison. An ardent athiest, he set out to disprove the resurrection of Christ, and was converted to Christianity in the attempt. Lee Strobel, who I’ve mentioned before, has given a recent and very readable summary of the documentary and historical evidence for the life and death of Jesus.
More philosophical reflections on the life of Christ are beautifully written by C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity”… another foundational classic. I could try to summarise some of this but it would turn into a very long and boring post… I also feel some contributors to signposts are more interested in “shit-stirring” Christians than motivated by genuine intellectual curiousity and spiritual interest (no evidence of that in your case David)… I don’t want to bore the “shit-stirring”camp senseless while wasting my time!
April 9th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
good post janet………
for a quick heads up on ID see Strobels ‘case for faith’ and ‘case for a creator’
April 18th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
sorry Janet .. how stupid am i.. i just recomended 2 books to you that you recomended to me… great books though