Is Liberal Christianity as irrational as fundamentalism? -- TySixtus vs. GakuseiDon

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between TySixtus and GakuseiDon who will debate the following resolution:

"Resolved: Liberal Christianity is as irrational as fundamentalist Christianity."

TySixtus will affirm and GakuseiDon will oppose. The debate will tentatively have 3 rounds and TySixtus will go first, per the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=4827966&postcount=24).

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4828575#post4828575) is set up in the General Religious Discussions forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Enjoy the debate!

- KWSN, FD Moderator

[TySixtus]

First of all, I would like to thank IIDB for hosting this debate. I would also like to thank Knight for moderating and GakuseiDon for participating.

The resolution of this debate requires that I do two things. First, I must show that Fundamentalist Christianity is irrational. Second, I must show that Liberal Christianity mirrors the same kind of irrationality with regards to the claims it makes about the universe, the behavior of its believers, and even the relevancy of the ideas it characterizes.

The former premise should present no challenge, as it doesn’t strike this author as being a difficult task to show that Fundamentalist Christianity is irrational. Evidently, my opponent feels similarly, as he didn’t question that part of the debate resolution. I could hazard a guess that Don is a Liberal Christian precisely because he feels that Fundamentalist Christianity is irrational. However, I do not wish to guess his feelings and so I will reserve judgment if and until he voices them.

The Irrationality of Fundamentalist Christianity

Fundamentalist Christianity (hereafter abbreviated FC) can be characterized by many names and groups. However, all of them hold to at least one or more of the following precepts: Jesus’ virgin birth, divinity, resurrection and his supposed return; the concept of Substitutionary Atonement; and Biblical Inerrancy.

Of the three, readers may be most unfamiliar with the idea of Substitutionary Atonement, so I shall elaborate. Basically, this doctrine states that Jesus’ death on the cross was a sacrifice meant to, quite literally, “take away the sins of the world”. By allowing himself to be killed, Jesus somehow took a punishment meant for humanity onto himself. Other interpretations say that Jesus came to earth to suffer as a man so as to vicariously defeat sin and the Devil.

In either case, this type of atonement is irrational, if only because a supposedly all powerful being could just as easily wipe out sin with a wave of his hand. Or, he could’ve tickled his own son for a few minutes and declared the debt paid (keeping in mind that God himself created the very idea of ‘sin’, and that original sin itself is a deplorable scheme. One does not inherit guilt.) In all instances, God allowing his own son to be murdered for the ‘sins’ of humankind makes absolutely no sense, especially if he has the means to end the situation without bloodshed. This is an irrational act, and believing that it is somehow worthy of worship is even more irrational.

Second, the ideas of Jesus’ virgin birth, resurrection and supposed return are ridiculous on their face. I don’t need to tell anyone why resurrection is irrational. Further, the idea that Jesus will come back one day with super-hero powers is also a pure fantasy. Finally, many other demi-gods claimed a virgin birth, including Ghengis Khan. I need not point out the silliness of the idea that Mary was impregnated by a ghost.

Perhaps the easiest tent to knock over is that of Biblical Inerrancy. Within reading the first 3 pages of the Bible, any moderately educated person will be able to tell that it is complete nonsense. The earth wasn’t created in 7 days and we were not made from mud. Biblical Inerrancy is a ridiculous position to hold and is clearly irrational due to the vast number of scientific facts arrayed against it. When religion and science make incompatible claims about reality, science always seems to win. Ergo, it’s a safe bet that it will continue to win, and any further beliefs in the Bible’s fantastic claims about the sky being held up by pillars (for example) are based not on reason but on blind faith and ignorance.

So in summary, why exactly is FC irrational? Well, we can easily say that the tenets of this particular system make claims about reality that are not true. We know -- inasmuch as we can know anything at all -- that disease isn’t caused by demons. However, FC is filled to the brim with these false claims of knowledge, and other assertions that fail to mirror how the universe operates. Believing in something so obviously incorrect, when surround by thousands of years of evidence to the contrary, can be nothing but irrational.

Liberal Christianity: A Safe Alternative?

It seems, then, that if you are presented with something so silly, anything else is preferable. To a large degree, this is the appeal of Liberal Christianity (LC). Speaking as a former liberal Christian, I know that one of the biggest attractions to LC was its supposed “room” for personal interpretation and the ability (nay, the requirement!) to explain these inconsistencies, because there are so many of them and they are so absurd.

A geologist is hard-pressed to speak of a 6,000 year old earth. So he doesn’t. He speaks of Genesis as a myth, or a metaphor, or an allegory. In all cases, he admits that the assertion of Genesis as historical fact is obviously fraught with problems. But lo! The assertion of Genesis as allegory… well that seems to be okay? Right?

Liberal Christianity: Or, Why You’re Still in Trouble

As mentioned above, one of the most popular tactics of LC is to save the Biblical accounts by making them immune to rational criticism. This is done by asserting that the Biblical accounts weren’t meant to be taken literally, and so questions of “truth” or “falsity” are the wrong questions to be asking.

Immediately, problems arise with this method. First and foremost, how does one know what is allegory and what is not? This is not a rhetorical question. Consider: You could very well be arguing with a Liberal Christian who says that of course the earth isn’t 6,000 years old. Of course, people don’t rise from the dead. Of course, people aren’t spontaneously cured of blindness. Of course, there are no demons causing disease. Of course, there are literally thousands of other demi-gods who are supposed to have risen from the dead, but haven’t. Of course, transubstantiation is a silly idea. But atheism, the Liberal Christian cautions us? Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater!

I call this particular technique the “Fallacy of Literary Criticism” and I’ll explain it.

Christianity has endured a constant onslaught since the Enlightenment. Claim after claim made by the Bible has been shown to be false or immoral when closely examined. Therefore, it is no surprise that these claims have drowned in what Sam Harris calls the “Shimmering Ocean of Nuance”. We are argued to take statements “in context”, to remember that we are dealing with Iron Age philosophers who were incredibly ignorant about the most basic of scientific facts. Let us not judge Christianity on what they Wrote, but instead let us judge it on what they Meant. Hence, the method one uses to diagram War and Peace also works on the Bible. I don’t think it dawns on Liberal Christians that this method doesn’t do them any favors, and I’ll explain why.

By this method, we are supposedly acting rational by dismissing all but the most magical of magic creatures in the Christian mythology, God. When the Bible gets something right (“Do unto others”) it is ancient wisdom and proof of the writer’s benevolent intentions. When the Bible gets something wrong (“Beat your slaves, just not to death”) why obviously, one must take these things in context!

The biggest, most obvious problem I have with this method is its abrupt halt. The Liberal Christian has used his rational mind for quite a long ways. But then he stops, and an atheist is forced to ask: What happened? Why did you stop being critical of claims when the most important claim of all requires the most critical thought? If Jesus’ resurrection is an allegory for the unconquerable human spirit, fine. But it is still an allegory. It didn’t happen. And if it never happened, anything it points to is now suspect.

If the Liberal Christian wants to treat LC as mythology, I’m perfectly happy to let them. Insofar as they realize that the God mentioned in LC is now mythology, too. There was no baby, and the bathwater has gotten cold.

Now Hold On A Minute!

The most popular argument I’ve encountered to my above claim is that one need not read the Bible literally to gain knowledge of God. Indeed, many Liberal Christians will claim that there are deep, meaningful messages in the Bible to be gleaned, especially in the Gospels. That there are inconsistencies does not invalidate the rest of what is written. And anyway, a few Christians on this board have claimed that they ‘found god’ first, and then discovered Christianity. Surely, they claim, this is a rational point of view as it does not rely on the claims made in the Bible to buttress its conclusion. There are few points to be raised over this, however.

First, at some point in your theology as a Christian, Christianity has to connect to your god-belief or it is nothing more than a felicitous consequence. The order in which this happens is irrelevant, but the fact that it does (has to!) happen points to yet another major problem in LC.

Consider: If you believed in the tenets of Christian Morality, but believed in Zeus, what would you call yourself? Doesn’t Christian Theism depend upon (at least a little) a belief in the god of Christianity? If not, what is the point? Why call yourself a Liberal Christian if your Christianity is not connected to your god-belief?

If all of your allegory, myth and metaphor reduces your god to that same arena, you’re believing in a myth. Most Liberal Christians will claim that they are not doing this, and that at some point (for many, it is the Gospels) they can “See the character of God” or something to that effect. In this case, my original assertion of irrationality still stands, and you are more related to the Fundamentalist hard-head than anyone else. Why? Because even in your most liberal of interpretations, and even with the most tenuous of connections, you still believe in God’s existence based on what you read in a book, or vice versa.

The claim that “God wants me to kill homosexuals” is just as ridiculous as “I see the character of God in the Gospels”. In both cases, you haven’t a shred of decent evidence. In both cases, I have no good reason to believe either assertion. At some point, an appeal to faith or wishful thinking is necessary. So what is the difference between the liberal and the fundamentalist? Absolutely nothing. You believe the same hypothesis (“God Exists”) and your reasons aren’t a difference of kind, merely a difference of degree.

Liberal Christianity isn’t consistent with what is written in the Bible. Fundamentalists take the Bible as one piece; if that book says to hate homos, then by god sharpen your pitchfork. While I can appreciate the Liberal Christian’s tolerance and genuine open-mindedness, I would like to remind him that this attitude probably isn’t coming from Christianity itself, but is instead the encroachment of the secular ideals of humanism and liberty into the stifling edicts of Christianity. “Christian Ethics” is fast becoming a vacuous term in this world, and for good reason: it is decidedly unethical. Even if the Golden Rule was the best moral principle in the world, the morass of immoral commandments around it makes this atheist wonder if digging it out is worth the trouble. The mental gymnastics required to do so are impeding our development of a better ethical system.

Summary

If you want to treat Christianity as mythology, go right ahead. I prefer that you do that anyway. However, I have yet to see any good argument that purports to explain how “Don’t take it literally, but god still exists!” is a good argument. There is a gigantic chasm in that line of reasoning, and the Liberal Christian movement has built bridges out of sophistry.

Ty

[GakuseiDon]

My thanks to Knight for setting up this debate, and to TySixtus for proposing the debate topic.

The topic of this debate is "Is Liberal Christianity as irrational as Fundamentalist Christianity?" My intention is to show that Liberal Christianity is not as irrational as Fundamentalist Christianity. To do this, I need to show that Liberal Christians are rational in areas where Fundamentalist Christians are not rational.

Let me start with a quote from Ty's opening post. Ty is explaining what he calls the “Fallacy of Literary Criticism”:
The Liberal Christian has used his rational mind for quite a long ways...
I'll note here that if Ty believes that Liberal Christians (LCers) do indeed demonstrate a rationality -- even up to a point -- that is not apparent in Fundamentalist Christians (FCers), then this argument is all but over. I hope Ty clears this up in his next post. Are LCers using their rational mind in ways that FCers are not?

Ty then continues:
But then he (LCer) stops, and an atheist is forced to ask: What happened? Why did you stop being critical of claims when the most important claim of all requires the most critical thought?
Keep in mind that this topic is NOT "Liberal Christians are more irrational than atheists". Nor is it "Liberal Christians are irrational, so are Fundamentalists" (The Peanuts Gallery thread is currently "Is Liberal Christianity irrational?" I've asked the moderator to rename it so that it reflects the debate topic appropriately). No, it is "Liberal Christianity is as irrational as Fundamentalist Christianity". To put it simply: If LC can be shown to be more rational than FC in some areas, despite being as irrational as FC in others, I will have successfully prosecuted my side of the debate.

One area where it could be argued that LC is as irrational as FC is the faith position regarding the existence of God. As TySixtus points out, there is no good argument to prove God's existence, and so if holding a faith position is irrational (which I don't concede, and it would be a separate debate topic in itself), then this is one area where LC and FC are equivalent. But again, the debate topic isn't "LC is as irrational as FC in one area". If there are other areas where LC is more rational, then that should count in the final result.

Below, I will give some background about Liberal Christianity, and then I will examine some of the concerns Ty raised about how LC views the Bible. I hope to show that his examples support my side of the debate, not his.

What is Liberal Christianity?

One urban myth is that LC is a recent development, forced upon a literalist Christianity after the Enlightment by the tide of rising science. But in fact, we see examples of non-literalism going back to near the start of Christianity itself. Origen, around 1800 years ago, urged his readers towards adopting a non-literal reading of passages in the OT and NT thusly (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen125.html) (my emphasis):
It was not only, however, with the (Scriptures composed) before the advent (of Christ) that the Spirit thus dealt; but as being the same Spirit, and (proceeding) from the one God, He did the same thing both with the evangelists and the apostles, as even these do not contain throughout a pure history of events, which are interwoven indeed according to the letter, but which did not actually occur.

Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?

And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Cain also, when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him.

And what need is there to say more, since those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place?

Nay, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; e.g., the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that would not condemn those who think that with the eye of the body--which requires a lofty height in order that the parts lying (immediately) under and adjacent may be seen--the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men?

And the attentive reader may notice in the Gospels innumerable other passages like these, so that he will be convinced that in the histories that are literally recorded, circumstances that did not occur are inserted.
Today's LC is a continuation of such views. Wiki gives what I think is an excellent concise explanation of modern LC (italics in the original):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity
"The theology of liberal Christianity was prominent in the biblical criticism of the 19th and 20th centuries. The style of scriptural hermeneutics within liberal theology is often characterized as non-propositional. This means that the Bible is not considered an inventory of factual statements but instead documents the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing—within an historic/cultural context. Thus, liberal Christian theologians do not discover truth propositions but rather create religious models and concepts that reflect the class, gender, social, and political contexts from which they emerge. Liberal Christianity looks upon the Bible as a collection of narratives that explain, epitomize, or symbolize the essence and significance of Christian understanding."
I'd like to highlight one sentence from above: "This means that the Bible is not considered an inventory of factual statements but instead documents the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing—within an historic/cultural context." I doubt that anyone -- secular or LCer -- would disagree that this is a sensible way of viewing the Bible. Yet TySixtus reproduces some common misconceptions about how LC approach the Bible, as I will demonstrate.

TySixtus's examples of LC "irrationality"

One common complaint against LCers is that they "cherry pick" passages from the Bible, or treat them as metaphors without sufficient reason. Let's look at a couple of examples that TySixtus gives.

In the first example, he writes:
A geologist is hard-pressed to speak of a 6,000 year old earth. So he doesn’t. He speaks of Genesis as a myth, or a metaphor, or an allegory. In all cases, he admits that the assertion of Genesis as historical fact is obviously fraught with problems. But lo! The assertion of Genesis as allegory… well that seems to be okay? Right?...

As mentioned above, one of the most popular tactics of LC is to save the Biblical accounts by making them immune to rational criticism.
Yet, that doesn't reflect LC at all. LCers AREN'T trying to "save" the Biblical accounts by making them immune to rational criticism. Almost the opposite, in fact. LCers USE rational criticism to view the Biblical accounts within their historic/cultural context. For example, if the evidence shows that the writers of Genesis took the 6 day creation myth literally, then so be it. LCers can accept it as part of the cultural context in which the authors wrote. OTOH, if the writers took the myth metaphorically, then again, so be it. As per the Wiki article, the LCer doesn't NEED to save the "truth propositions" in the Biblical account. So, who does? In fact, it is the FCer. Trying to reconcile the Bible against modern science is a concern for the Fundamentalist.

Some atheists become upset when Christians don't try to "save" the Bible. I call such atheists "fundy atheists", since their focus is that the Bible has to held as "true" in some sense, even if metaphorically true. But the LCer does not have this concern.

Let's look at another example that Ty gives:
Liberal Christianity isn’t consistent with what is written in the Bible. Fundamentalists take the Bible as one piece; if that book says to hate homos, then by god sharpen your pitchfork.
And yet, they don't. How many FCers propose the death penalty for homosexuality? Very few, I suspect. Again, it is the LCer who is consistent, and it is the Fundamentalist who is not. The LCer -- to stay true to his ideals -- MUST see the Bible in its historical/cultural context. Homosexuality in early societies was considered deviant, and thus punished by death. LCers (and presumably atheists) can understand that this idea was a product of the time, and thus not applicable to modern culture. But what is the Fundamentalists' excuse? Isn't it the FCer who is cherry-picking passages here?

Summary

Tysixtus regards a belief in God as inherently irrational. Even if I conceded this for the sake of argument (which I don't), this would be just one area where LCers and FCers are in the same boat. However, as far as I can see, this would not weigh against those areas where LCers demonstrably show more rationality than FCers. And since TySixtus himself has stated that the Liberal Christian uses "his rational mind for quite a long ways", I think I am far along demonstrating my case.

TySixtus also repeats the common myth that LCers "cherry pick" passages in the Bible as examples of LC irrationality, but his examples in fact support me. It is the FCer who cherry-picks. The LCer must try to view passages in the context in which they were written. This is not to "save" those passages, but to understand them -- a goal that any rational person should applaud.

[TySixtus]

Is it possible to ‘quantify’ rationality? Don seems to think so. If, for example, he could present 10 LC precepts and show that all 10 were more rational than 10 FC precepts, he will have won the argument by arithmetic alone. I disagree.

How many precepts are enumerated by LC? 10? 100? 1000? At what point do rational concepts outweigh irrational ones? I don’t know. Does Don? Because I’m pretty sure that for every precept of LC that is considered rational, I can demonstrate that one is not. Likewise, the same process could be undertaken in a consideration with FC. In either case, we could literally provide ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ concepts until the end of time, and come no closer to an agreement; when you’re dealing with matters of interpretation, you literally have an infinite amount of different ways to present your arguments.

Instead, let’s avoid the mess of interpretation. The point of this debate was to show that the conclusions that LC and FC reach are equally irrational, and that despite a perceived difference between the methods employed by each group, either belief system is flawed in the same way. Don thinks that I cannot introduce this method of argument because it deals with a different question, but I submit it does not. The title of the debate was not “The Textual Criticism Techniques of Liberal Christianity are as Irrational as Those Used in Fundamentalist Christianity.” Don seems to think that this is the only thing that matters. I’m going to rain on that parade.

A Roundabout Way to Miss the Point

Don spends a majority of his first post defending LC as rational, mainly by citing a lengthy passage that says Christians way back in the day were also liberal in their interpretations of scripture, and instead it is the fundamentalist who has gotten it all wrong.

The LCer -- to stay true to his ideals -- MUST see the Bible in its historical/cultural context. Homosexuality in early societies was considered deviant, and thus punished by death. LCers (and presumably atheists) can understand that this idea was a product of the time, and thus not applicable to modern culture.

This is 100%, completely irrelevant.

Again, Don is running under the false assumption that we are dealing with arithmetic of rationality. We are not. One does not simply add ‘rational’ claims up and claim to win the debate. The problem is much more complex than that, but even then Don misses the chief point: Liberal Christians and Fundamental Christians believe in the existence of god. This belief is in some way, shape or form connected to the scriptures of Christianity. Whether one connects this belief by solid adherence (FC) or liberal interpretation (LC) does not change the fact that this belief in the god of Christianity is unwarranted, and is thereby irrational.

Godwin Be Damned

Consider the Nazis. I’m sure that there were both fundamental Nazis and liberal Nazis in Hitler’s Germany. Perhaps the liberal ones were never going to kill any Jews regardless of their beliefs. But in either case, you have two groups of people (with shades in between, I imagine) who professed to believe in a conclusion: that Germans and other Aryans were superior to the Jews and other races.

Does it really matter if the liberal Nazi never intended to kill a single Jew? Does it really matter if the liberal Nazi read Mein Kampf with a critical eye, keeping in mind the context and the time period in which it was written? Does it really matter if the liberal Nazi didn’t believe in all the supernatural mumbo-jumbo behind the supposed origins of the Aryans from blocks of ice in outer space? The liberal Nazi doesn’t buy any of this junk, so surely they must be more rational, right?

Wrong. They still believe in a fundamentally irrational conclusion buttressed in some way by an ideology (Nazism) that is also, in any form, clearly irrational. Don and other LCs have gone to great lengths to make themselves appear erudite concerning their Christianity, but clearly we have one mightily naked emperor here: they still believe in a magical being, and this belief is connected to something written in a book. Don has completely and utterly ignored this point.

Of course, the argument can be made that Don’s liberal Christianity isn’t connected to his god belief at all, but then what would be the point? Is Don a Christian simply because he believes that Christian morality is the way to go? As I will demonstrate later, this is also completely irrational.

All That and a Bag of Communion Wafers

LC and FC are both methods that come to the same conclusion: God Exists. While one method may rely on more modern techniques to aid in ‘understanding’ (understanding what, by the way?), the liberal Christian is still making the same wildly impossible claim that the fundamentalist makes. Or does Don suggest we judge methods not on their outcome but only their content?

Don has concentrated on LC solely as a method for reviewing scripture. But that is not all that makes up Christianity, not by a long shot! There is a category of beliefs also contained in LC, and those beliefs are as ridiculous as the fundamentalist set, insofar as they purport to say things about the existence of god and his properties.

There are really only two questions that need to be asked:

1)Is your belief in god connected at all to what you have read in scripture?
2)If so, how?

Many people assume the former, but are absolutely mum on the latter. Not only is our emperor naked, now he’s jumping up and down on the banquet table, his genitals flopping hither and yon.

The liberal Christian knows that as soon as he opens his mouth on point two (assuming the answer to point one is “Yes”) he will sound as ridiculous as the most fundamentalist Christian. Further, this irrational answer will make his earlier ruminations seem like one gigantic waste of time. This, of course, is what they have been. But I’m just a mean old atheist for pointing it out.

Let’s Talk Content

In the spirit of charity, let’s ignore what is easily the most important question here (point 2) and assume that Don has answered question 1 with a hearty “No!” and is merely interested in Christianity as some sort of diaphanous, mythological scheme that describes a useful and moral ethic. In other words, let’s assume Don is a Christian because he believes that Christianity is a good method for being moral, and he is really unconcerned with the whole ‘god’ thing.

A cursory glance at the news will show us what is wrong with this belief. Consider the recent events in the Episcopalian Church surrounding the blessing of same sex unions. In the year 2007, the uber-liberal Episcopalian Church is trying to justify being nice to gays via the Bible. For all of their ‘sophistication’ and allegorical approaches to the text, there is still a requirement to adhere to Iron Age philosophy. They know they should be nice to gay people, probably despite all the nasty things scripture has to say about them. But they just can’t seem to fit being nice to gays inside a paradigm that clearly says to treat them like crap. What a dilemma!

The Liberal Christian is trying to build a web-page using BASIC. An enormous and exhausting amount of effort is needed to make their ‘programming language’ work on the problems we encounter in 2007, and even then it does a pretty lousy job. Why not upgrade your thinking? Why hold fast to ‘wisdom’ that is 2,000 years old? It is clearly ill-equipped to deal with today’s moral issues, either by omission or contradiction.

Many people will assert, as an answer to this challenge, that the only moral precept needed is the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. However, these banal ideas about morality are clearly defeated by obvious examples: if I would have people murder me, I can freely murder others. By the Golden Rule, I am acting moral. Clearly this is immoral behavior. There’s that damn dilemma again! What to do?

When Life Hands You a Dilemma, Make Dilemmonade

My first suggestion is to approach ethics and morality as adults, and have actual conversations about these things instead of couching our work in old stories. The ‘wisdom’ contained in the Bible isn’t all that wise, so when it comes to ethics, why does the Liberal Christian bother? He is complicating the issue by requiring himself to interpret morality through the lens of old mythology. Can it be done? Sure. Is there an easier way to do it? Absolutely. I would even go so far as to assert that it is immoral to use a process so fraught with inconsistency.

A sound bite is not sufficient enough to encapsulate the entirety of the human journey to discover morality.

So one advantage that LC supposedly had over FC -- its interpretation of biblical morality -- is obviously not all that great. It requires that you share the playing field with the hateful and the intolerant. Why not just take your ball and go home? Why not let the Fundamentalist continue to base his morality off dusty old books, and instead you and I can have intelligent conversations about the matter, unfettered by mythological nonsense? Again, the fact that the liberal Christian is using allegory and metaphor to try to discover axioms about morality is just as irrational as the fundamentalist attempt to use literal reading to discover other axioms. In either case, each participant has recourse to his magic book. That is really not helpful.

Summary

Don, as a liberal Christian, believes in god. He thinks that his non-literal reading of scripture somehow makes this belief more rational. As I wrote earlier, he hasn’t shown how exactly. The only thing he has done is show me that the original writers and followers of Christianity believed in a liberal interpretation of scripture. Now this can’t be all true; obviously, some things are to be taken literally, such as the existence of God. This was a point raised in my first post which was also completely unaddressed.

At any rate, Don has not shown the chain of reasoning that connects his interpretation of Christianity to his god belief. I do not say that one has to lead to the other, but I only suggest that they must intersect somewhere, somehow. It is this point that almost all LCs fail to speak on, because as mentioned before, they know how silly they’re going to sound.

On the other hand, if Don simply wants to claim LC is more rational than FC because of the way it deals with morality, he runs into a similar problem: in all cases, he’s still using scripture to decipher moral problems. It is clearly irrational to constrain yourself to a system of morality that is this old and filled, as it is, with contradictions. As an aside, I’ve always found the idea of ‘Apologetics’ fascinating. Doesn’t the fact that you need to ‘apologize’ for this great moral wisdom mean that you realize it needs the work?

What’s better? An intellectual distinction between right and wrong? Or an intellectual distinction between right and wrong, buried under poorly written mythology that is easily and often ‘misinterpreted’?

In either case, whether Don’s belief in god is connected to his Christianity or not, liberal Christianity stands as a stilly waste of the practitioner’s time. Fundamentalist Christianity is irrational because it stands in violation of basic facts, scientific and moral. Liberal Christianity is just as irrational, because while it claims to be more intelligent, it simply isn’t. The same basic conclusion is adhered to, and though it may be couched in more sophisticated terms, I’d like to point out that “sophistication” and “sophistry” share the same root word.

[GakuseiDon]

Liberal Nazism? You have got to be kidding. Common wisdom is that when a debater resorts to using analogies to Nazism, the debate is all but over. Compare LC to FC and creationism if you like, but forgive me for ignoring the emotional landmine that is "Liberal Nazism".

TySixtus's second post strikes out in a number of directions. It might be good here to remind him about the formal parameters set for this debate:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=4827966&postcount=24

In particular, I direct him towards the following parameter which reflects TySixtus's own wording:
For purposes of this debate, "rational" will be defined as "makes good sense, and accurately portrays facts about the universe via a method of thought and logic."

In setting up this debate in the Formal Debate Proposal Forum, I initially suggested that we benchmark where FC is irrational, as otherwise the debate would become too subjective. In response, TySixtus wrote (my emphasis):
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=222109
"By irrational, I mean:

The statements that Fundamentalist Christianity makes about epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, science, and history are incorrect. Therefore, to believe that Fundamentalist Christianity accurately portrays facts about the universe is irrational insofar as it makes claims that are false, and ceases to use reasoning as a sound method for determining the truth of propositions."
Since I was fairly sure that LC uses science and history more accurately than FC, and LC ethics were more consistent than LC's, I felt that my best approach in this debate was to demonstrate that (1) LC was more rational than FC in these areas, and (2) in the other areas FC was not more rational than LC.

In his first post, TySixtus seemed to try to hold to the debate parameters (my emphasis):
"The resolution of this debate requires that I do two things. First, I must show that Fundamentalist Christianity is irrational. Second, I must show that Liberal Christianity mirrors the same kind of irrationality with regards to the claims it makes about the universe, the behavior of its believers, and even the relevancy of the ideas it characterizes."
Again, I felt that I would be able to show that LC was more rational in one or more areas, and there was no area where FC could be shown to be more rational than LC.

But TySixtus seems to have moved away from this in his second post, by reducing the debate down to whether a belief in God is rational or not. If that is his intention, then he should have no problem with saying whether he agrees or disagrees with the following affirmations:
1. Liberal Christianity is more rational than FC in the claims it makes about science
2. Liberal Christianity is more rational than FC in its claims about history
3. There are no precepts where Fundamentalist Christianity is more rational than Liberal Christianity

Can TySixtus clarify whether he agrees or disagrees with the above statements?


Solve for x, where x > 0

In his latest post, TySixtus asks "At what point do rational concepts outweigh irrational ones? I don’t know." I've never expected TySixtus to find LC completely rational, and in fact it would be a different debate entirely for me to try to argue that. My focus has been to demonstrate that LC is generally more "accurate in its portrayal of facts about the universe" than FC.

TySixtus goes on to write:
Likewise, the same process could be undertaken in a consideration with FC. In either case, we could literally provide ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ concepts until the end of time
Good! Then, can TySixus give five examples where Fundamentalist Christianity is more rational than Liberal Christianity? I'm sure I can give five examples showing the opposite.

If he has zero examples showing where Fundamentalist Christianity is more rational than Liberal Christianity and I have more than zero examples on my side, then weighing up the more rational side in this debate becomes distinctly possible.

"LC is more rational than FC" vs "LC is rational"

TySixtus appears to have skipped some of my remarks from my first post, when he writes:
"One does not simply add ‘rational’ claims up and claim to win the debate. The problem is much more complex than that, but even then Don misses the chief point: Liberal Christians and Fundamental Christians believe in the existence of god. This belief is in some way, shape or form connected to the scriptures of Christianity. Whether one connects this belief by solid adherence (FC) or liberal interpretation (LC) does not change the fact that this belief in the god of Christianity is unwarranted, and is thereby irrational."
As I noted earlier, it is counter-productive for me to spend time debating on the rationality of matters of faith common to both LC and FC. For example: TySixtus brings up the question of the rationality of the Golden Rule. Now, if the debate were "LC is rational", this could be a topic worth discussing. But in terms of trying to show that LC is more rational than FC, it is a wasted effort. For even if I could demonstrate that the Golden Rule was rational, the same would hold for FC as well. In other words, I wouldn't have shown that LC is MORE rational than FC.


What is Liberal Christianity again?

TySixtus then goes into a series of statements that appear to ignore the debate parameter referred to above:
"LC and FC are both methods that come to the same conclusion: God Exists. While one method may rely on more modern techniques to aid in ‘understanding’ (understanding what, by the way?), the liberal Christian is still making the same wildly impossible claim that the fundamentalist makes."
I used the word "Understanding" to refer to trying to understand the Bible within its historic/cultural context. Is that a reasonable way to approach the Bible, and a more rational way than the FC model? I would say yes. Simply stating that both FC and LC believe in God, therefore they are the same "method" is ridiculous and ignores the parameters of this debate.

To use TySixtus's own words, does LC more "accurately portray facts about the universe" than FC? Does it use a more "sound method for determining the truth of propositions" when it comes to science and history? I can't see how TySixtus can deny that it does. Again, just pointing out that both LC and FC concludes that a God exists therefore they are equally irrational ignores the parameters of this debate.

TySixtus then brings up the strawman about LCs and morality:
"Again, the fact that the liberal Christian is using allegory and metaphor to try to discover axioms about morality is just as irrational as the fundamentalist attempt to use literal reading to discover other axioms. In either case, each participant has recourse to his magic book."
TySixtus has ignored my post about the definition of LC, and my earlier comment on his example of attitudes towards homosexuality in his first post. LCs DON'T NEED to use allegory and metaphor to "try to discover axioms about morality" within the Bible, just as they don't need to treat Genesis as allegory or metaphor. LC can use modern eyes to see homosexuality as being something that is not a personal choice, and thus shouldn't be classified as a sin. TySixtus still seems to be under the impression that LC is trying to "save" the Bible, despite my earlier post.

TySixtus then misses the point again in his Summary section, when he writes:
Don, as a liberal Christian, believes in god. He thinks that his non-literal reading of scripture somehow makes this belief more rational.
No, it isn't the "non-literal reading" that makes it more rational. It is trying to understand biblical passages in their historic/cultural context. THAT is the rational approach that FC doesn't use. I'm claiming that "Examining passages in their historic/cultural context" is more rational than "Unquestioning belief in the inerrant word of God". Which is the more rational approach in TySixtus's opinion?

TySixtus finally describes an LC that I frankly don't recognise:
On the other hand, if Don simply wants to claim LC is more rational than FC because of the way it deals with morality, he runs into a similar problem: in all cases, he’s still using scripture to decipher moral problems. It is clearly irrational to constrain yourself to a system of morality that is this old and filled, as it is, with contradictions.
I fail to see anything here that reflects my thoughts. Where on earth am I "using scripture to decipher moral problems"???

Conclusion

In his second post, TySixtus appears to be trying to reduce LC and FC down into an equation. Since both LC and FC come to the conclusion that a God exists, he argues that they are equally irrational. But this ignores the parameters of this debate, much less common sense.

Here is a thought experiment: if the existence of God was somehow established, would this make FC "rational"? Compared to LC, would it then be a more "accurate portrayal of facts about the universe"? The answer has to be a resounding "NO!" Even if FC was correct about God existing, it wouldn't mean that they were more rational in their approach to the age of the universe or evolution. LC would still be more rational than FC.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The formal debate will conclude in the third round.

KWSN, FD Moderator

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

TySixtus has requested an extension of 3 days to submit his concluding statement. I have agreed to grant his request.

KWSN, FD Moderator

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

TySixtus will not be participating further in the formal debate. I therefore must declare a forfeiture. GakuseiDon will now have the opportunity to post a concluding statement if he wishes to.

KWSN, FD Moderator

[GakuseiDon]

TySixtus appears to have decided to stop posting in IIDB, for reasons separate to do with this debate. But I will make a concluding comment.

The three things that stuck out for me in this debate are:
1. How did TySixtus hope to win this debate?
2. Why did TySixtus believe that LC was about trying to "save" the Bible?
3. If TySixtus was a former liberal Christian, why did he feel that there was the requirement to explain inconsistencies in the Bible?

I'll go through them point-by-point, and give my conclusion based on them:
1. TySixtus tried to reduce LC and FC into "methods" to show their irrational base. But they aren't methods, they are in fact worldviews, with opinions on science, history, etc. Once that was entered into the parameters, there was no way that TySixtus could win. It is so obvious that LC is more rational when it comes to science and history that it is almost an axiom. So why did TySixtus not see the danger in how the debate challenge was phrased?

2. Liberal Christians generally try to understand the Bible in terms of its historic/cultural context. If that means that Genesis was supposed to be literal, then that's fine. It is, after all, how the original authors saw it. LCs don't need to save the Bible, as TySixtus put it. So why did TySixtus believe that LC wants to do this?

3. TySixtus wrote in his first post here that "Speaking as a former liberal Christian, I know that one of the biggest attractions to LC was its supposed “room” for personal interpretation and the ability (nay, the requirement!) to explain these inconsistencies". But why would he want to do that?

I'd like to propose that the answer to the three questions has to do with how Christianity is portrayed in America -- specifically the Bible Belt -- and how it is portrayed in other Western countries. In Australia, my own country, liberal Christianity is NOT about trying to save the Bible, it is about trying to reconcile the human condition with religion expression and traditions from over the last 2000 years. "Saving" the Bible is simply not a part of that.

I suspect in some parts of America, a "liberal" Christian is someone who tries to save the Bible by claiming that certain parts are "metaphorical" -- as if claiming Genesis as "metaphorical" somehow makes it "truer" than claiming it to be literal. (I've never understood how Genesis-as-metaphor is supposed to work. Metaphor for WHAT, exactly???)

Thus TySixtus went into this debate expecting me to try to defend the Bible as true -- granted, "metaphorically true", but true nonetheless. Yet, "Bible as truth" is more akin to how Fundamentalist Christians view the Good Book. So it is no wonder that TySixtus saw LC and FC as two peas in a pod.

I think a lot of the debates that go on around the Internet confuse "Bible Belt Liberal Christianity" with "secular Liberal Christianity". "Bible Belt Liberal Christianity" is a kind of pseudo-Fundamentalism. It involves cherry-picking passages, treating other passages, in an attempt to "save" the Bible. "Secular Liberal Christianity" doesn't have the Bible as its focus. It is more human-oriented, and sees the relationship between God and Man as more central than the relationship between Bible and Man. The "footsteps in the sand" story is an expression of that kind of Christianity. As is the phrase "I don't preach the Gospel, I live it".

So I thank TySixtus for that insight into "Bible Belt Liberal Christianity", and I think it is a lesson that I hope to keep in mind for the future.

Thanks also to Knight for moderating this discussion.