Is There a Rational Method for Evaluating Religious Claims?

[pattylt]

Thanks for responding.  Your statement “ That man is inherently sinful in his fallen nature is existentially plausible because it makes sense of all of our observations, our inner knowledge of ourselves, and explains the tension of what we ought to do and what we often do.” is a completely foreign concept to me.  In Judaism we see the duality of man both good and bad.  Christian sin is a foreign concept as well as we are expected to fail God, learn from it and ask forgiveness of both God and anyone wronged and make it as right as possible.  It’s why Yom Kippur exists.

Your scriptures declare man is fallen.  Ours does not…and we are both supposedly reading the same text.  Our reading also satisfies the tension between ought and doing without any sense that we need to feel inherently fallen or sinful.  We simply make mistakes without your baggage.  In fact, we see in ourselves and others the beauty and goodness in spite of our mistakes.

So while your explanation satisfies you, it is completely unsatisfactory and meaningless to me….even more so when I became atheist.

Your scriptures are perfectly compatible with the doctrine. It is the NT that brings the concepts forward from the OT (Hebrews--you should read it or ask ChatGPT to summarize it).

Firstly, I’ve read the NT several times and parts of it even more.

Secondly, if the NT hadn’t tried to align itself with the OT, it would easily be recognized as a completely separate religion with little to no ties to the OT at all.

Christians needed to tie themselves to the OT to be accepted as a valid religion amongst the Romans.  Romans didn’t like new religions but respected Judaism due to to its age.  The gospels, particularly Matthew, tries to accomplish this by making Jesus a new Moses.  Christians have spilt a ton of ink reinterpreting the meanings in the OT to align with their beliefs about Jesus.  Jews spent a lot of time having to be quiet about what the scriptures meant to them once the Christian’s gained enough power to silence them.

From Genesis on, Christian’s massaged new meanings out of the OT, from Adam and Eve and the meanings of the Garden to Isaiah and Daniel…all very different from the beliefs in Jewish interpretations.  I’m not saying the Christian’s are wrong, they are just a completely different meaning.  It’s OK, Jews have changed meanings, too, as societies and cultures developed.  What Christian’s do, but shouldn’t, is claim only they are right.

One of your claims…”Existential Plausibility

Does the worldview ring true to human nature? Does it dignify the human person while acknowledging human frailty? Can it be lived with integrity?”
 is, to me, a failure.  Christianity refuses to acknowledge that the LGBTQ have never been given dignity and only recently have *some* begun to change that view.  Plenty of others haven’t been given dignity because they have different views of god, different views of death and different views of women.  All these various groups had to fight for their dignity to be recognized…that’s now how it should have to work.  Christianity doesn’t ring true to nature….it redefined how nature should work and tries to fit those round pegs into square holes, not accept them from the start.  We now KNOW that gays are born that way…you’d think god would know that, too.

[Dānu]

[Rhythmcs]

What complex claims about existence, purpose, and morality?  "God exists" is a simple proposition that tells us nothing about anything else.  The complex claims about existence, purpose, and morality themselves are either true or false, in a realist sense, regardless of whether or not the simple proposition of a gods existence is true or false.

Do you think that your many posts here are examples of subjecting christianity to rather than shielding christianity from rational analysis?  Do you not see the irony in immediately telling us that this or that specific and rational line of inquiry cannot be applied to your personal religion?  

Don't ask questions if you don't want to hear the answers.  Is religion inherently truth seeking?  No.  Can it be?  Sure.  Is christianity inherently truth seeking?  You tell me, are you willing to abandon christian superstitions if they turn out to be innaccurate?  Do you believe that christian superstitions being false or inaccurate invalidates christian religion?  Between the two of us, who do you think has the more narrow and dismissive view of religious claims?  I don't dismiss religious worldviews as not truth-seeking because they contain moral claims, quite the reverse.  I dismiss religious views that reject moral realism.  Even more specifically, religious views that posit gods as moral truthmakers rather than facts of the matter in question.  

What do you think.  If god likes torturing children, or gods don't exist, is torturing children still wrong?  I hate that these discussions always swirl The Bad Stuff.  Works just as well with positive claims.  If a god exists and it strongly dislikes tolerance, is tolerance still good?  When you think about the many claims of moral import in theistic religions - if you run across a claim that is..lets say, evil...do you throw your hands up and say "well, shit, that's just how gods are I guess" or do you suspect that someone may have something wrong?

If I understand you point correctly, the reason you think you are more generous in your analysis is that you do not expect religions to be truth-seeking as part of your explanation for religion. But, I think if the core claims of Christianity are proven to be false, that would invalidate the Christian religion. Why? Because it claims to be truth-seeking.

If you understood anything above correctly then maybe you'd have responded to any of it.  You decided to go on a date with a chatbot instead.

Still, sure, in your haste to level the accusation that I or others reject religious claims categorically and improperly you've massively fucked up.  I do not reject religious claims (or religions as truth-seeking) because they are moral claims - the item in question..in fact I judge religious claims by objective metrics.  If you don't have moral claims you don't have a religion (just superstition), and if the moral claims are dogshit, then the religion is dogshit, objectively speaking.  Additionally, I do not reject religious claims because they are not always truth seeking.  I understand that religious claims can be, and most often are, truth creating.  A list of what ought to be moreso than a list of what is - which calls it's adherents to action.  Just like before, if the world that ought to be according to a religion is dogshit, then the religion is dogshit.      

You think that if there was no christ christian religion would be invalidated.  I do not.  It's pretty clear who's more generous..but here's the kicker..I also happen to be completely and demonstrably right about this - by reference to the living example of cultural christianity, as opposed to your allegedly dead faith...meaningless in the absence of some ghost according to you. On that note, I've got some bad news Steve. Gods aren't real. They never were. Truth in the objective sense, moral or otherwise, can't be grounded in nonexistent gods of mans creation. It can't even be grounded in existent gods we've yet to imagine. That's literal nonsense.

Objective truths are those which are not grounded in any given subject or group of subjects. Not you, not me, not the housecat, not god. If a truth, or The Truth is grounded in any subject, then that truth or The Truth is subjective, not objective. Do you understand this correctly? Mind you, I'm not asking you to change your mind about what truth is grounded in. I just want you to understand the claim you're actually making.

[SYZ]

Thanks for responding.  Your statement "That man is inherently sinful in his fallen nature is existentially plausible because it makes sense of all of our observations, our inner knowledge of ourselves, and explains the tension of what we ought to do and what we often do" is a completely foreign concept to me...

 (my bold)

More of Steve's nonsensical bullshit.  Man is not "inherently sinful".  
Inherent means existing in something as a permanent, essential, or
characteristic attribute.  He then uses this claim to beg the question
of  our purported "sins" explaining our real-world shortcomings.

This absurd inherently sinful thing is nothing more than a fabrication of
the religious as some sort of justification for their beliefs in an all-knowing
higher power—one that can "correct" those non-existent real-world sins.
It's just another part of the religious hierarchy’s power game, and its
controls over the sheeple.

[Thumpalumpacus]

... works for me.6

[pattylt]

Are there any other religions that consider humans inherently sinful? I’m not familiar enough with Eastern faiths or even Islam for that matter.

[Rhythmcs]

If I were to say from my own worldview that human beings are inherently compromised moral agents by nature I'd be describing the same content, making the same observation. This is a problem, rationally, for people who would insist on sin as soul blemish. Certainly a problem for a person who believes that the truth of one statement (about mans nature) suggests the truth of another (about a gods existence)...but the whole thing is a bit anyway.

Steve immediately violates steves own first principles of evaluating religious claims. He's going to say anything. None of it means anything.

[epronovost]

Are there any other religions that consider humans inherently sinful?  I’m not familiar enough with Eastern faiths or even Islam for that matter.

Sinful might be the wrong term here, but all religious faith, moral philosophy and political ideology consider humans as capable of doing evil things and as having "vile urges and impulses". One doesn't need to think very long as to why. While humans are a gregarious species that requires high levels of social bonding and cooperation to survive let alone thrive, we are still individual with our own agenda and desires. There is thus always points of conflict between these two impulses. Christianity as well as many older philosophical movements and religions like stoicism and Buddhism respectively make for the case that the gregarious and pro-social instinct and impulses are the higher ones and the individual and self-centered one are the lower ones.

[Rhythmcs]

Thus, the thing that various religions actually converge on is not a matter of various gods existence, but some aspect of mans nature, and..if we're being thorough, what to do about it.

[Alan V]

Are there any other religions that consider humans inherently sinful?  I’m not familiar enough with Eastern faiths or even Islam for that matter.

Sin is a transgression against divine law, so it is a theistic construction.  From what I know about Islam, inherent sinfulness is an idea confined to varieties of Christianity and was invented to rationalize the "sacrifice" of Jesus.

But for mankind to be fallen, Christians need to assert that people were better before the fall.  Evolution contradicts that idea, and therefore also undermines the sacrifice of Jesus to redeem mankind.

Even further, Christianity is guilt-inducing by blaming mankind for all of the evils of the world while praising God for all of its good bits.  That is inherently unfair to people, since we took a world full of difficulties and made it a much better place for ourselves.

So Christians invented a problem to sell a solution.

[Rhythmcs]

Original sin is syncretic thought in christian tradition. They did not actually get the idea from the ot, or from judaism, nor did they invent it themselves to sell anything.

[pattylt]

Are there any other religions that consider humans inherently sinful?  I’m not familiar enough with Eastern faiths or even Islam for that matter.

Sin is a transgression against divine law, so it is a theistic construction.  From what I know about Islam, inherent sinfulness is an idea confined to varieties of Christianity and was invented to rationalize the "sacrifice" of Jesus.

But for mankind to be fallen, Christians need to assert that people were better before the fall.  Evolution contradicts that idea, and therefore also undermines the sacrifice of Jesus to redeem mankind.

Even further, Christianity is guilt-inducing by blaming mankind for all of the evils of the world while praising God for all of its good bits.  That is inherently unfair to people, since we took a world full of difficulties and made it a much better place for ourselves.

So Christians invented a problem to sell a solution.

This is more in line with what I was trying to suss out.  Thanks!  Christians with their Original Sin and the total depravity of man only makes sense if you need a Redeemer.  I think they often do think they’re also good but, they sure don’t mention it much.  As a Jew, it was a foreign concept.  As an atheist, it’s moved to even more foreign territory.

I was trying to think of any other religion that has such a horrible concept of our nature.  I gather other religions accept that we’re both good and bad, capable of either, but not all of us all the time and only “fixed” if we accept Jesus. To me, that’s one area where Christianity fails to actually describe man and how we got there.

How do Christian’s that accept evolution deal with Original Sin in light of evolution.  I’ve heard various apologetics on it but, like their Trinity, it doesn’t compute!

[pattylt]

Original sin is syncretic thought in christian tradition.  They did not actually get the idea from the ot, or from judaism, nor did they invent it themselves to sell anything.

Syncretic from where?

I’ve also heard they redefined Hell in order to have a reason to avoid it.  Hell isn’t a concept in Judaism.  I think it is in Islamic thought, taken from the Christians.  Do other faiths have an eternal punishment for our non eternal lives?

[Rhythmcs]

Classical greek.

[Alan V]

Original sin is syncretic thought in christian tradition.  They did not actually get the idea from the ot, or from judaism, nor did they invent it themselves to sell anything.

"There is nothing new under the sun."

So no two groups of people, isolated from one another in time and space, can come up with the same idea for different reasons?

[Rhythmcs]

We can, and we often do. I was babbling on about multiple instances of independent construction on this board or some other within the last week.

But..specifically to the point, it's not that there's nothing new under the sun, but that christian intelligentsia very intentionally went to the classical greek well in order to ground their superstitious beliefs in a philosophic tradition they...then...believed was valuemaking. Basically, a consequence of history and of christianity's origin in time and geography. Not that it held at all times or places, mind. Christianity in asia had a different take - they dip into confucianism or any number of other native traditions because that's local to them, historically, and contemporary christianity, globally speaking, is not exactly wedded to the idea. Islam takes the notion but gives it a persian and arabic wash.

This, to put a very fine point on it, explains judeo-christian beliefsets in modernity. They began as or immediately became highly syncretic which made them transportable and fungible in all manner of contexts and religious marketplaces, and we sit now on the tail end of around 2k years of local and hyper-regional modification.

-but there I go again, rationally evaluating religious claims in a thread about whether or not there's a way to do so. I'll be told I'm wrong...and not to believe my lying eyes (in contradiction to yet another suggested principle), because the real deal, the only rational way to address christian religious development, is to turn out the lights and do my best madeline kahn.

[Dānu]

In quite a few Eastern religions, it is ignorance that leads to bad and unsuccessful human conduct, not inherent bias toward the bad. And so, there is a cure, but it lies within each of us, not an external redeemer.

And the idea of samsara is kind of a hell, with suffering being inherent in existence.

[Alan V]

How do Christian’s that accept evolution deal with Original Sin in light of evolution.  I’ve heard various apologetics on it but, like their Trinity, it doesn’t compute!

Your guess is as good as mine.  Compartmentalization?  Interpreting these ideas as metaphors?  Resorting to pantheism and "our separation from God"?  Perhaps it depends on the individual believers or their groups.  

However, those ideas don't make sense to me either.

[SYZ]

If one assumes that Adam and Eve were created in the
form of adults to start the human race, with no parents,
then there's no way to reconcile the story with the facts
of evolution.

Genesis 1:27 says "So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him; male and female created
he them".

I'm sure that the Christian god wouldn't look like a zygote LOL.

[SteveII]

If the value we are assessing in evaluating a worldview isn't truth, then what is the specific value and why should we care?

I can't keep track of the context. Can you expound of refer to something I said?

[Dexta]

If the value we are assessing in evaluating a worldview isn't truth, then what is the specific value and why should we care?

I can't keep track of the context. Can you expound of refer to something I said?

[SteveII]

This is a methodology for evaluating the entire worldview as one thing.

Then why does it discards from the onset some worldviews like eliminative materialism? That's not fair. If you want a methodology or evaluating the entire worldview as one thing then it must treat all worldviews equally and under the same standard and it cannot contain metaphysical assumption that deny or reject a priori some worldview that you don't like.

Eliminative materialism isn't a worldview in itself--it's a position within metaphysical naturalism. The broader list of metaphysical assumptions I outlined is meant for evaluating comprehensive worldviews--especially those that address moral, existential, and metaphysical dimensions of reality.

Metaphysical naturalism restricts itself to a materialist ontology, and because of that, it operates within a narrower epistemological and metaphysical framework. That doesn't mean it has no assumptions--only that its assumptions are often are basic or simpler in scope, focusing on materialism in this case. In other words, it does not need a list such as mine.

[Dānu]

If the value we are assessing in evaluating a worldview isn't truth, then what is the specific value and why should we care?

I can't keep track of the context. Can you expound of refer to something I said?

The context is your thread. What quality are you claiming that worldviews that are assessed positively possess?

[SteveII]

Your scriptures are perfectly compatible with the doctrine. It is the NT that brings the concepts forward from the OT (Hebrews--you should read it or ask ChatGPT to summarize it).

Firstly, I’ve read the NT several times and parts of it even more.

Secondly, if the NT hadn’t tried to align itself with the OT, it would easily be recognized as a completely separate religion with little to no ties to the OT at all.

Christians needed to tie themselves to the OT to be accepted as a valid religion amongst the Romans.  Romans didn’t like new religions but respected Judaism due to to its age.  The gospels, particularly Matthew, tries to accomplish this by making Jesus a new Moses.  Christians have spilt a ton of ink reinterpreting the meanings in the OT to align with their beliefs about Jesus.  Jews spent a lot of time having to be quiet about what the scriptures meant to them once the Christian’s gained enough power to silence them.

From Genesis on, Christian’s massaged new meanings out of the OT, from Adam and Eve and the meanings of the Garden to Isaiah and Daniel…all very different from the beliefs in Jewish interpretations.  I’m not saying the Christian’s are wrong, they are just a completely different meaning.  It’s OK, Jews have changed meanings, too, as societies and cultures developed.  What Christian’s do, but shouldn’t, is claim only they are right.

A few things.

1. Reading the NT (for generic purposes) is not the same thing as reading it to understand a single topic (like the connection to the OT). This is a topic that has filled libraries with all the layers of connection to peel back.

2. related, saying something like "if the NT hadn’t tried to align itself with the OT, it would easily be recognized as a completely separate religion" shows that you don't understand Christianity at all. There is absolutely no Christianity without the OT. It is 100% dependent on it for all of its presuppositions, foundational theology, internal consistency, explanatory scope, historical context, moral system and more. It is inseparable. It is one complete story. You can become a Christian without it--you cannot understand Christianity without it.

3. You have repeated that Christians needed to be "Jewish" to be accepted by Rome as if this explains the connection. I would not repeat that in the era of AI now where it will take 6 seconds to find out that is way off. While the benefit might be true (for a short period of time), it is incidental, and not at all a reason for the connection to the OT.

4. Christianity does change the interpretation going backwards because it is the "New Covenant" that makes sense of and contextualizes all the previous covenants as they each did to the one before it. In other words, it's an unavoidable feature of the new revelation and not an separate step.

[epronovost]

Eliminative materialism isn't a worldview in itself--it's a position within metaphysical naturalism. The broader list of metaphysical assumptions I outlined is meant for evaluating comprehensive worldviews--especially those that address moral, existential, and metaphysical dimensions of reality.

Metaphysical naturalism restricts itself to a materialist ontology, and because of that, it operates within a narrower epistemological and metaphysical framework. That doesn't mean it has no assumptions--only that its assumptions are often are basic or simpler in scope, focusing on materialism in this case. In other words, it does not need a list such as mine.

That some worldviews are more reductive than others doesn't make them any less worldviews. Furthermore, if elliminative materialism is a position within metaphysical naturalism your Christian doctrine is only a position within the broader scope of Christianity which is itself only a position within abrahamic religions and south west Asian religious movement which are themselves only a position within indo-europeans religions. Being related and in the same family than a weath of other ideologies, religions and philosophies doesn't make a position any less of a worldview.

Finally, why is there an assumption in your list of assumption necessary to evaluate a worldview that flattely reject by fiat one of the necessary assumption of some worldviews? This still isn't an excuse. You don't need to accept the idea that humans can perceive real features moral and aesthetic reality (or even that there is a moral and aesthetic reality to begin with).