Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[skepticalbip]

Why would they want to invent an anti-roman-gods flavious Jesus? Or a King of Kings above Caesar?

For example; the bible paints the Jewish leadership as the ones responsible for Jesus' crucification... Then too, Jewish leadership resented paying tribute but Jesus said give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. etc.

Jesus would be against worshipping and giving tribute to other gods, but you must pay your dues if you live by their governance (Romans) because they have ways if you don't, if you know what I mean.

Whether the idea of a Flavian Jesus reflects reality or not, it makes more sense than the ideas offered today by Christians. The gospels certainly do not paint Jewish leadership in a good light. In fact, Jews have been persecuted by Christians as 'Christ killers' through the ages and still are by some Christian sects because of the way they are depicted in the gospels. The gospels would have been damned effective war propaganda if that is what they were because it turned a Jewish sect (the Jesus cult) against Rome's enemy, the established Jewish leadership.

 

[Learner]

Whether the idea of a Flavian Jesus reflects reality or not, it makes more sense than the ideas offered today by Christians. The gospels certainly do not paint Jewish leadership in a good light. In fact, Jews have been persecuted by Christians as 'Christ killers' through the ages and still are by some Christian sects because of the way they are depicted in the gospels. The gospels would have been damned effective war propaganda if that is what they were.

I agree,they have been persecuted by a lot of Christians but just a mention, interestingly, not realised by many people they were protected by Muslims in their respected countries, living side-by-side, which proves was possible not quite the same today unfortunately. But anyway Christianity has been distorted to get people to do all sorts of things, a reputation in the wrong-light which is totally against what Jesus preached, but you're right in this regard.

 

[bilby]

In the early 300s AD, at the height of the Roman Empire, Christianity became the official state religion, by command of Emperor Constantine.

Why, at that point, would you NOT expect the Romans to invent and promote an "anti-roman-gods" Jesus? Overturning the established polytheistic religions and replacing them with Christianity required exactly that kind of propaganda to be effective.

Let me guess, you have heard that the Roman Empire was hugely opposed to Christianity, and persecuted Christians; and this has left you with the completely erroneous (but all too common) belief that the Roman Imperial position on religion was a fixed and immutable one, that never changed throughout the entire existence of the Empire. Am I right?

The Empire lasted from its founding in 27BCE until its final dissolution in 1453CE - a total of 1,480 years. Even if we only consider the Western Empire ruled from Rome herself, it lasted until 476CE, so for 503 years. Very few nations last so long with no major changes in state attitudes to religion. That's about 18 or 19 generations - do you think you would agree with every one of the religious opinions of your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather?

Because that seems highly implausible to me.

 

[skepticalbip]

Whether the idea of a Flavian Jesus reflects reality or not, it makes more sense than the ideas offered today by Christians. The gospels certainly do not paint Jewish leadership in a good light. In fact, Jews have been persecuted by Christians as 'Christ killers' through the ages and still are by some Christian sects because of the way they are depicted in the gospels. The gospels would have been damned effective war propaganda if that is what they were.

I agree,they have been persecuted by a lot of Christians but just a mention, interestingly, not realised by many people they were protected by Muslims in their respected countries, living side-by-side, which proves was possible not quite the same today unfortunately. But anyway Christianity has been distorted to get people to do all sorts of things, a reputation in the wrong-light which is totally against what Jesus preached, but you're right in this regard.

You apparently don't understand the idea of the Flavian Jesus. The idea is that the Flavians starting with Vespasian had the gospels written to create a messiah for the Jews that was submissive to Roman rule and, even better, critical of Jewish leadership. The Jews were expecting a messiah that was a military leader that would lead a revolution and throw the Romans out. The Jesus of the gospels preached exactly what the Romans wanted, peaceful submission as opposed to the militant resistance they were facing under the Jewish messianic groups.

The Flavians likely saw religion pretty much as Seneca did: "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."

Just looking at the effect that the gospels had sure makes them look like they were created by Rome as war time propaganda to make Rome's enemies more controllable. Why use several legions to control an area when a book will suffice?

 

[Atheos]

My problem with that theory is that the gospels portray the only Roman representative in the story (Pilate) as such a weak and ineffective leader. If the Romans were writing this for propaganda purposes they could have made Pilate a more robust leader or just left him out of the story altogether.

 

[skepticalbip]

My problem with that theory is that the gospels portray the only Roman representative in the story (Pilate) as such a weak and ineffective leader. If the Romans were writing this for propaganda purposes they could have made Pilate a more robust leader or just left him out of the story altogether.

But wouldn't the portrayal of Pilate in the gospels make the Romans the opposite of what the Jews hated Rome for? If Pilate was shown as the iron fisted control freak Roman governors actually generally were then that would only reinforce the Jews' reason for resistance. Presenting the Roman governor as basically a 'nice guy' seems to me as good propaganda.

ETA:
But you gotta admit that the gospels being Roman propaganda (even if it isn't) makes more sense than assuming that all the miracles described are true.

 

[Atheos]

My father wasn't a Woman (obligatory Life of Brian reference) and I must confess that I haven't given Atwell the opportunity to persuade me (by reading his book), so my familiarity with this subject is mostly limited to grazing discussions in the former BC&H forum. I did peruse a Wikipedia article about it as a refresher since you brought it up in this thread, but I hesitate to respond much more about it because we're teetering on the cusp of a derail.

I think if this theory were true there are lots of ways the writers could have changed the story to put a more positive spin on Pilate, and of course as you mention there are also numerous ways they could have made him much more of a villain.

I'm skeptical about this theory but I agree that even it is orders of magnitude more rational than believing a man walked on water in the open sea during a fierce storm, multiplied morsels into feasts for thousands, turned water into premium wine, delivered toys to all good little boys and girls all over the world in a single night in a sleigh pulled by 8 magical flying reindeer or levitated off into the sky never to be seen again.

 

[rousseau]

Perhaps the acquisition and availability of knowledge will help change that, making it possible that folks like ourselves will actually have knowledge as opposed to the lies that are religious explanations. No stress needed. For many people it is absurd to think miracles happen, that dead men walk around and then fly around, ghosts, woo generally. Religion actually suppresses the acquisition of knowledge, Galileo being a great example.

Conservatives in the U.S. don't want public education because it potentially fosters diversity, acceptance and inquiry, experiment, etc., all things anathema to religion in the long run.

One of the uncanny things I think about is that until Darwin, plausible alternatives barely existed. So it hasn't even been that long since we've been capable of seeing materialism.

Knowledge definitely helps, but to me the mistake would be in the assumption that our communities are on the inevitable march to universal secularism. In some places there's been headway, but all it takes is the break-down of these communities before they tread right back into religious thinking.

And I've heard that in terms of the world's demography, by proportion the world is actually becoming more religious, not less this century.

Well, again, I think we’re just using similar terminology just with slightly different meanings, but I agree that the world is becoming more “religious” in the sense that people seem to be looking for “saviors” rather than “leaders.” Again, the Sanders fraud was almost entirely driven by an ironic group of atheists/agnostics nevertheless looking for a messianic figure who could promise them magical ponies while at the same time outright stating that he could not possibly give them magical ponies.

They didn’t care. The promise of magic overwhelmed the admission that no such magic could be given. They just referred to it as idealism rather than using any religious terms, but it’s the same mystical thinking. Essentially it was, I don’t care that it can’t work, that’s what I want the world to be and if everyone else would just stand on a hill drinking Coke with me, we’d all be in paradise.

But the way I look at it, this “propensity” is more about the dissonance between imagining a better life and being forced to deal with reality. “Religions” (aka, cults) just exploit that “propensity” in order to control and manipulate. Whether that began benignly or maliciously is irrelevant.

By the world becoming more religious I meant that literal religious groups are reproducing at faster rates than non-religious ones. So by proportion the future will hold more people who literally adhere to some particular religion.

But you do raise an interesting point re: Sanders, and I think that harkens back to what I mention about a religious propensity. In lieu of religion people just end up latching onto some other kind of idealistic thinking while tip-toeing around how things actually work.

When we can just get rid of capitalism everything will be great..

When I find the right mix of magical crystals everything will be great..

And so on.

 

[bilby]

Well, again, I think we’re just using similar terminology just with slightly different meanings, but I agree that the world is becoming more “religious” in the sense that people seem to be looking for “saviors” rather than “leaders.” Again, the Sanders fraud was almost entirely driven by an ironic group of atheists/agnostics nevertheless looking for a messianic figure who could promise them magical ponies while at the same time outright stating that he could not possibly give them magical ponies.

They didn’t care. The promise of magic overwhelmed the admission that no such magic could be given. They just referred to it as idealism rather than using any religious terms, but it’s the same mystical thinking. Essentially it was, I don’t care that it can’t work, that’s what I want the world to be and if everyone else would just stand on a hill drinking Coke with me, we’d all be in paradise.

But the way I look at it, this “propensity” is more about the dissonance between imagining a better life and being forced to deal with reality. “Religions” (aka, cults) just exploit that “propensity” in order to control and manipulate. Whether that began benignly or maliciously is irrelevant.

By the world becoming more religious I meant that literal religious groups are reproducing at faster rates than non-religious ones. So by proportion the future will hold more people who literally adhere to some particular religion.

But you do raise an interesting point re: Sanders, and I think that harkens back to what I mention about a religious propensity. In lieu of religion people just end up latching onto some other kind of idealistic thinking while tip-toeing around how things actually work.

When we can just get rid of capitalism everything will be great..

When I find the right mix of magical crystals everything will be great..

And so on.

A few hundred years ago, only religious people were reproducing.

We must therefore conclude either that there continues to be no open atheism, or that your hypothesis that reproductive rates will directly influence future levels of religiosity is flawed.

Religion is an idea. It's not genetic, but it is heritable to some degree. To assume that that degree is (and always remains) sufficient to prevent the growth of atheism in a world where religious people reproduce faster than atheists would be a gross error, as simple observation of recent history shows this to be false.

 

[rousseau]

Well, again, I think we’re just using similar terminology just with slightly different meanings, but I agree that the world is becoming more “religious” in the sense that people seem to be looking for “saviors” rather than “leaders.” Again, the Sanders fraud was almost entirely driven by an ironic group of atheists/agnostics nevertheless looking for a messianic figure who could promise them magical ponies while at the same time outright stating that he could not possibly give them magical ponies.

They didn’t care. The promise of magic overwhelmed the admission that no such magic could be given. They just referred to it as idealism rather than using any religious terms, but it’s the same mystical thinking. Essentially it was, I don’t care that it can’t work, that’s what I want the world to be and if everyone else would just stand on a hill drinking Coke with me, we’d all be in paradise.

But the way I look at it, this “propensity” is more about the dissonance between imagining a better life and being forced to deal with reality. “Religions” (aka, cults) just exploit that “propensity” in order to control and manipulate. Whether that began benignly or maliciously is irrelevant.

By the world becoming more religious I meant that literal religious groups are reproducing at faster rates than non-religious ones. So by proportion the future will hold more people who literally adhere to some particular religion.

But you do raise an interesting point re: Sanders, and I think that harkens back to what I mention about a religious propensity. In lieu of religion people just end up latching onto some other kind of idealistic thinking while tip-toeing around how things actually work.

When we can just get rid of capitalism everything will be great..

When I find the right mix of magical crystals everything will be great..

And so on.

A few hundred years ago, only religious people were reproducing.

We must therefore conclude either that there continues to be no open atheism, or that your hypothesis that reproductive rates will directly influence future levels of religiosity is flawed.

Religion is an idea. It's not genetic, but it is heritable to some degree. To assume that that degree is (and always remains) sufficient to prevent the growth of atheism in a world where religious people reproduce faster than atheists would be a gross error, as simple observation of recent history shows this to be false.

I'm going off of a sociologist of religion I follow on Twitter who works for Pew, presumably his argument is backed by data.

Sure, religion is only partially heritable, but a person can still reasonably conclude that religion, in raw terms, is going to grow in the short-term.

Of course that means that the growth is going to come from very specific parts of the world, while other areas become hotbeds of secularism.

 

[bilby]

A few hundred years ago, only religious people were reproducing.

We must therefore conclude either that there continues to be no open atheism, or that your hypothesis that reproductive rates will directly influence future levels of religiosity is flawed.

Religion is an idea. It's not genetic, but it is heritable to some degree. To assume that that degree is (and always remains) sufficient to prevent the growth of atheism in a world where religious people reproduce faster than atheists would be a gross error, as simple observation of recent history shows this to be false.

I'm going off of a sociologist of religion I follow on Twitter who works for Pew, presumably his argument is backed by data.

Sure, religion is only partially heritable, but a person can still reasonably conclude that religion, in raw terms, is going to grow in the short-term.

Of course that means that the growth is going to come from very specific parts of the world, while other areas become hotbeds of secularism.

I think you're overlooking the twin facts that:
a) Secularism works, and
b) People like to have nice things

The Middle East has been able to have nice things without secularism, because they have been able to employ (largely secular) engineers and specialists from elsewhere, to extract the oil that pays for those things - which they import from factories built by other (largely secular) engineers and specialists.

But no society that isn't accidentally sitting on a vast store of hugely valuable stuff can have nice things, while simultaneously mistaking 'memorising scripture' for 'education'. Even engineers need enough education to make fundamentalism a dubious proposition; Scientists even more so. Engineers have the highest level of religiosity in the STEM fields, but it always manifests in areas outside their specialisation, such as creationism. You won't find many engineers who think that prayer for divine inspiration is an effective way to calculate the wind loadings on a structure.

 

[rousseau]

A few hundred years ago, only religious people were reproducing.

We must therefore conclude either that there continues to be no open atheism, or that your hypothesis that reproductive rates will directly influence future levels of religiosity is flawed.

Religion is an idea. It's not genetic, but it is heritable to some degree. To assume that that degree is (and always remains) sufficient to prevent the growth of atheism in a world where religious people reproduce faster than atheists would be a gross error, as simple observation of recent history shows this to be false.

I'm going off of a sociologist of religion I follow on Twitter who works for Pew, presumably his argument is backed by data.

Sure, religion is only partially heritable, but a person can still reasonably conclude that religion, in raw terms, is going to grow in the short-term.

Of course that means that the growth is going to come from very specific parts of the world, while other areas become hotbeds of secularism.

I think you're overlooking the twin facts that:
a) Secularism works, and
b) People like to have nice things

The Middle East has been able to have nice things without secularism, because they have been able to employ (largely secular) engineers and specialists from elsewhere, to extract the oil that pays for those things - which they import from factories built by other (largely secular) engineers and specialists.

But no society that isn't accidentally sitting on a vast store of hugely valuable stuff can have nice things, while simultaneously mistaking 'memorising scripture' for 'education'. Even engineers need enough education to make fundamentalism a dubious proposition; Scientists even more so. Engineers have the highest level of religiosity in the STEM fields, but it always manifests in areas outside their specialisation, such as creationism. You won't find many engineers who think that prayer for divine inspiration is an effective way to calculate the wind loadings on a structure.

I think you're missing that I'm not making a claim about long-term religious trends, just re-stating sociological research about religious trends in the near-term.

 

[bilby]

I think you're overlooking the twin facts that:
a) Secularism works, and
b) People like to have nice things

The Middle East has been able to have nice things without secularism, because they have been able to employ (largely secular) engineers and specialists from elsewhere, to extract the oil that pays for those things - which they import from factories built by other (largely secular) engineers and specialists.

But no society that isn't accidentally sitting on a vast store of hugely valuable stuff can have nice things, while simultaneously mistaking 'memorising scripture' for 'education'. Even engineers need enough education to make fundamentalism a dubious proposition; Scientists even more so. Engineers have the highest level of religiosity in the STEM fields, but it always manifests in areas outside their specialisation, such as creationism. You won't find many engineers who think that prayer for divine inspiration is an effective way to calculate the wind loadings on a structure.

I think you're missing that I'm not making a claim about long-term religious trends, just re-stating sociological research about religious trends in the near-term.

I sincerely doubt that any term near enough to invalidate my criticism is long enough for any trend to be perceived at all.

 

[Learner]

In the early 300s AD, at the height of the Roman Empire, Christianity became the official state religion, by command of Emperor Constantine.

Why, at that point, would you NOT expect the Romans to invent and promote an "anti-roman-gods" Jesus? Overturning the established polytheistic religions and replacing them with Christianity required exactly that kind of propaganda to be effective.


The Empire lasted from its founding in 27BCE until its final dissolution in 1453CE - a total of 1,480 years. Even if we only consider the Western Empire ruled from Rome herself, it lasted until 476CE, so for 503 years. Very few nations last so long with no major changes in state attitudes to religion. That's about 18 or 19 generations - do you think you would agree with every one of the religious opinions of your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather?

Because that seems highly implausible to me.

Yes by 300 AD or there-abouts the Romans adopted Christianity. The rest as you sort of post above... IS history.

Let me guess, you have heard that the Roman Empire was hugely opposed to Christianity, and persecuted Christians; and this has left you with the completely erroneous (but all too common) belief that the Roman Imperial position on religion was a fixed and immutable one, that never changed throughout the entire existence of the Empire. Am I right?

You can have another guess before I explain my view on this, with scepts post #644 also.

 

[rousseau]

I think you're overlooking the twin facts that:
a) Secularism works, and
b) People like to have nice things

The Middle East has been able to have nice things without secularism, because they have been able to employ (largely secular) engineers and specialists from elsewhere, to extract the oil that pays for those things - which they import from factories built by other (largely secular) engineers and specialists.

But no society that isn't accidentally sitting on a vast store of hugely valuable stuff can have nice things, while simultaneously mistaking 'memorising scripture' for 'education'. Even engineers need enough education to make fundamentalism a dubious proposition; Scientists even more so. Engineers have the highest level of religiosity in the STEM fields, but it always manifests in areas outside their specialisation, such as creationism. You won't find many engineers who think that prayer for divine inspiration is an effective way to calculate the wind loadings on a structure.

I think you're missing that I'm not making a claim about long-term religious trends, just re-stating sociological research about religious trends in the near-term.

I sincerely doubt that any term near enough to invalidate my criticism is long enough for any trend to be perceived at all.

Ok, here's the research:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...e-biggest-projected-gains-and-losses-by-2100/

You can draw your own conclusions.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Religious behavior, or whatever one wishes to call it, has clearly been selected for over human history. What drives that behavior, fundamentally, is anyone's guess. But because the behavior is so widespread it must have a physical cause, as everything does.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

But what explains WHY they worshiped "a man who was crucified"?

And, again, if we go by Lucian, then all we have . . .

But we don't "go by" Lucian for events which happened more than 100 years earlier. If you want to know what happened in 30 AD, you rely on the sources nearer to that time.

. . . all we have as late as 165 CE is a group of splinter Jews who worshipped a man named Jesus who was crucified (not resurrected).

No, Lucian doesn't say he was "not resurrected."

But you're missing his point, that "a man who was crucified" was worshiped. This was a put-down of those Jews, who were out of line to worship such an object.

Virtually all worshipers believed in an ancient deity/hero going back 1000 years or more, such as Zeus or Apollo or Athena or Asclepius or Hercules, etc. Or there was worship of the emperor-god, a famous and powerful political figure. We can easily explain this kind of worship as normal. But to worship "a man who was crucified" violated all the norms, and such a worshiper was ridiculed.

So the question has to be asked: WHY? There has to be an explanation why they worshiped someone like this, of such low status and reproach. To not answer this indicates that the likely explanation is something someone doesn't want to hear. It's obvious that many don't want to hear that he resurrected, and that he performed the miracle acts. They are angered at this explanation and recoil with outbursts of contempt when this explanation is offered.

Playing down the miracle acts of Jesus has been the norm, not only today, but going all the way back to the beginning. The snobbery of contempt toward believers was a fact in the 1st century as much as it is today.


There has to be a REASON WHY someone was worshiped.

In Lucian's world there was no religion worshiping "a man" (other than the emperor) as being God or connected to God -- i.e., worshiping a man who was a person in recent history, connected to an historical time and place. If there were any such man-god cults at all, virtually no one took them seriously, so they were totally rejected and ignored in the historical record, receiving no attention from the educated who could have left a written record.

While farther east there was "a man" named Gautama who had worshipers, or "a man" named Krishna, or "a man" named Zoroaster, etc. Assuming they were historical, they had long careers of teaching and impressing their followers, concluding their lives in glory, not shame. And then centuries of mythologizing added to their legends. This explains how they came to be worshiped. No such explanation applies to Jesus, who became worshiped early, after a short career of only 1-3 years, and in a time (100 BC - 100 AD) when there was less belief in miracle stories than virtually any other time in history.

So that Lucian said they worshiped "a man who was crucified," is still further indication that Jesus must have done the miracle acts, because only this explains WHY they worshiped someone so unlikely to be worshiped. So, if "a man who was crucified" is the best you can offer to debunk the Jesus miracles, you're just adding more to the accumulation of evidence that these reported events really did happen. That you can't do any better is just one more indication that the Jesus miracle acts probably did happen. If there was any evidence showing otherwise, you'd have come up with something.

How is it that those trying to debunk something keep ending up doing the opposite, giving still more evidence in favor of what they're trying to debunk?

 

[Atheos]

Again with this ridiculous argument about "it takes centuries to ... blah blah blah."

It doesn't take centuries for people to be indoctrinated into cult behavior of any stripe. If it did there would never be any cults because people don't fucking live for centuries. Scientology, Mormonism, Ramtha-ism, etc., are but a few examples of thousands that demonstrate how common it is for people to be deceived into believing the most ridiculous claims. None of them took centuries. The existence of some religions that evolved over many centuries does not negate the avalanche of religions that practically sprang up overnight.

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of people who accepted these stories early on never actually saw any of the alleged miracle acts. Either everyone in a radius of thousands of miles personally saw this god-man performing miracles and that's why he was so widely accepted, or the "miracle acts" were so localized that only a few people ended up personally witnessing them and everyone else was merely accepting someone else's word about crazy things that supposedly happened. In the first case you have to account for why in spite of this widespread notoriety no ancient historian of the period ever mentioned these incredible events. In the second case you have to account for why his notoriety was so widespread apart from people simply believing things just because other people told them they happened but not because they saw it themselves. In that case the "miracle acts" had nothing to do with the widespread acceptance. The effectiveness of the spread was entirely contingent on how well the story was propagated (possibly how good a fibber the spreader was). You don't get to have it both ways.

And in either case it's still orders of magnitude more likely that people made up stories about a man performing miracles (or the person was simply a 1st century CE David Copperfield) rather than that a human being actually walked on storm-tossed water, multiplied morsels of food into feasts for thousands, performed alchemy on H2O and levitated off into the sky to disappear into the clouds never to be seen again.

One of these happens all the time. The other never happens.

 

[skepticalbip]

But what explains WHY they worshiped "a man who was crucified"?

Human nature...

Many people are willing and eager to believe in magic and there are others who use their desire for magic to be real to manipulate them. What explains why people believe that Joseph Smith was visited by angels and given golden tablets to copy? What explains why people believe L. Ron Hubbard's tale of Xenu and disembodied aliens? Etc. etc... pick your religious belief of any religion and explain why people believe it.

ETA:
But then you don't seem to understand why Christians worship Jesus. It certainly isn't because he was supposedly crucified. It was the MAGIC tale of what followed. Christian believers really, really don't want to die and the church promises them they won't if only they believe deeply enough... and donate to the church.

The death and resurrection story of a religion's god is a very common motif of almost all religions likely because it addresses the natural human fear of death.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But what explains WHY they worshiped "a man who was crucified"?

Human nature...

Many people are willing and eager to believe in magic and there are others who use their desire for magic to be real to manipulate them. What explains why people believe that Joseph Smith was visited by angels and given golden tablets to copy? What explains why people believe L. Ron Hubbard's tale of Xenu and disembodied aliens? Etc. etc... pick your religious belief of any religion and explain why people believe it.

ETA:
But then you don't seem to understand why Christians worship Jesus. It certainly isn't because he was supposedly crucified. It was the MAGIC tale of what followed. Christian believers really, really don't want to die and the church promises them they won't if only they believe deeply enough... and donate to the church.

The death and resurrection story of a religion's god is a very common motif of almost all religions likely because it addresses the natural human fear of death.

None of these people worshiped a man who was crucified. If they worshiped anything they worshiped a story about such a man, just like people still do today. There's quite a difference between knowing a person and pretending to know about a person because of a completely magical story you heard. Santa, anyone?

Get to know your mirror neurons. Be a brave little camper.