The God Delusion

[_MrStakhanovite]

It refers to any empirical basis for believing in God.

No, it's much more than that. Natural Theology is a program that systematically sets out what one can learn of God without appeals to divine revelation or sacred traditions. It's not some kind of apologetic scheme.

[_Sethbag]

Since I reject the idea that the Mormon "spiritual witness" is the only guide to divine truth, I am open to other avenues of finding truth about God. It appears that you still believe it's the Mormon's way or the highway. Given that choice, I guess the highway is the only logical choice.

In my experience, when looking at how every other serious religionist I've ever talked to dealt with the problems with the Bible or the idea of Jesus Christ and God, the "spiritual witness" ended up being the Trump card they pulled out to justify it all. Except maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses, who seemed genuinely nonplussed that I didn't respect their Biblical prooftexting.

I haven't yet read any of Alister McGrath's books, though I plan to eventually, but I do recall watching a debate between him and Richard Dawkins, and it seemed to me that "spiritual witness" was the underpinning to everything McGrath said too. Perhaps I was just watching the debate while overly influenced by residual Mormonism, who knows. (by the way, pointing out this debate is just an example, not meant to express the limits of my exposure to religious ideas outside of Mormonism)

Maybe if I had that PhD in the Philosophy of Religion I would have grokked the much deeper and more sophisticated points McGrath was sneaking in there, below the resolution my ex-Mormon religious radar could achieve. ;-)

That you think I have jumped out of the frying pan into the fire just adds more evidence to the fact that most Mormons (and ex-Mormons) are completely ignorant about how Christianity is practiced, what it's history is, and how it is completely different than Mormonism.

You have some exposure to Mormon apologists, so let me reference Mormon Apologia to try to illustrate to you how you come across to someone like me. A Mormon Apologist may know all of the damning evidence, but then come up with a sophisticated new explanation for Mormonism that twists and turns and departs from traditional Mormonism in order to come up with a version of Mormonism that they feel they can defend, and then they proceed to believe their own version of it.

I've read quite a few posts from you about how you choose to read the Bible, and I see a very similar pattern. There are a great many problems with the Bible, but you choose to twist and turn and depart from the kinds of beliefs that religions have held to in centuries past to arrive at a personal version of what the Bible really says and means, that you feel you can defend, and then you choose to believe your own version.

I would argue that there is a definite parallel here between Mormon Apologetics and Aristotle Smith's Bible Apologetics. I view religious apologetics unfavorably to say the least, and so I say you've jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire.

I once recall a thread where you were posting the kinds of sophisticated understandings of Israelite culture and language, and myth, in order to truly understand what the Bible really meant. I recall quipping at the time that the idea of God requiring a PhD in Ancient Near Eastern studies in order to have a chance at properly understanding his Word was definitely a red flag in my book. I would have to apply the argument from unlikely sophistication of training and study required by God to have a chance of believing correctly that I previously mentioned to Stak.

If you are right then very, very few of us on Earth ever had a chance, and God set the rest of us all up for failure.

[_EAllusion]

Catholics have produce more work on Liturgical theology alone, than natural theology.

Huh. Of course Catholics are into Liturgy. It's what makes mass the fun-filled ordeal that it is. How does this diminish Catholic emphasis on natural theology?

[_EAllusion]

It refers to any empirical basis for believing in God.

No, it's much more than that. Natural Theology is a program that systematically sets out what one can learn of God without appeals to divine revelation or sacred traditions. It's not some kind of apologetic scheme.

I thought you were regulating natural theology to the corners of evangelical apologetics with the language you were using. So I pointed out that natural theology extends beyond that. We were talking about people's basis for believing in God, after all.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Catholics have produce more work on Liturgical theology alone, than natural theology.

Huh. Of course Catholics are into Liturgy. It's what makes mass the fun-filled ordeal that it is. How does this diminish Catholic emphasis on natural theology?

What I’m getting at EA, is that natural theology doesn’t play a major role in Catholic theology, nor does it in a lot of mainline Protestant denominations, nor Judaism. I also don’t think that natural theology even represents a major role in any sort of justification for theology, or even a major concern.

There is a lot of work out there that a Christian or Jewish person could lean on in times of doubt, and disillusionment. Works that help people integrate all these doubts into a worldview that doesn’t demand you put it on the shelf, or take an all or nothing approach that Mormonism so often demands.

I’m, look how Mormonism handles most questions…”Pray about it.” If you were to go to a theologian like David Tracy or Paul Ricour and said, “I prayed about the Bible for a week and I never got an answer from the Spirit.” They’d look at you like you were nuts, and think your conception of God is some kind of vending machine.

[_Aristotle Smith]

In my experience, when looking at how every other serious religionist I've ever talked to dealt with the problems with the Bible or the idea of Jesus Christ and God, the "spiritual witness" ended up being the Trump card they pulled out to justify it all. Except maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses, who seemed genuinely nonplussed that I didn't respect their Biblical prooftexting.

Funny, I've yet to have that experience. Almost every Christian I have ever talked to or read thinks that sole reliance on personal feelings as a means to knowledge is completely wrong. See for instance The Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Personal experience is only 1/4 of what is seen as a means to knowing God. And, Methodists tend to have a much more expansive meaning of experience than the Mormon version of personal feelings. So in that sense, the Mormon testimony would count for less than the 1/4 in a Wesleyan epistemology.

I haven't yet read any of Alister McGrath's books, though I plan to eventually, but I do recall watching a debate between him and Richard Dawkins, and it seemed to me that "spiritual witness" was the underpinning to everything McGrath said too. Perhaps I was just watching the debate while overly influenced by residual Mormonism, who knows. (by the way, pointing out this debate is just an example, not meant to express the limits of my exposure to religious ideas outside of Mormonism)

That doesn't sound much like McGrath, this does:

http://www.testoffaith.com/resources/re ... spx?id=272

Note for him experience follows other evidence for God, it is not a proof of the existence of God. This is a very Anglican approach to faith.

I've read quite a few posts from you about how you choose to read the Bible, and I see a very similar pattern. There are a great many problems with the Bible, but you choose to twist and turn and depart from the kinds of beliefs that religions have held to in centuries past to arrive at a personal version of what the Bible really says and means, that you feel you can defend, and then you choose to believe your own version.

I would recommend you read a book on the history of biblical interpretation. I'm well within the norms of how the Bible has been interpreted historically. The problem is that Mormonism pushes a fundamentalist and flatly literal reading of the Bible (ironically, Mormonism denigrates other Christian groups, then basically marches in lock step with the interpretive strategies of fundamentalist Christians). This is to put it bluntly both stupid and a-historical. Christians and Jews have always read the Bible creatively, with an eye towards making the best sense out of it they can. The flat literal reading is actually a historical aberration, unfortunately pounded into the heads of LDS seminary students, further reinforced by the Mormon idea that religion is basically an exercise in showing up to get your marching orders from "the Brethren." The idea that everyone read the Bible as literal history until science showed up and set everyone right is wrong in every way. As just one example, probably the earliest reflections on the Bible (that we have) come from Philo of Alexandria, and his reading of the Torah was anything but flatly literal.

I would argue that there is a definite parallel here between Mormon Apologetics and Aristotle Smith's Bible Apologetics. I view religious apologetics unfavorably to say the least, and so I say you've jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Look, I have to be honest, Mopologetics is the worst stuff imaginable. It really is. While I freely admit that there's plenty of crap Christian apologetics, good stuff does exist.

I once recall a thread where you were posting the kinds of sophisticated understandings of Israelite culture and language, and myth, in order to truly understand what the Bible really meant. I recall quipping at the time that the idea of God requiring a PhD in Ancient Near Eastern studies in order to have a chance at properly understanding his Word was definitely a red flag in my book. I would have to apply the argument from unlikely sophistication of training and study required by God to have a chance of believing correctly that I previously mentioned to Stak.

No, you don't have to have a Ph.D. to understand this stuff. But again, the bias is that one must have a lay clergy who do not have any time or inclination to learn this stuff. What if a bunch of people got together and said, "Hey, we'd like to be able to study the Bible in more detail, so maybe we can pay a guy or gal to help us out who does know his or her stuff. Maybe we can call him/her a 'Rabbi' or 'Pastor'" There's a reason almost every religion (besides the LDS church and the JW's) insist on their spiritual leaders getting an advanced degree on the subject, and it has nothing to do with following Satan for hire during a Masonic ritual.

[_EAllusion]

What I’m getting at EA, is that natural theology doesn’t play a major role in Catholic theology

I think the shadow of Aquinas looms larger over Catholic theology than you do.

I’m, look how Mormonism handles most questions…”Pray about it.” If you were to go to a theologian like David Tracy or Paul Ricour and said, “I prayed about the Bible for a week and I never got an answer from the Spirit.” They’d look at you like you were nuts, and think your conception of God is some kind of vending machine.

How the vast majority of Christians, over a billion of them, justify their belief and would deal with a potential crisis of faith would be utterly foreign to the thought process of Paul Ricoeur. So if on the one hand you are talking about how "Mormonism" handles questions as in most Mormons, then you are making the wrong comparison. That's not how most Christians handle it either. But if you are saying the Mormon faith can't adapt Ricoeur to its own ends, then that also is wrong. Heck, I read the work of Ricoeur on the recommendation of Clark Goble and Kevin Winters, two Mormons. If things like po-mo hermeneutics is the Jesus shaped bridge that you keep obliquely referring to, that turn is available to Mormons, even if the average person in the pews doesn't take it and would probably be appalled by it if they understood it.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I think the shadow of Aquinas looms larger over Catholic theology than you do.

Probably not. His 5 ways are a perfect example of people misconstruing natural theology as some kind of apologetic program.

How the vast majority of Christians, over a billion of them, justify their belief and would deal with a potential crisis of faith would be utterly foreign to the thought process of Paul Ricoeur. So if on the one hand you are talking about how "Mormonism" handles questions as in most Mormons, then you are making the wrong comparison.

No, I’m saying Mormons don’t even have that option. They have to leave their tradition, and read stuff their Church hierarchy would think otherwise demonic.

But if you are saying the Mormon faith can't adapt Ricoeur to its own ends, then that also is wrong.

They can, but it’ll be theology that won’t be accepted in their church. At least a Christian has the option of finding a different organization without much of a struggle. It’s not unheard of for a new Christian to start out with simplistic beliefs in a Calvary Church, and once their beliefs mature and expand, they move off to another church that can accommodate that. A Mormon would have to leave their church entirely, which is a lot harder to do than simply going to another building on Sunday.

Heck, I read the work of Ricoeur on the recommendation of Clark Goble and Kevin Winters, two Mormons. If things like po-mo hermeneutics is the Jesus shaped bridge that you keep obliquely referring to, that turn is available to Mormons, even if the average person in the pews doesn't take it and would probably be appalled by it if they understood it.

For starters, Ricoeur isn’t post-modern in any sense (that's what I took from your po-mo comment). You know all the stuff Clark Goble reads, you know all the gymnastics he has to go through to reinvent Mormonism, and how he can’t ever talk about it in Church, because if he did, no one would understand him, and if they did, they’d probably call him into a Church Court.

Mormons have nothing in their tradition that is like Ricoeur, they don’t have anyone like N.T. Wright, they don’t have anyone like Alvin Plantinga, they have no great mystical tradition, no deep liturgy, no T. S. Eliot, no music. Nothing. All Mormonism is crappy correlated pabulum spoon fed to people like Simon. That is the problem.

[_Tarski]

You know all the stuff Clark Goble reads, you know all the gymnastics he has to go through to reinvent Mormonism, and how he can’t ever talk about it in Church, because if he did, no one would understand him.

And can one talk about Ricoeur in a catholic church and expect to be understood?
Does Ricoeur have any more business standing for Catholicism or any other Christian denomination than does Clark Goble re. the Mormon church?
Why do you bring him up as if he belongs to Chritianity any more than Gobel belongs to Mormonism?

By the way, my wife was raised Catholic in Spain and went to a Catholic school where she received plenty of corporal punishment at the hands of nuns. She attended church regularly.
She had never heard of Freud let alone Paul Ricoeur before I brought him up. She knew nothing--literally nothing-- about theology. In fact, she was surprised when I explained to her that Jesus was not a separate person from God. It was all latin to her (literally). Oh and who was Job anyway? If it wasn't for Cecil B. Demille, I am quite sure she would be unaware of Moses.

[_Some Schmo]

Do people think they are somehow being clever when they misspell "new" in the ignorant term "new atheism?" Is this what passes for humor or intellectualism? Is it supposed to be disparaging?

Just how idiotic do you have to be to think that's funny/special/clever?

This from the board whose posters regularly place under scruitiny the work and behavior of "Mopologists". Come on, Schmo. Be a bit more self honest, okay?

Don't think that's quite the same thing. "Mopologist" has become an accepted word here that has an actual shared meaning in the community. The various spellings of "new" (which convey no meaning at all other than in his own muddled "mind") are the best some people can do in the humor department, apparently.

I think you are expecting too much from Schmo. Better to hope he has mastered the fine art of being able to grab his own ass in the dark.

I rest my case.

I have little doubt he's sitting in a corner somewhere holding himself, rocking and laughing at the hilarious joke he thinks he made (although he's probably kicking himself for not cleverly misspelling some of the words for additional laughs). Pity for him is the appropriate response.

*shrug*