Oh, David, where to begin? Well, first, I must say that I, too, enjoy our discussion. After all, you and I are absolute polar opposites regarding how we view the meaning of life and existence, yet we can discuss things amicably.
But before I get into pertinent details regarding these differences, I need to respond to certain things you say in your last correspondence:
When you refer to Lennox’s book while admitting you’re not sure what he’s referencing, then you simply should not quote him! Whenever you make a point using someone else’s words, then you own that point and have the duty of defending it with all pertinent information and data. If you cannot do that, then you have no business using the quote in the first place! And that’s just fundamental journalistic protocol. Really, David! I should not have to point this out; it’s basic writing 101, for crying out loud!
When you say Paul Davies’ atheism is relevant because it shows he has no confirmation bias, that’s literally a non-sequitur! One does not prove the other. Remember when I talked about transductive reasoning? From this to that? That is precisely what your Davies statement is.
Regarding a study indicating a need for faith is in our DNA being a sign? The only thing that finding tells me is we humans appear to have a need to justify our existence. The need only proves there’s a need, not the existence of any being to justify it. Again, transductive reasoning. However, what the finding does for me is help me understand better the people who have the particular need. The study I refer to, by the way, primarily shows our political leanings to be in our DNA, with roughly half the population strongly motivated (and hindered) by fear, with those in the latter camp needing protection, often sought through a deity. And the common denominator among cult followers is fear.
When you say you’re sorry I’ve given up on “why” questions, please go back and read what I actually wrote and see if you find me saying that. Please. Do I need to give a pop quiz? I said I stopped asking the cosmos, or whatever being I talk to when I look up, questions of why — because, as an adult, it is up to me to answer such questions! I do not rely on some “supreme other” to step in and pick up the slack because I’m somehow incapable of making my own decisions.
Children ask why precisely because they are children, and they’re unsure, precisely because they are children. And thus they need guidance. But as an adult, I’ve tried to be self-sufficient, which is not always easy or, at times, even doable. But when you need to quote scripture with, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven,” isn’t this a convenient instances of confirmation bias? I’m reasonably sure the quote meant to shed the baggage, including the cynicism, and to regain a lost innocence — but not to become suddenly helpless and incapable of thinking for oneself.
Finally, you made a comment that I “care nothing for the person of Jesus.” David, I said nothing remotely close. What I said was, I believe strongly in his teachings, but I don’t care who his dad was — because that’s not the point. In fact, here’s something I wrote concerning Jesus Christ and Christianity some 4-to-5 years ago:
I remember seeing a Christmas week, 1971, PBS/BBC production, titled “Christ in the Wilderness.” In it, a young Jesus looked like any average Joe. He was ordinary looking and nothing really stood out. Nothing, that is, until he began to speak. And when he did, he became magnetic. His eloquently delivered, uplifting — and simple — message was on the mutual benefits of loving and caring for one another. The camera followed this charismatic young man around as he spoke many of the universal truths for which he was to become known. Villagers were seen giving positive, heartfelt responses, with an occasional, “It’s a miracle,” or of alluding to events like water-into-wine, or helping the blind to see, and other such “miraculous” occurrences. Young Jesus was making a positive impact, and he was on a roll.
The production never preached, only presented, allowing viewers to decide for themselves what was or was not miraculous. The emphasis was never on his eye-popping wizardry but on his teachings, with his overall message about our conduct toward one another the clearly intended takeaway. “Do unto others” was front and center. So simple. And so very powerful.
My Christian batteries were recharged! Finally, something that dealt with the real message of Jesus Christ. And while never denying it, the production never played up the “He’s the Son of God” angle. They didn’t have him walk on water, float in mid air or glow in the dark. He didn’t look “Holy.” He just spoke passionately and with clarity of how our behavior and attitudes ultimately determined our path to either Heaven or Hell. At long last, it appeared that someone got it right! Hallelujah!
To me, it was a wonderful viewing experience, yet most with whom I shared it were unmoved, their faces showing disappointment. Instead of being uplifting, my explanation came off as a downer. Their posture told me they didn’t want to hear about how our inner motivation and daily behavior toward others are what guide us to Heaven — not when we can just say five Hail Marys and have all our transgressions erased through confession and repentance, or any one of several prescribed get-off-the-hook rituals.
What’s more, seeing Jesus and God’s lineage reinforced makes for better viewing. And, anyway, wouldn’t you rather see Jesus multiply the portions of fish and bread, turn water into wine, or a snake into a cane?
So that beautiful PBS/BBC production was a major flop, and, as far as I know, was never broadcast again. To me, it was the single most meaningful, most powerfully presented treatise of any kind I’ve ever seen on Jesus Christ — and I can’t even find it on the internet!
An emphasis on decent and mutually beneficial behavior didn’t sell. Having no shiny object, it appears, meant having no audience.
So, you see, David, I have a most positive view of Christianity. Of Christians, though, not so much.
Regarding all the books and articles you’d like me to read, and all your quoting of scripture, strongly indicate a likely truth about you, David, that you really disdain making your very own decisions regarding life’s path. Everything you’ve thrown my way, the scripture, the reading material, what have you, is, in my view, both your form of confirmation bias and admission you’re not comfortable standing on your own two feet. Also, have you noticed that only religious zealots are gung ho on converting others to their point of view? But nobody has ever passed out leaflets on the wonders of atheism? Interesting dichotomy, huh? Why is that?
And, please, stop snow-jobbing yourself with the claim that critical thinking had anything to do with your religious transformation. When it comes to a thinking modality, wishful is not interchangeable with critical.
My view of Jesus is he was an enlightened man who operated at a high cognitive and moral level. And when I talk about his teachings, none of your quotes reflects them, only your cherry-picked dogma. The Jesus who said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is worth both listening to and following. But the one who said, “No one comes to the Father except through me,” can kiss my ass. Maybe that last quote says a lot about why so many far-right evangelicals follow an orange heretic who says, “Only I can fix it!” Following Christ is one thing, but falling in line behind the living, breathing AntiChrist? Wake the fuck up!
Furthermore, David, I think you and the rest who prefer your knees to your own two feet habitually and grossly misquote Jesus. Instead of being the narcissist you all portray him to be, it’s far more likely he said something more akin to, “The way to your salvation is to follow my lead.” In other words, stop your groveling and use your brains, as I (Jesus) have, to figure things out (you know, critical thinking?).
And genuine critical thinking can lead one to see the folly of thinking God loves me, the person, me, the individual separate from all other individuals me, and when I pray He sees the individual me through a sea of billions of other me faces. He can do that because, sigh, He loves the one and only ME! Hallelujah!
Yeah, David, your version of Christianity is the ultimate ego trip. It’s all about precious ME! Eternal Me, the individual. But somehow not about the universal-consciousness ME, the one (I think) Jesus truly alluded to.
What’s far more likely is that Jesus, the enlightened man, saw our oneness, how we are all one, the all-eternal one - the one who lives forever! And, oh, how peaceful and serene such a realization is. For it’s not about ME the selfish individual apart from all other individuals, but about the universal ME, the ME that includes all of us — the ME whose critical thinking has led ME the individual to recognize ME the collective soul of us all. The ubiquitous and omnipresent one we clearly see, once we stop quoting scripture, and just take a good look around, and a better look inside! For true, naked introspection requires true, uncluttered, actual critical thinking. The real thing — that will never lead one back to a dogma!
