RE: Pope Allegedly Sought Immunity For Abuse Crimes Just Before Resigning update
February 26, 2013 at 11:54 am
(February 26, 2013 at 9:39 am)cato123 Wrote: This betrays your pliable standard of evidence for belief.
Lets assume that Ratzinger was charged and convicted for complicity in covering up the actions of child abusing priests. Let's further assume that only second hand hearsay was submitted as evidence. You would cry foul and throw a fit. I would agree in a strict legal sense.
Yet, you believe and accept as fact the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ based on flimsier testimony.
Hi cato123
I disagree I have a differing standard for evidence.
When it comes to earthly matters is it possible to make firm statements one way or another.
An article which says "Pope allegedly sought immunity" that means (i) the Pope didnt seek immunity and (ii) the media are only pretending he did, in order to titilate their readers with a lurid story.
I dont think any rational person would disagree with that. (and its the same with anyone - eg if I read a story about what Oscar Pistorius allegedly did today, I will not believe it).
The media should report only facts and make its analysis/comment - it should not be involved in speculation or pretence.
As for faith:
I presume you allude to the lack of contemporary writings from Jesus own period to support his existence and/or the claims made about him*.
(*though note that, despite this, there is almost universal scholarly agreement regarding the definite historicity of Jesus Christ - no serious historian or scholar claims he didnt exist, though of course this does not automatically prove the extraordinary claims regarding his identity and nature).
It makes sense that there were few contemporary writings: remember this was a society which was mostly illiterate - I saw a paper suggesting just 3% literacy in that part of the world, during the time of Christ. (Literacy would increase with social rank and proximity to urban centres).
So, given most people could not read, it is clear that books would be of very limited value indeed, when it came to Jesus getting his message across - or spreading news of him to others. In those days, you really had to meet people face-to-face and speak to them - as is reflected by the tales of Jesus travelling around Judea/Gallilea etc during his ministry.
It also makes sense that Christ is mentioned by various non-Christian sources - jews, romans etc - after his death and leaving behind of a movement. Naturally, the reported events surrounding his death and the explosion of his followers afterward, is what would have marked him out to observers as being markedly different from the last dissident or propagator of all-tales.
There is a lot more involved in faith however, than simply accepting scripture. I woudl also name the following as being bound up with my faith:
1) Philosophy (Aristotle, Aquinas, myself (!) etc etc)
2) Personal experience of a natural longing and desire for religion/faith/God. I am lucky enough to have lived the first part of my adult life as a non-religious person - I say "lucky" as it means I can compare life with, and without, religion. Its much better with! lol
3) The high quality of the Catholic Churchs arguments and how they are continually shown to be right (eg in the last century, the Church was proved right that the universe had been created and about the social effect of contraception. Secular societies response to this has been to not ever talk about the first point, and simply pretend the 2nd never happened). Equally, the poor, reductive arguments of secular society - which either patronise or pretend - turn me off the idea that "we know best".
4) The remarkable and transformative nature of my own experience of religion. To compare my life now, with my life 10 years ago, is like night and day. It has improved immeasureably for the better - and I do not mean that I am richer, or more succesfully, or better looking or whatever. I mean in terms of the transfomation of my attitudes and behaviours, my outlook on life and my understanding of life and what it is about.
5) My experience of life generally, which tells me that human beings are not simply contingent flesh and blood creatures. We are something more.
Probably more things too - just some examples.
Tbh, I would be surprised if anyones faith was based wholly on a simple reading of a holy book and then announcing "yes, I buy this".
As Chesterton put it:
"Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair".
Yes, philiosophising and emotional response are definitely of more use when trying to understand religion, than are the types of banal facts which humanity is able to state with certainty.
Cheers
GS
