(28 votes, average: 4.82 out of 5)
Loading...The following post is for anyone interested. You interested? Join the blog. You get five posts a week, each and every week of the year, on all sorts of intriguing topics connected with the New Testament and Early Christianity.
QUESTION:
What do you have to lose by having faith and believing that Christ was born supernaturally as a result of a virgin birth to Mary, that Christ performed miracles, that Christ died by crucifixion and came back to life from the dead, and that Christ went back into heaven in a supernatural ascension into heaven? I don’t see any downside.
RESPONSE:
I get this kind of question on occasion. Usually when someone asks it they tie it to “Pascal’s Wager.” In case you’re not familiar with it, Blaise Pascal (1623-1662 CE), mathematician that he was, thought in terms of percentages and odds. And he applied it in a famous way to the question of belief – in an age when lots of intellectuals in Europe, and people they influenced, were having doubts about religious belief and becoming atheists.
In a kind of cost-benefits analysis, Pascal reasoned that if someone remained a believer, then if it turned out in the end they were wrong, it would have zero negative effects. BUT, if they decided to become an atheist and they were wrong, that could have massive, eternal, and exquisitely painful effects. And so, the only reasonable thing to do was to continue to believe. There is a lot that can be gained and nothing to lose; and the alternative is to have nothing to gain and everything to lose. No brainer, right?
And so this person’s question to me: there’s no downside! So why not continue to believe in the traditional Christian doctrines about Christ?
Let me say at the outset that that I’m not at all offended by the question and understand the concern behind it, even if, as I’ll try to show, it’s not actually very thoughtful. But still, it’s a question I myself used to ask of people back when I was a conservative evangelical who believed that only those with the proper beliefs would be given an eternal reward, and everyone else was doomed for the fire pits of hell. For someone with that kind of view, it makes no sense for someone to risk it. Why not believe? What’s to lose?
But I have two responses that seem to me to be insurmountable. I’ll give them by doing what you are never supposed to do, answering a question with a question (or in this case, two questions):
The first question I would ask this person is: Are *you* able to believe something that you honestly do not think is true?
The question itself raises a much bigger issue: what does it mean to believe? Does anyone really and genuinely think that authentic faith means mouthing certain words that you don’t actually subscribe to in order to be let off the hook? Would God be convinced by that? Wouldn’t he, uh, see through it? I assume so. So what good would it do for me to say that I believe something I don’t actually believe?
And how can I force myself to think something is true when I don’t think it is? Belief isn’t mouthing words or lying to get off the hook.
The second question I would ask is, for me, the real zinger: Can it really be a simple case of either/or? Either you believe or not? In other words, is it really a case that if you choose to believe and you’re right, you may be saved, but if you’re wrong you will be damned? Doesn’t that assume there are only two options: believe in Christ for salvation or don’t and be damned?
That may have made sense for Pascal, who lived in a world where, for all practical purposes, there were TWO options. But what about our own world? We don’t have two options. We have scads of them. And it is literally impossible to take them all.
That is to say: If you want to make sure you cover your bases when it comes to salvation: WHICH religion do you follow? Suppose you decide, OK, I’ll take Pascal’s wager and decide (somehow) to believe in Christ? What if, it turns out, Christ is NOT the right option? Or even, say, the only/best option?
In concrete terms: what if you decide to believe in Christ and then it turns out the Muslims are right? You could be damned forever for choosing the wrong option. So how do you cover the Islamic option as well as the Christianity one? And … well … there are lots of religions to choose from.
Even within Christianity: I know some Christians who have an entire detailed list of what you have to believe to be saved. And I know other Christians who have a *different* list. It is impossible to believe both at once, since they are at odds with one another. On a most simple level, I know different Christians who believe that if you do not belong to *their* denomination, you will be damned; and even Christians who say that you have to be baptized in *their particular church* to be saved. So what’cha gonna do?
On this logic, do you become Mormon to cover your bases? And Catholic? And Southern Baptist? And a Jehovah’s Witness? And an Independent-Bible-Believing-Hell-Fire-and-Brimstone Fundamentalist? And …. ?
Really, when people come up with simple questions, I sometimes wonder what they are thinking. Are they thinking? At all? Do they really think there are two choices in the world, and you might as well play it safe?
I remember when I became a born again Christian at age 18 I told a family friend about it. He was a Pentecostal Christian and he asked me if I had been filled with the Holy Spirit? When I responded “I guess so” he replied that if I didn’t speak in tongues and became “spirit filled” then I was not truly saved. So much of my Christian life I often wondered if he was correct. For most of my life I was what many would call a “backslider” as I enjoyed living what I considered a “normal” life, but there were times I would watch Christian television programs and one preacher would indicate (Harold Camping)….hold the laughter, that just because you believe you are saved you may not be if you were not one of God’s “elect.” My favorite television pastor over the years was Dr. Charles Stanley who preached once a person is saved it is for all eternity and there was no favoritism such as being part of the “elect.” No more confusion now thank goodness. In my opinion sin is nothing more than human nature and everyone is unique in that measure. No heaven, no hell, no worries.
Barfo, John Calvin promoted the idea of the elect with a compelling argument. If your salvation is from your personal choice, that would make you more powerful than god. And we can’t have that.
The southern Baptist’s suffered a schism when a large number of congregations adopted Calvinism. I witnessed the angst of long time Christians who had to confront the possibility of not being chosen.
Religion is hard!
Guess you could say that you are prophet Ehrman. Sent by the gods to deliver the truth to the world.
Repent and believe, then maybe go get some ice cream and enjoy your life.
As is at least implied in the “first question” of your response, I think such people are missing an important reality: to believe or not isn’t really a choice. A person can choose to profess belief, to act out the rituals of any given faith, to associate with the faithful, but not to actually believe (or disbelieve). Once presented with whatever sets of facts, evidence, opinions, etc., a person is or isn’t convinced. But it’s not really a choice.
Bart, I don’t know why you got rid of the likes, but they were handy for posts like the above.
It’s a rather obvious point that I see rarely acknowledged; people don’t choose what they believe, they are exposed to evidence and are either convinced or unconvinced.
Agree. I think this is related to the free will problem: If we have free will of any kind it seems pretty clear by now that it has very little to do with belief formation. Belief comes by way of conditions around us and neurological processes that we have little awareness of or control over. Beliefs happen to us, and when established they are difficult to change and resistant to contrary evidence. I did not choose to be an agnostic/atheist and whenever I have asked my Christian friends to describe their process of choosing to believe as a Christian they always have trouble describing it. If what I’m saying here is reasonable then the soundness, as well as the morality, of the doctrine of salvation in Christian theology is deeply flawed.
Bart,
I’m surprised you made this argument because you should know better than anyone that there is only one God and he is Jesus Christ who came to save those who believe. The others: Buddha, Krishna, Mohammad and the rest, even those figureheads who came before recorded history and who are to come beyond, even those from former and future worlds before our world was born; even before the universe was created; all of these past and present and future Masters of creation; they are all devils, here to mislead the elect. And who are the elect? They are those who were born yesterday into a Christian environment, the very, very, very, very, lucky. Only they will find life.
As for me I continue to be saving each my teeth as they fall out one by one, and am stocking them under my pillow just in case; just in case that rumored tooth-fairy really does one night come and exchange those teeth for hard cash. Nothing to lose, I say.
LOL!
Wrt #1, yes, many many people have not thought through the fact that belief is an involuntary mental activity.
Bart, thank you for the explanation; I agree that belief is not mouthing words. I am much more inspired by your description of the significance of gratitude, in a recent post, and share those feelings. I think that this can lead to trying to give of oneself to others in need, and that is what matters.
Obviously it is a false dichotomy.
But the cost / benefit analysis is also false. Because it’s not just about believing that Christ was born supernaturally as a result of a virgin birth to Mary, that Christ performed miracles, that Christ died by crucifixion and came back to life from the dead, and that Christ went back into heaven in a supernatural ascension into heaven, but there are many more things to believe in that can force you to do things that are unacceptable to you. As it is to condemn homosexuality, or legal abortion, or sex without the false morals and repressions of the Victorian Era, or praise a celestial dictator or putting God ahead of humanity, which is a terrible thing, as Stephen rightly states Weinberg
I’m not sure that all of what you said about making decisions to believe or not believing or being damned or going to hell or heaven and such really has much to do with what Jesus was all about. That seems to be something that churches invented after Jesus was dead and gone. I think it is more about love right now, and how we relate to our world society, our neighbors, our family and how we care for our home, our little space in this universe, our planet. Religion isn’t about what happens after we die; it is all about what we do here before we die…how we treat each other sencient beings and our planet. Religion that exhaults “being saved and going to heaven” while we rejoice in our neighbors being tortured in hell forever is the the height of selfishness. Religions too often kills love, which was what Jesus was all about. It is not just a choice of believing or not believing…there are other options, one being love and compassion for all creation. We don’t need organized religion to be a loving person.
This is a great response to the same question which was posed by my 12th grade honor’s English teacher in High School and it may have kick started the skeptical inquiry that led me to atheism. She was a catholic and I was a protetant – not sure of the context but I know that’s what she said. The part I got hung up on was the first part of your response which was wouldn’t God know if I didn’t believe? Also, it didn’t seem to me that God could be that shallow that there was a way you could be converted just because you were hedging your bets. This led me to the notion that it seemed like God was blackmailing us into believing in him which seemed petty for a Supreme Being.
Homer Simpson covered this simply when asked by wife Marge why he couldn’t just come to church. Homer said, “It might be the wrong god there and the real one will be pissed off.”
Ive always thought Pascal’s Wager was dumb because it assumes God’s as much of an idiot as the rest of us. I’ve never considered your second question, but it made me think about how that would apply in my life if say my evangelical grandmother came at me with the question that was asked. You’re right grandma. I’ve decided that I’m Catholic again. No! Not THAT Christianity! My Christianity is the only way to salvation!
For me, I can’t lie to myself without my self-respect taking a big hit. Plus, what kind of God would want me to lie to myself in order to believe in him/her/it?
What if all human religions have it wrong? What if God actually finds our prayers offensive? (I would.) What if the true religion died out centuries ago? What if it hasn’t been created yet? What if God just doesn’t care what church you go to, or whether you profess belief in Him/Her/It, but simply wants you to adhere to a basic ethical code? (This is not that different from what Jesus thought.)
This is why Pascal’s Wager, as typically understood, doesn’t make much sense. You can’t lay a bet on a race without knowing all the horses. Handicapping is quite impossible without a betting sheet.
But in a more general way, you could say that believing is more positive than disbelieving–faith of some kind leads to more desirable behaviors than Nihilism, which is basically just saying that nothing matters very much. (An attitude that can be found among both atheists and professed believers).
And without GENUINE faith of some kind, what could possibly matter, other than eating, sleeping, and indulging our various animal instincts (nothing wrong with them, but our brains are much too complex to be fully satisfied by them, and we tend to be debased by acting as if only sensual pleasures matter).
So I would interpret Pascal as saying bet on faith–whatever that faith may be. Bet on believing that some things DO matter, and that life is not just breathing, eating, drinking, procreating. There is such a thing as spirit, because we can feel it. And that part of us needs to be nourished, or it withers inside us.
And look around. See where that leads. For atheists and theists alike. But not for all atheists and theists. Not for the ones with faith. In something. I don’t think Pascal would have expressed it quite that way, and it would have been unwise for him to do so then. But I think that might be the underlying point. Bet on faith. Because the only other horse in that race is Nihilism. And to hell with that.
The divide is not between those who believe or disbelieve in God. It’s between those who believe deeply in SOMETHING beyond self-centered behavior, and those who don’t. And you can’t look at the behavior of many so-called religious people and think they fall into the first category. And you can’t look at the behavior of many professed atheists and think they’re so very different from the fundamentalists.
Jesus understood very well that a Samaritan might be a truer neighbor to him than a fellow Jew. It’s like that. He bet on faith.
>> Bet on faith. Because the only other horse in that race is Nihilism.
You know what a false dichotomy is, right.
Obviously, since my post is about one–the supposed Theist/Atheist divide, encapsulated by the normal understanding of Pascal’s Wager.
You can be religious and not really believe in anything. You can be anti-religious and have very deep beliefs. (Contrariwise, you can be theistic and be very intelligent, or atheist and have about as much depth as a coat of paint).
In World War II, you had theists and atheists on both sides–forced to ally themselves with people whose religious beliefs were different from theirs. Hitler and his inner circle intended to destroy all theistic religion, but in the process of harnessing anti-semitism, were able to get many outwardly devout Christians to join with them (strange bedfellows).
But on the other side (I’m talking about the anti-Nazi resistance in Europe) you also had people of very deep religious faith, Catholics, Protestants, and of course Jews, working with Marxists, rationalist skeptics, and many of a deep anti-clerical bent. They put their differences aside because what united them was more important.
The dichotomy of atheist/theist didn’t work in WWII, because whether you professed belief in God or not had no direct bearing on which side you chose. The difference was between those who chose Faith and those who chose Nihilism. And again, there were theists and atheists in both camps. Because atheists can, in fact, have faith in things that can’t be proven. And theists can, in fact, believe in nothing very deeply, which explains how easily some of them abandon what seem to be established principles when they stand to benefit from doing that. Just as some atheists readily abandon rationality and science when that profits them in some way.
Now you can disagree, and you probably will, but at least try to understand what you’re disagreeing with. Which might require a bit more self-understanding. And a somewhat less Manichean view of who is right or wrong.
Dr Ehrman,
This post made me start thinking of something. When Jesus told people that they needed to believe in him for salvation what was the context? Was he saying that believing in him as a literal person led to salvation or was he saying to believe in him and it would lead to salvation? Kinda like when I tell my kids to believe in me and trust in me and I will provide for them. Hope the question makes sense. ( and this is assuming that we have good evidence that Jesus actually asked people something like this).
Thanks, Jay
You find that kind of question-answer in the Gospel of John, but not in the other Gospels. It appears to represent the theology of the author of this particular Gospel, rather than the views held by Jesus himself. For this author, faith in Jesus is the only way to salvation. I don’t think Jesus believed that at *all*.
Jacques Ellul believed if there is a heaven than everybody goes because everybody receives grace, grace is a universal and not specific to Christians. That the only judgement is to see your life as it could have been through Gods eyes. Our ideas of heaven and hell are actually pagan in origin and not Christian.
It would be interesting to list all the ‘Christian’ ideas that are actually pagan. Not surprising when converted pagans very quickly became the overwhelming majority in early Christianity, and Christians ruled the Roman Empire for several centuries. Influence is never one way–for good or ill. As I’ve said before, paganism never died. Just the outward practice of it.
I’ll do what your never supposed to; answer a question with a question. Ask your wife or mother, in which I believe are Christians, and see what their answer is as to why still believe? I would be interested to know. I hope I can weigh in to this great post, and articulate it well enough to make sense without being deliberately obtuse. First, I am an agnostic, and having this status allows me to investigate further without demeaning anyone. I don’t know if there is a God but I cannot dismiss one either (yet). In this post though, I think you have used too much thinking and left it’s simplistic message unscathed. I am no scholar, quit school in grade nine, but I am truly grateful of the life journey that was presented. I am just a few years younger than you, Prof. Ehrman, and I became a skeptic in my latter years. I reference you quite often, because you have shown me not to believe what someone tells me to believe. I think, I have a commonality with you in that regards. Furthermore, you have sparked more solid controversy, that quite often Christian scholars don’t want to submit to your point of view for personal reason/disgrace to their belief. You are bright. You present your findings as an alternative to the billions who believe and ask them to think. I was open to your teaching because having frequented five or six different denominations, which are mentioned in your post, I felt they could not all be right and having different rituals/rules to follow. Like you, I said this is crazy and how are they so different. Near the end of your blog, this point is well taken, ( I experienced that ). A far as your early points, your question 1 )….can you believe something that you honestly think is not true? In the 2010 winter Olympics in Vancouver, Canada, the Canadian Olympic teams motto was ,*Believe*. They went on to win the most gold and total count medals in their history. In the 1976 Lake Placid winter Olympics, the USA hockey team did the unthinkable under coach Herb Brooks. It was appropriately named,” A miracle on Ice “. There are numerous examples in other areas of life as well. My point is, these athletes, especially the American Hockey Team, went in with very little expectations, if any at all, and only hope…..to be continued
Belief is the hallmark of the issue within all religions. If a religion requires you to believe something , Don’t!
The interesting thing is that in ancient religions “belief” was not a central element at *all*. So too in many religions today. Christianity is a bit unusual that way (and the religions that came after it)
Do you think it’s fair to say Christianity was the first religion (that we know of) to say to base itself on belief? Or could we say that the Isis and other cults prevalent in the first century may have been a model for them to follow? Certainly Paul and the others didn’t get the idea from the Jews, who defined their religion by ethnicity (as did the Roman rulers).
It’s the first one, so far as I know. In that sense it was more like an ancient philosophy than a religion. But I would not underplay the importance of cult/ritual in teh early Christian communities. These were essential elements of the new religion as well.
That is the only kind of religion where Pascal’s Wager would work.
I assume that Pascal was already a believer when he formulated his Wager; otherwise, he might have spent some time explaining how you convince yourself to believe in something that you think to be untrue.
“Act as if you have faith and faith shall be given.”
Your mistake is assuming faith and dogma are the same thing. Jesus never did. Couldn’t say about Pascal.
“Act as if you have faith and faith shall be given.”
I don’t believe that works if you had faith at one time and then lost it. That is anecdotal information, of course, but for me it is true. How many people believe again in Santa Claus once they lose the belief?
It’s funny you brought this up (sorry, missed your response before now), because I just the other day had a conversation with a cab driver taking me to work. Young African American guy, driving me in the Bronx, and he’s listening to this call-in show, and he explains to me what they’re talking about–this substitute teacher in Brooklyn decided to tell a bunch of little kids (around 7 years old) there’s no Santa, and he got fired.
And we agreed that was maybe an overreaction, but also that the guy had been a jerk, and it wasn’t his job to ruin the fantasy for the kids. Everybody who ever believes in Santa Claus eventually figures out, by degrees, there isn’t any such person, even though the image, the idea, sticks with us always. It’s a magical part of childhood, and maybe we never really believe in it literally, but it adds something. If the parents want to not teach their children about it, that’s their decision, but it was stupid and egocentric of him to just make that decision. And apparently this has happened before, often with substitutes, who don’t have a real investment in the educational system, and aren’t so scared of getting fired. They want that little power trip.
But again, the kids would have figured it out for themselves. Every last one of them. (Maybe not in Special Ed class, but this wasn’t that)
So it didn’t change anything, and that isn’t the same thing as the faith Pascal is talking about. It doesn’t remotely compare, because Pascal is talking about decisions you make as an adult, when the ideas about religion you absorbed as a child are no longer viable (except for very childish-minded adults, and those are a thing). Most religions distinguish between childhood folklore and mature faith (Jews talk about the ‘stupid son’ stories, that dumb down more sophisticated ideas for those unable to grasp them).
Jesus seems to have believed the ideal was to hold to a more sophisticated faith while still feeling it like a child (easier said than done).
But in any event, you don’t seem to get that I’m not talking about literal belief when I talk about faith. And I’m sure as hell not talking about Santa Claus. You don’t work as a sub by any chance, do you? 😉
….Never in a million years did they, when asked, believe they would win any game or medal, let alone the gold. Interestingly, only a few players went on to make the elite NHL. These guys never imagined this ‘ Miracle’ would occur and yet it manifested. The Canadian Team also would not of said before the Olympics, ” We will win the most medals in our history”, how would they know. That’s right, it wasn’t in their expectations but only to perform well, (Hope). I don’t see faith as just mouthing words. I think we need to have it. When taking a plane to another city, that our children will come home safely from school, taking a car ride across the country, going on a fast and giant roller coaster. These all require faith that nothing will go wrong. Sometimes it does and we look for the most probable reasons, from so called experts, to try and make sense of what just took place. Faith does not answer everything. I respect your view, but don’t agree. You need not say nor force yourself to believe something is true, faith and hope takes care of that. It comforts your unbelief. I can’t stand some preachers/pastors who use their authority on the pulpit to impose a belief which they themselves don’t know what it entails. Number 2) your real zinger; I don’t think it’s a case of choosing like you broke it down, very thoughtful. For me it is not a question or choosing but rather how I live and treat others. Then, if there is a God it will be a bonus after death. There are lots of people who have incredible hearts, empathy/compassion and kindness towards others, yet they do not believe in a God or supernatural existence. I love people like that. They are pleasant to be around and never judge anyone. Again, I think this is simpler than you are making it out or struggling with. Lastly, to your original question, what have you got to loose by being a Christian? Nothing, to whatever religion you belong or don’t belong. I am not Jewish, but I like the word, Torah. In Hebrew, it means instructions. I have never met anyone, I mean anyone, who has completely surrender to God’s will and obeyed his laws. We can’t and never will because we are incapable. so how we live as people, not spirits or angels or gods, becomes our……..
Religious faith is pretending to know something you don’t.
Faith cannot determine truth – one can believe anything based on faith, even something that isn’t true.
I don’t have faith in airplanes, I have experience and facts and science which explains flight. I can watch a plane fly.
If a belief was backed by facts, one would justify their belief with facts, one would not need faith.
That is why that question only holds water with the believe and be saved forever doctrine…which is not what Christians in the beginning or for much of Church history.
Believing in Christian doctrine should come at a personal cost. If your life isnt RADICALLY changed because of that belief, then it isnt Christianity to begin with…its just feel-goodism disguised as conversion.
Very interesting g post….. I truly never thought of it in the sense of your first response. When I was a Christian I was taught belief in Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection was the only way for salvation. But you asked the right question….what is belief? When one says they believe the next action is mouthing words (prayer). Is that belief/faith? If one says faith comes from the heart, what is the heart? Soul? Consciousness? I could never answer that question. Could anyone truly answer that question? I don’t think we will ever know. But I think you are correct in saying belief seems to be “mouthing words”.
The second response I’ve asked myself many times and from a statistical point of view it lacks. If you taa as me the 5 main religions of the world and then split them into the two dominate ones within those religions, you can only have a 10% chance of being right. How does one go about figuring out which one is right? And could you have faith in that one to know it’s right? For my answer…. if there is a deity out there I don’t think we can ever know whose religion is right. Plus if we had to choose and we are wrong and dammed to eternal torment then obliteration for being wrong, that to me seems way too cruel since you could never have known which one to choose from and which one was truly the deities religion.
This time of year I would ask, “Why don’t you just believe that Santa really exists?”
Hey, there is absolutely no downside!!
Actually, there is a downside: hypothetically, a God could exist that damns you for believing in Santa! Hey, a God could exist that damns you for believing in God!
Logically, the wager doesn’t work when there is an infinite number of possibilities to choose from (and there is: we can just keep making up religions)…
“. I take Mark as reporting Jesus telling the man to go straight to the priest and not to stop along the way to tell others about your healing.”
Dr Ehrman, the man is told not to go and report to others “along the way”
Licona seems to be saying that the women did not report to anyone “along the way”
but this is not addressing the emotions attributed to the women.
“he is risen” they (the women) get an explanation, but :
This is different from the ‘terror’, ‘amazement’, and ‘fear’ in 16,8. The Greek does not just speak of confusion or perplexity. They have already received an explanation, but here they are truly fearful, literally ‘trembling’, and ‘afraid’ and ‘outside’ themselves, totally at a loss to cope with what has been explained to them, and thus they flee and do not say anything to anyone.
so how does liconas “along the way” make any sense when these women were full of fear?
licona said:
Moreover, Jesus predicts his death and resurrection several times in Mark (e.g., 8:31-33; 9:30-32; 14:28).
but no appearance…he says “i will go before you to galilee, not that he will be seen there”
it is the angel who says “there you will see him” but the women say nothing.
“So, he already mentions a forthcoming resurrection appearance. Scholars disagree on when Mark was written. ”
Dr Ehrman, do you buy the explanation that women kept silent “along the way” and then told?
full of fear. Ran away. Said nothing to anyone when they got an explanation “he’ not here, you guys came too late” the man who was healed was not in the trance the women were in.
Nope, not for a second.
“Dr Ehrman, do you buy the explanation that women kept silent “along the way” and then told?”
Bart December 4, 2019
Nope, not for a second.
///
can i ask why not?
would you expect something like “they said nothing to anyone, except….” ?
why if mark knew they were full of joy does he portray it as a horror scene?
Because that’s not what the text says. It says “they did not say anything to anyone, for they were afraid.” Period. There is no “along the way” in the text.
….. becomes our mission. If someone asked me what do you think happens when you die? My response would be simple. I will be in a grave where my flesh will rot away and only my skeletal corpse remain. That I can say with certainty. Cremation will leave ashes. We don’t know anything else with certainty, so it becomes opinions. Again, Theology cannot exist without philosophy. In my view, Pascal was simply saying, it is better to die with a comfort that if there is a God who resurrects, than being left in the grave. For me it is not a matter of choosing to believe in a God, to get salvation, but rather living purposeful to a mission of continually improving oneself and not being caught up in things we cannot know with certainty. We live in a world where right/wrong have become a primary platform and human kindness quickly eradicating. Sorry for the long post. It is dear to me and important to share our views. These blogs are a way of expressing ourselves intimately and Bart you have allowed us to confess!!!!! Thank you.
Indeed.
For all you perfectionist, It should be 1980 not 1976, the miracle on ice. Too much thinking.
You’re second question reminds me of John 14:6, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Many Christians use this verse to argue that if one doesn’t accept Jesus, one goes to Hell; No ifs, ands, or buts. However, thankfully, I know many Christians believe God would never condemn a good man/woman on such a technicality as belief/disbelief. For these Christians, do you know how they explain John 14:6 or do they simply ignore it.
P.S. I’ve only been a member of the blog for about six months and must tell you that I greatly appreciate it. I’ve found it is a great way to keep up to date and to review the subjects most important to me. Thanks for all the hard work!
Thanks!
The way I used to interpret this, when I was a little Catholic boy in parochial school, is that Jesus is the one who judges us, but not based on our faith in him or even our exposure to any particular doctrine. The basis of judgement is entirely a matter of how you live your life: compassionate or not, kind and loving or not, greedy and self-serving or not, truth-seeking or not… and so on. I never saw anything in this passage that demanded faith in any sort of doctrine whatsoever. But what do little Catholic boys know?
Anfd it raises another question – what sort of God would apply a test on beliefs for entry to eternal joy or eternal punishment ?
To put it another way, if you believe hypotheses A, B and C then you gan entry but if you dont them you are damned. Nothing about what sort of person you were, what you did with your life, just did you believe A, B & C ?
If there is a God he/she must be a lot more nuanced than that.
“I don’t see any downside.”
The downside is the perpetuation of belief in the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural is the basis of much of the world’s suffering: religious wars, discrimination, misogyny, and anti-science attitudes.
Before debating him (or her) any further, I would ask the Christian this question: Which source of evidence takes precedence in your worldview: historical evidence or the testimony of the Holy Spirit in your heart? If he is honest, he will say “the testimony of the Holy Spirit”.
If your debate opponent believes that the voice inside his head takes precedence over historical evidence, you know to end the debate there. Someone listening to voices in his head is operating under a delusion. He is not thinking rationally. Debating him or her will be a waste of time and energy.
And as I used to ask people: “How do you know it’s the Holy Spirit talking to you if he’s not wearing a carnation?”
It seems to me that Pascal’s presumption is even greater. The whole thing supposes that any god that might exist must act like an Easter despot—demanding obeisance, and so forth. But this is terribly antropomorphic; it assumes that divine psychology must resemble the power-relationship-aware mentality of highly social hominid primates! If there is a god, why should its mind correspond in any way at all to our notions of social relations? Why should it care about humans bowing to it rather than, say, making sure always to pass pine trees on the left side, or being most interested in the behaviour of badger-like termites near Alpha Centauri; or perhaps regarding humans as a side effect of creating a universe designed to produce black holes?
At the very least, Pascal’s premise demands a demonstration that if any god exists, that god is more likely to reward obeisance than to favour other behaviours. If you assume that the god must resemble social primates like humans, who have evolved to seek high status because it’s advantageous in mate competition, that makes sense; but if it’s a cosmic entity…what justification have we for such an assumption?
Perhaps a rotating system of beliefs?
http://www.thugdome.com/images/foglio/slag-blah1.png
http://www.thugdome.com/images/foglio/slag-blah2.png
Blaise Pascal could have shown you the way. One of the smartest persons ever to exist, a “vision” prompted his return to Jansenism, i.e., nominally [still] a catholic, but essentially a Calvinist. Go figure (Pascal constructed calculators). I suspect, based on the flimsiest of evidence, that he suffered from the neurological disorder CADASIL, which almost certainly is what destroyed and ultimately killed Nietzsche.
But more important is the site of Pascal’s tomb, in the Paris church of Saint-Étienne-du-Mont. The church’s side steps on Rue de la Montagne Sainte Geneviève serve as the time portal taxi stand for Woody Allen’s protagonist in “Midnight in Paris.”
If as claimed there is really a god that cares, he would certainly make sure everyone knows without a doubt who the true one is. We wouldn’t have to argue over the accuracy or 2000 year old stories.
I can only speak from my own experience and say just reading books, including the Bible didn’t make me a believer. The Bible actually led me astray. I had to experience God’s presence to believe much in the way Paul did although not that dramatic. Amazing grace, it taught my heart to fear, amazing grace my fears relieved.
Jesus forgave those who crucified him in their unbelief so he is very forgiving.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
Do you have Matthew and Luke published between 80 and 85 CE with Matthew coming before or after Luke?
(I thought Luke was reacting to Matthew but on p. 163 of The Quest of the Historical Jesus (Second English Edition), Gfrorer puts Luke before Matthew.)
To me this is a little odd because given Luke’s front matter, I thought one of the earlier gospels he was trying to correct was Matthew and possibly Mark.
2nd Question, was Luke trying to correct Matthew or Mark–or which gospels?
Thank you.
I don’t think Luke knew Matthew’s Gospel, but I tend to date it a bit later. No completely convincing reason for thinking so, I suppose.
Pascal or Polonius?
The question is did Polonius have it right or backwards when he said:
This above all- to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Perhaps, it takes being true to others and by that practice, we can face the hardest truths and be true to self?
Agreed, Bart. As I see it you are subject to what you believe; at least I am based on what I find to be rationally convincing. It would be easier to believe in some regards but I am satisfied with where I am. A part of me wishes I still could. It pains me to pain my parents with what they would consider a backsliding or even an apostasy. They know I’m still a “good” person. But now as I look at it in a different light i think , why should God judge a soul based on how they perceive reality?
Since God doesn’t audibly speak to us so that all may hear from him at once, it is reasonable to think that we have different ideas about His/Her/Its being. There is Truth, but no one has the whole of it. To me, whatever is of benefit to humanity, drawing each of us to our highest potential, as well as protecting the Earth, is of God. The messages expressed by Jesus seem to fit that criteria. However, so does the 10 Commandments, and other scriptures that bring forth our betterment. We hurt ourselves when we don’t recognize that. There is no one “right” set of beliefs. We see in the glass dimly. Jesus was a messenger. We tend to worship the messenger rather than the message.
I’m a little late commenting here, but I would assert that Pascal’s flaw is in most evident his summation that “If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.”
You don’t “lose nothing” by subverting rational, critical thought in favor of articles of faith built on assertions of the long-dead. You don’t “lose nothing” by unquestioningly subscribing to 3rd-4th century theology and dealing with the ramifications of that in your own life in 2019 in terms of (depending on your flavor of theism and Christianity) bigotry against alternative sexualities, the dismissal of the validity of all other religions, the marginalization of women and the commoditization of their bodies as mere baby factories, the subordination of democracy and the laws of men under questionable pseudo-theocratic principles, the list goes on.
There can be severe consequences to what seems like the uncomplicated, common act of buying into a faith-based belief system; they weren’t accurately characterized as “nothing” in the 17th century, nor are they today.
LOOP HOLE!!
I think your first question is an excellent one! I would add, if the Christian God does exist, AND He can see past professions of belief to actual disbelief, THEN that would also apply to those who are professed atheists/agnostics BUT deep inside still believe. There are plenty of those who can impressively rationalize against God’s existence, yet still can’t convince themselves. In that case, those “atheists” may still have a shot at coming out on top in Pascal’s Wager.
“There are plenty of those who can impressively rationalize against God’s existence, yet still can’t convince themselves.”
What is the evidence for this assertion, Vienna?
What is the evidence that there are people who rationalize against the existence of God to others, but yet, still pray, go to church, and believe that there could be or likely is a God? What sort of evidence would you require? I’ve met such people. I have been such a person. I’m sure if you do a quick search you’d find such “evidence” in the forms of blogs, journals or studies. But, no such evidence is needed. Consider:
If a person is an Agnostic, he/she does not believe that you can “know” for certain either way. They may have an inclination one way or the other without being able to say for sure, even though they could argue either side. Lawyers do it all the time. Maybe SOME do it cause they enjoy seeing Christians look bad when they let loose with all the Ehrman or Atheist/Agnostic talking points while the believer responds with silly thoughtless defenses cause he/she has never thought out his/her beliefs (most Christians are in this situation making them easy targets). Or, maybe the person likes playing the role of the natural antagonist or contrarian, certain personalities are very prone to that. Who knows WHY a person “impressively rationalizes against God” in public or before others? But, it definitely is NOT in 100% of cases cause he/she actually believes it. NO ONE can show proof for that – which brings us back to Bart’s point. A person can profess believe, but NOT actually believe – for both sides. And, simply professing it doesn’t prove it.
Now, WHY is this the case for SOME people? I don’t know. I suppose it could be upbringing, or a series of “coincidences” that have reinforced such views over decades imbedding deep in their minds something that tells them that they could be wrong when they rationalize against their beliefs. We humans are remarkable in what we can think even against evidence.
Wasn’t saying you were wrong, just asking for the evidence.
At the end of the day, you are right about at least one thing: we have absolutely no way of knowing what people actually believe.
Great post. I am glad to see you are open to discussing a bit of philosophy.
WV Quine gave an answer as to what it means to “believe” something in his book web of beliefs. I discuss that here.
https://trueandreasonable.co/2014/01/09/do-you-belieeeeve/
One thing I have often wondered is what the scripture writers may have meant when they used the various Greek words translated as belief/faith. Is there reason to think they meant something different than how Quine understood it? I tend not to think that. I think that theologians tried to separate beliefs and actions but the original meaning had a common sense connection between belief and action. Our beliefs are what we base our actions on. And we can’t stop time so our beliefs are guiding our actions.
I think it is important that our beliefs be rational but sometimes the most rational belief is not one that has evidence proving it is more likely than not true. Consider that someone who weighs the evidence this way:
Christian God is 35% likely,
the Jewish God 20% likely
the Muslim God 5% likely
all other Gods in aggregate 10%
No God 30% likely.
So how are you going to act? Should you just act randomly? Or should you accept belief in the Christian God and live by it?
I had a draft of a blog I was holding off publishing, but it fits this post so closely I figured I would publish it and link it.
https://trueandreasonable.co/2019/12/06/two-aspects-of-rational-belief/
I would also say that either there is a volitional aspect to our beliefs or there is not. If not then ok. But if you believe in free will it is hard to then say you don’t have any control over your beliefs. I mean before I read your books I knew they would give me certain beliefs about historical Jesus. Although I would agree we don’t have total control over every belief I think it is equally clear we have at least some control over some beliefs. We should exercise that control rationally.
As far as the other Gods, I think you need to sort them out by looking at the evidence. If the Islamic God is inconsistent with the Christian God then look at the evidence for each.
I did not check out you blog but will do so
regarding
> One thing I have often wondered is what the scripture writers
> may have meant when they used the various Greek words translated as belief/faith.
hope you are familiar with Heb 11:1
Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see. This is why the ancients were commended. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.…
clearly there is some substantial actions aspects associated with faith (at least according to author of Hebrews)
Yes I am aware of that passage in Hebrews.
I blogged on it here:
https://trueandreasonable.co/2018/07/23/faith-defined/
The passage you quote is awkward and translated in various ways. I think the context is important to understand what it might mean. Since the author will explain how those in the past had faith and how God reacted to their faith it seems the author generally is implying the faith of the ancients and God’s reaction to them is the evidence we should have for our own faith. So their faith serves as a basis for our faith. The author says as much:
“Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.” Hebrews 12:1-3
My overall view which I defend in that blog is that Hebrews and scripture as a whole supports the common view that “faith” is “belief and trust in God.” You see the author of Hebrews thinks faith includes belief in god and trust in God here:
“But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Hebrews 11:6.
Here is is saying to have faith we must believe that God exists and that he will reward those that seek him. That seems very much in line with the common sense view that faith is “belief and trust in God.”
Of course there are other passages in the NT that support that view. I would be interested in how the various Greek words used for belief and faith have been used in Greek sources unrelated to Christianity.
https://biblehub.com/greek/4102.htm
But there is not only the issue of how belief/faith relates to evidence but also how it would relate to action that I find interesting.
The Quran also asks people to just believe. Allah will reward them. Better than spending your money as a non-believer. At least you’ll get rewarded as a believer.
Quran[4:38-40] :
And [also] those who spend of their wealth to be seen by the people and believe not in Allah nor in the Last Day. And he to whom Satan is a companion – then evil is he as a companion. And what [harm would come] upon them if they believed in Allah and the Last Day and spent out of what Allah provided for them? And Allah is ever, about them, Knowing. Indeed, Allah does not do injustice, [even] as much as an atom’s weight; while if there is a good deed, He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.
I think only a desperate person will make such an offer not a God who is supposedly free of any needs.
This belief dogma was the perfect trap to catapult this religion into exponential growth! If you don’t believe in the religion it is torment & fire through eternity for you. Want to believe now or do you want to take a chance? lol
Ha, right! We’re all taking our chances! Believe it, and it turns out “it” was supposed to be a different thing, and you’re still fried.
“What do you have to lose?”
Ok well first of all I’m queer, so…any chance of happiness or ability to live authentically as myself
Yes indeed! But not by this guy’s standards obviously. Really good point.