I’m fleshing out an argument against Book-Based Theism (critique please)

[Karen M]

Hello everyone,

I’m trying to form an argument against theologies derived from “holy” books and stories. I realize that the basic starting assumption of this stance is unprovable, so it is quite easy for someone to weasel their way out of the conclusion of this argument should they wish to do so. But, still I believe the information presented suggests that these particular religions are not true.


-------------


There is one assumption this argument requires, which is the unsupportable claim that gives believers an “out” from the argument. I cannot prove this statement, but any suggestions on how to better back it up would be appreciated:

Conclusions about natural and philosophical reality should still be repeatable by others even if the original source of the conclusion is completely destroyed (In other words, true statements about reality cannot “die out.”)

If anyone has any ideas on how to somehow “prove” the above statement, that would be most helpful. :)



As an example of what I mean by this assumption:

Science is reproducible. I have no doubt that if all the science textbooks in the world were destroyed today, people would still be able to eventually re-invent the wheel and re-discover quantum mechanics. I do not, on the other hand, have this same belief about our story-based literature. If all the works of Shakespeare or Star Wars or other stories were destroyed and everyone who had ever been exposed to them were somehow dead tomorrow, I do not believe they would ever be invented again. That is because these things are not based on natural or philosophical facts that are present within the “real” world. They are enjoyable bits of fluff created by human imagination.


-----------


First question:

Do you believe a philosophical/spiritual stance that is true can ever be permanently lost?

Think about your specific worldview/religion. If all the books promoting your belief were destroyed and all of the people exposed to this belief were somehow dead tomorrow, would your worldview be “dead?”


I can honestly say that if every book promoting atheism and every atheist was somehow gone tomorrow, I still think someone in some future time would become an atheist on their own. Atheism cannot die out.


----------------


Second question:


I would now like to try a hypothetical example of a religiously “neutral” person:

Lets say someone was born on a desert island and became an orphan at the age of 3, and somehow survived. He is all alone on the island now, and his parents were not able to communicate any religious or philosophical beliefs to him before they died. This person could be viewed as a completely neutral individual, having no influences from any other human input to affect his beliefs. What spiritual/philosophical beliefs do you think this person is likely to have as an adult?


-The only repeatable natural or philosophical/spiritual beliefs people reach to with no outside exposure are free-thinking ones (atheistic, agnostic, non-book-based deistic, moral stances, etc.)*

*Note: I’m not saying everything the islander thinks is true, but I’m saying ideas that require support from sources that are not based in nature or the human mind/logic are not repeatable. It is possible for the islander to figure out by himself that 1 + 1 = 2. It is probably not possible for him to “figure out” that he is a sin-stained creature that must accept a messiah crucified 2000 years ago to not burn in a lake of fire.


---------------


So, the final argument comes down to:

1. Conclusions about natural and philosophical/spiritual reality should still be repeatable by others even if the original source of the conclusion is completely destroyed.

2. Book-based religions contain conclusions about natural and philosophical/spiritual reality that cannot be reached without the book of that religion.

3. People do not convert to book-based religions unless influenced by the “holy” book of that religion or adherents of that religion.

Conclusion: Book-based religions are not true.**


**This conclusion specifically refers to philosophical or spiritual claims that would not be reached without reading the book or being influenced by people who believe the book (Sin, demon possession causing sickness, walking on water, God bringing people/himself back from the dead, reincarnation, the great thunder-god Thor being the source of lightning, getting 72 virgins in an afterlife when you die, etc.).

Conclusions that are repeatable or more mind-based versions of philosophy are not in dispute. Some morals, for example, have been shown to be repeated throughout various philosophies/religions even by people who never came in contact with each other.

Also, though the spiritual/philosophical claims are in dispute, some holy books may still have some valid points as historical records (e.g. the Jews existed and they were once slaves in Egypt).**

[Von Zipper]

Conclusions about natural and philosophical reality should still be repeatable by others even if the original source of the conclusion is completely destroyed (In other words, true statements about reality cannot “die out.”)

What constitutes a "conclusion about natural and philosophical reality"? Do you mean to refer only to general statements about reality, or are you talking about anything we might observe as being true?

For instance, I can observe the effect of gravity or that 2+2=4 no matter where I am, but my observing Ceasar trouncing the Gauls requires my existing at a specific place and time. Is the statement "Ceasar trounced the Gauls" not a "true statement about reality"?

Isn't a Xian believer going to point out that he believes his holy book is actually a report of specific events, and that it is the truth of these events which justifies his worldview? They've already got an elaborate set of explanations for why they shouldn't expect to see their deity acting directly and transparently upon their everyday world, which is what you would seem to require as validation of their belief.

Doesn't the whole holy book thing hinge on the book in question relating facts which, if true, evidence a particular conclusion? That these supposed divine events cannot be witnessed now is just a problem with historical facts. I can't see Ceasar trouncing the Gauls anywhere but in documentary evidence, either.

I think this basically brings you round to the position of having to argue against particular holy books as reliable sources of evidence. I just can't see how it's going to come down to anything other than whether specific historical claims of divine interaction with humans are true.

Science is reproducible. I have no doubt that if all the science textbooks in the world were destroyed today, people would still be able to eventually re-invent the wheel and re-discover quantum mechanics. I do not, on the other hand, have this same belief about our story-based literature. If all the works of Shakespeare or Star Wars or other stories were destroyed and everyone who had ever been exposed to them were somehow dead tomorrow, I do not believe they would ever be invented again. That is because these things are not based on natural or philosophical facts that are present within the “real” world. They are enjoyable bits of fluff created by human imagination.

Sure, but Ceasar's trouncing of the Gauls was not (at least, as far as we can say about anything of this sort) an imaginary event, yet neither is it in any way reproducible.

I don't see how your premise can hold unless you come up with some way of distinguishing true from untrue stories. I suppose you could argue that any element of a story which contradicts established knowledge about what can and cannot happen ought to be regarded with extreme suspicion, but from the Xian's point of view, the whole point was that Jesus bounced around a small corner of the ancient world proving He was God by doing the impossible.

1. Conclusions about natural and philosophical/spiritual reality should still be repeatable by others even if the original source of the conclusion is completely destroyed.

How can a conclusion about "spiritual reality" be repeatable? What kind of spiritual conclusions are you thinking about? Are you proposing that metaphysical claims ought to meet scientific burden of proof?

2. Book-based religions contain conclusions about natural and philosophical/spiritual reality that cannot be reached without the book of that religion.

Neither can (many) historical conclusions be reached without documentary evidence. As believers seem to be committed to the idea that their holy book describes historical rather than imaginary events, I don't see how you're going to get to a conclusion about the falsity of all holy books without having to demonstrate specific problems of historicity for all holy books.

3. People do not convert to book-based religions unless influenced by the “holy” book of that religion or adherents of that religion.

Conclusion: Book-based religions are not true.

I'm more inclined personally to reduce the argument to this last stage. Isn't it just utterly banal to claim that the overlord of the universe is going to transmit his instructions for mankind via the method of word of mouth and human produced manuscripts at a time when no printing facilties exist and very few people are literate? Doesn't the localised nature of the influence of holy books much better evidence texts produced without rather than with the aid of a single supreme deity intent upon spreading the news of his existence throughout the world?

[Karen M]

What constitutes a "conclusion about natural and philosophical reality"? Do you mean to refer only to general statements about reality, or are you talking about anything we might observe as being true?

I mean logical claims and philosophical claims. I realize my wording is a bit off here, so help with descriptors is definitely welcome. You repeat this same sentiment several times; I think it is easier to respond to this one:

Neither can (many) historical conclusions be reached without documentary evidence. As believers seem to be committed to the idea that their holy book describes historical rather than imaginary events, I don't see how you're going to get to a conclusion about the falsity of all holy books without having to demonstrate specific problems of historicity for all holy books.

I’m not talking about historical events. I’m specifically talking about philosophical or metaphysical claims. For example, I’m not discussing whether or not the Jews were slaves of Egypt. That is a historical event. I’m discussing philosophical or metaphysical claims like “Murder is wrong,” “Humans are full of sin,” “Bad people will burn in a pit of fire,” etc. These are claims that have been made about the world which people have used their own logic or minds to come up with. Some of them, such as “Murder is wrong” can be seen throughout other cultures even if they have had no contact with the one in question. Others, such as “Homosexuality is wrong” are not seen in this sort of cultural “peer review.”

I believe this lack of repeatability helps people more easily discover which of these claims are most likely to be false. Note, that I’m not saying the ones that are repeated are necessarily true, but I think the lack of repetition is a statement of it’s own.

Is it clearer now?




I'm more inclined personally to reduce the argument to this last stage. Isn't it just utterly banal to claim that the overlord of the universe is going to transmit his instructions for mankind via the method of word of mouth and human produced manuscripts at a time when no printing facilties exist and very few people are literate? Doesn't the localised nature of the influence of holy books much better evidence texts produced without rather than with the aid of a single supreme deity intent upon spreading the news of his existence throughout the world?

This is also part of my point. No one believes metaphysical claims like “you must have faith in God not to burn in Hell for eternity” or “masturbation is wrong” unless they have come in contact with Christianity. The only way to get out of this is for someone to say that faith or masturbation being wrong are some sort of historical events.

[Von Zipper]

I believe this lack of repeatability helps people more easily discover which of these claims are most likely to be false.

Is it clearer now?

Ish. I'm not sure I can see how your approach differs from simply saying "Don't you think your religious doctrines should have some real-world evidence attesting to them?"

The only way to get out of this is for someone to say that faith or masturbation being wrong are some sort of historical events.

And I think they'll argue exactly that :

The Bible as an accurate historical account. Jesus existed. Jesus demonstrated that he was the Messiah via magical powers and resurrection from the dead. Jesus told us X, therefore X is true.

The "faith or hellfire" doctrine is attributed to Jesus personally in gospel accounts. I don't see how you can attempt to debunk it with any force without at least one of the following :

i) The Bible is likely incorrect in saying that Jesus said this.
ii) The Bible is likely incorrect in claiming that Jesus was the Messiah, so there is no reason to suppose it is true whether He said it or not.

[Cheerful Charlie]

Hello everyone,

I’m trying to form an argument against theologies derived from “holy” books and stories. I realize that the basic starting assumption of this stance is unprovable, so it is quite easy for someone to weasel their way out of the conclusion of this argument should they wish to do so. But, still I believe the information presented suggests that these particular religions are not true.


-------------


There is one assumption this argument requires, which is the unsupportable claim that gives believers an “out” from the argument. I cannot prove this statement, but any suggestions on how to better back it up would be appreciated:

Conclusions about natural and philosophical reality should still be repeatable by others even if the original source of the conclusion is completely destroyed (In other words, true statements about reality cannot “die out.”)

If anyone has any ideas on how to somehow “prove” the above statement, that would be most helpful. :)



As an example of what I mean by this assumption:

Science is reproducible. I have no doubt that if all the science textbooks in the world were destroyed today, people would still be able to eventually re-invent the wheel and re-discover quantum mechanics. I do not, on the other hand, have this same belief about our story-based literature. If all the works of Shakespeare or Star Wars or other stories were destroyed and everyone who had ever been exposed to them were somehow dead tomorrow, I do not believe they would ever be invented again. That is because these things are not based on natural or philosophical facts that are present within the “real” world. They are enjoyable bits of fluff created by human imagination.


-----------


First question:

Do you believe a philosophical/spiritual stance that is true can ever be permanently lost?

Think about your specific worldview/religion. If all the books promoting your belief were destroyed and all of the people exposed to this belief were somehow dead tomorrow, would your worldview be “dead?”


I can honestly say that if every book promoting atheism and every atheist was somehow gone tomorrow, I still think someone in some future time would become an atheist on their own. Atheism cannot die out.


----------------


Second question:


I would now like to try a hypothetical example of a religiously “neutral” person:

Lets say someone was born on a desert island and became an orphan at the age of 3, and somehow survived. He is all alone on the island now, and his parents were not able to communicate any religious or philosophical beliefs to him before they died. This person could be viewed as a completely neutral individual, having no influences from any other human input to affect his beliefs. What spiritual/philosophical beliefs do you think this person is likely to have as an adult?


-The only repeatable natural or philosophical/spiritual beliefs people reach to with no outside exposure are free-thinking ones (atheistic, agnostic, non-book-based deistic, moral stances, etc.)*

*Note: I’m not saying everything the islander thinks is true, but I’m saying ideas that require support from sources that are not based in nature or the human mind/logic are not repeatable. It is possible for the islander to figure out by himself that 1 + 1 = 2. It is probably not possible for him to “figure out” that he is a sin-stained creature that must accept a messiah crucified 2000 years ago to not burn in a lake of fire.


---------------




Quite true, and in fact it has been suggested in the past that in fact this does show
Christianity is false. If in fact Jesus was true, we'd expec the Jews to accept him as messiah,
they did not. Nor did the Romans or Greeks wh knew him by and large.
Chrisiatianity became the biggest religion of its time bluntly by the sword.
From Theodosius on all other religions were banned.

But god an Jesus were not successful with Islamic invaders, Indians, Chinese et al.




So, the final argument comes down to:

1. Conclusions about natural and philosophical/spiritual reality should still be repeatable by others even if the original source of the conclusion is completely destroyed.

2. Book-based religions contain conclusions about natural and philosophical/spiritual reality that cannot be reached without the book of that religion.

3. People do not convert to book-based religions unless influenced by the “holy” book of that religion or adherents of that religion.

Conclusion: Book-based religions are not true.**


**This conclusion specifically refers to philosophical or spiritual claims that would not be reached without reading the book or being influenced by people who believe the book (Sin, demon possession causing sickness, walking on water, God bringing people/himself back from the dead, reincarnation, the great thunder-god Thor being the source of lightning, getting 72 virgins in an afterlife when you die, etc.).



Again true.We have our prophets but they all have different gods.
All claim god speaks to them.

Christians say deny Christ was son of god, burn in hell.
Moslems say, blapheme that Allah had a son, burn in hell.

Of coursethere is the problem of bebunkable claims.
Jesus prophecied he'd preside over the end of the world and judgment
day in the lifetime of the high priest at Jerusalem, see Mark 14:62, Matthew
26:64, and Matthew 24:30.

Jesus promised great miracle working abilities, see John 14, Mark 11, Matthew 19:19.
Archeaology has debunked tales of Moses and Exodus and the Patriarchs.

Such errors tells us much, the prophets always err.

Book of Mormon has claimed Indians were descendents of ancient Jews.
DNA proves they aren't.

One thing that is constant in many of these books are the errors.



Conclusions that are repeatable or more mind-based versions of philosophy are not in dispute. Some morals, for example, have been shown to be repeated throughout various philosophies/religions even by people who never came in contact with each other.

Also, though the spiritual/philosophical claims are in dispute, some holy books may still have some valid points as historical records (e.g. the Jews existed and they were once slaves in Egypt).**

The Jews weren't.

Cheerful Charlie

[Draygomb]

Why believe God wrote a book before someone has proven God exists?

Or

First Prove God exists
Then we can discuss his Religion.

[Draconis]

I view holy books as written specifically in support of a predetermined world view, rather than by observing the world/universe as it is, using reason and deduction to find an explanation.