James Cameron, Christ’s Body, and Gullibility

James Cameron is coming out with a new documentary in which he claims the body of Jesus Christ has been discovered in an ancient tomb. I find the claim ridiculous. Please note that I critique his claim not because of it’s content, but because of it’s intellectual lameness. If someone presented credible evidence that Jesus Christ did not raise from the dead, that would pretty much cause me to leave the Christian faith. Such has never been presented, though. Anyway:

Cameron claims he has DNA evidence to backup his description of the body as that of Jesus Christ. Pretty obvious problem here: DNA only works as evidence if one has a credible sample with which to compare. Since no sample of Jesus’ DNA was preserved from his time on Earth, what could Cameron possibly be thinking? Probably something along the lines of “people are wowed by science, so I’ll appear more credible if I say I have DNA evidence”.

I have some ocean-front property in Montana to sell, and I have ten scientists with DNA expertise who will vouch for what a great deal it is. In fact, they’ll do so in PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS!! (the gold standard of truth)

UPDATE 2.25.07: It seems that Cameron’s DNA claim is not that the body is that of THE Jesus, but that a “Mary” in the tomb is specifically not related by blood to the body labeled “Jesus” (both incredibly common names). In Dan Brown-esque fashion, he’s apprently pushing a marriage between Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ. To put this in perspective, imagine someone 2000 years from now discovered side-by-side burial spots labeled George and Barbara. From this and little else, they inferred they had discovered the final resting place of Bush 41 and his wife. Amazing.

It’s not what I would expect from a holy book!

There’s this popular view going around these days about the Bible which I think has been popularized by Sam Harris (professional atheist extraordinaire). Basically, many people are saying they don’t assign any authority to the Bible because it doesn’t match expectations of what one would find in a truly divine book.

Those who hold this view will claim that the Bible betrays evidence of creation by an ancient culture (partly true) and that it holds many contradictions, immoralities, scientifically disproven claims, etc. (not so true). You see, though it’s detractors would like to claim the intellectual high ground and say their position is obvious and the only reasonable view, the Bible can fairly easily make it through any unbiased analysis. The stories of those who have come to trust in God after reading through the bible critically are numerous. If one comes to scripture with as few preconceptions as possible, it’s very hard to imagine that humans could come up with such a collection.

It seems pretty blatant to me that if the Bible is divine, it’s descriptions of man as fallen and antagonistic towards God, and seeing God’s wisdom as foolishness, can easily explain the work of Bible bashers. Our pagan culture will always try to find some way to dismiss the Bible, because if it is true, we’re accountable to God in ways that are extremely disconcerting. Coating prejudiced diatribes in a veneer of rational criticism and a claim of attempts at clearing away myth and backwards thinking doesn’t make them any easier to swallow.

Having said all this, in an effort to be critical of my own views I’m always on the lookout for evidence of real scriptural contradictions or fallacies. If you feel you know of some, please take the time to search out traditional Christian answers to your proposition (since most “contradictions” have been pretty easily cleared up for centuries), and if you still feel no satisfactory answer exists, comment away, change my mind.

I look forward to the learning.

The Problem of Evil: A Conversation

I recently had an enlightening conversation with another blogger, and because the topic is so important, I thought I would copy some highlights over to this blog:

john

1. If God is omniscient, then God knows when, where, and how human suffering will occur if it is not prevented.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to prevent each instance of human suffering.
3. If God is omni-benevolent, then God wants to prevent each instance
4. So, if there exists a God who knows how to prevent human suffering, has the power to prevent it, and wants to prevent it (i.e. if the “3-O” God exists), then human suffering will not occur.
5. Human suffering occurs (relentlessly and ubiquitously).
————-
6. Therefore, the “3-O” God does not exist – and theism is false

poppies

I see the main issue as the definition of “omnipotent”. Omnipotence only has meaning in a context of all *possible* power. Premise #2 I see as faulty.

Does God have the power to create a triangle with no angles? I would think not since such an object is illogical, and since God is the source of logic and reason it would go against his nature.

I think most people agree that choice is a central aspect of a loving relationship, which is apparently a high priority for God in his dealings with humans. For choice to be real and not just apparent the danger of evil choices is necessarily courted. It is impossible and not within the realm of omnipotence to ensure against evil without endangering the precious autonomy of those with whom God wants have a freely chosen relationship.

john

Poppies,
Thank you for that response. I am always looking for insight into this problem that has plaged philosophy and men for quite some time.
The definition of Omnipotence is as follows: “having unlimited power to do anything. For that reason it must follow that God dose have the “power” to eliminate evil. However, I wonder, would it be possible for God to use both moral and natural evil to help the growth of men?–and why?
cool point!

poppies

I question that from having unlimited power to do anything it follows that God “must” have the power to eliminate evil. True, God can do any “thing”, but is eliminating evil in a world of free choice a “thing”, or is it not a “thing” and instead an “impossibility”?

If one says it is a “thing”, then why is this ability a thing but active mutability is not? Surely if God is omnipotent, he has and uses the power to change his nature, right? And, of course, God has and uses the power to be capricious, or evil, or amoral, or non-existent… (note the saracasm in the last two sentences)

You see, when you define omnipotence as the power to do both the possible and the impossible, God ceases to exist since the context provided by possibility and impossibility is lost. Something can only be defined in terms of differentiation from other things, but if there are no logical limits to who God is and what he can do, he ceases to be anything.

john

Poppies,
Thank you for the insight; I understand what you are saying. That seems to be true, it would follow that if God truely were omni-maximum then he would have power to do anything. However, possiblility would be lost, but I ask isnt that a requirement for a supream being. It would follow that if God were supream (unlimited) then he would not require the possible or the impossible?
I think that the point you are making in the last paragraph is very good. I once was working on an argument that was like that, yet why would God require himself to be limitted to the comparisons of other things? I see that it would seem necesary to have weekness define power, but couldn’t God be defined by the same maxim?-which is to say …
1. If God is the greatest then there must be something not so great as to difine his greatness.
or-
1. If God is perfect then imperfection must define his perfection.
2. God is perfect
3. thus, he is defined as such?
I think its a God point but logical limits can be limitless if they are logical… well…one would suppose.

poppies

Ah, you’re onto some very important topics regarding which I’ve only recently come to clarity.

First, I would say in the reply above, you effectively ask “isn’t it a requirement for a Supreme Being to be beyond logic?”, which is something many people think. It’s related to the Euthyphro (apparent) Dilemma, and the correct response is the same: God is bound by logic, by morality, by immutability, by a desire for autonomy in his creatures, by a whole host of things, because he is bound by who He is.

It is not “other things” outside of Himself that God is limited by and defined by, but it is instead his very nature. Being a perfectly unified, non-contradictory, immutable Being, he would cease to be God if ever he acted in contradiction to His nature. Because it is his nature that defines him, he could logically exist alone, with no need to reference weakness, or evil, or the like. It is the error of Dualism to require some outside reference point to define His goodness or power.

I feel it is much more impressive to realize that God does all of His amazing actions within self-defined constraints, rather than His being some random, impersonal (because personality implies a well-defined unchanging nature) force that can knock down the deck and start all over at any time.

God Whispering in Childhood

While listening to the incomparable Patty Griffin’s slice-of-childhood song “Burgandy Shoes” today, it struck me how God weaves himself into children’s worlds. Many Christians, even (sometimes especially) Christians not raised in a religious home, have commented on how their childhood memories seem to be infused with spotty, inexplicable senses of the divine. These experiences often take the form of a deep, almost painful longing inspired by some random object, such as C.S. Lewis’ description of the feelings that welled up in him as a child while looking at a terrarium. It’s not uncommon to hear Christians describe their childhoods as marked by a subtle, quiet awareness of God beckoning them.

Be aware of the children in your life, really take them in, and you may be reminded of when God whispered into your tiny ears.

Lazy Faith

Several times this week I’ve seen religious people dismissed for intellectual laziness. The idea that religious people ascribe to their doctrines solely through blind faith is a very popular conception. I’ve certainly seen many examples of this stereotype in my lifetime, and in any people group as inclusive as “religious”, you’re bound to find examples of almost anything. Overwhelmingly, though, many of the most thoughtful and critical people I’ve met have been religious.

Though there have been rare exceptions, my general experience of the difference between the religious and non-religious is not intellectual rigor, but humility. Religious scientists and researchers I have known are particularly aware of the limits of human abilities and knowledge, and though they attempt to stretch those boundaries on a daily basis, they realize it is an intense wrestling match. The non-religious people I’ve known, on the other hand, tend (with some exceptions) to be strident in their views and feel that anyone who disagrees with them is intellectually shabby or perhaps even diabolical.

Have you ever noticed it’s often the most insecure people who trumpet their superiority most loudly?

Beauty and Evolution

How does one explain beauty if one believes in a materialistic (purely physical) universe? There have been heroic attempts to explain away human physical beauty as nature’s means of selecting the most vigorous agents for replication, but how does one explain the pleasure one feels when looking at a great painting? What possible evolutionary value could that have?

It hasn’t escaped my notice that evolutionists vary rarely speak about aesthetics in terms other than human anatomy and sexuality. You won’t see much ink spilled (or pixels lit) about the evolution of music appreciation. When contemplating aesthetics, Darwin-worshippers tend to get very ponderous and ill-defined, because their theory fails to explain heaping swaths of the human experience.

I would be greatly impressed at anyone who has a plausible materialistic theory for how man came to appreciate non-anatomical beauty. When we look at the things that define man, abstract aesthetics, self-conciousness, forethought, magnanimous selflessness, it seems that something quite key is missing from evolutionary theory.

Perhaps that something is truth.

Separation of Church and State

I’ve thought much about what it means to live in a pluralistic society that is based on theistic ideas (for anyone who doubts America was founded on a theistic basis, read the Declaration of Independence: “endowed by their Creator…”). I am all for restricting goverment from intruding upon religion, and governments given power to compel people religiously tend to be horrific disasters. However, to disallow government to acknowledge the basis for it’s governing philosophies in some attempt at neutrality seems self-defeating.

In a way, I think every form of government is ultimately a theocracy. Most are not a theocracy in the Gleichschaltung sense so feared by liberals everywhere, but every government has a foundational set of principles by which it operates. These principles are necessarily religious in nature, since religion is essentially a way of living. Even the most thoroughly secular government is religious, it just happens to ascribe to the religion of secular humanism.

All this being the case, I think that efforts to strip any religious trappings from government are futile. Those who would like to remove “In God We Trust” from our currency, “One Nation Under God” from our pledge, these are people who are blind to the fact that they’re trying to foist their worldview on others. They typically claim neutrality, and claim they seek only fairness; they probably even truly believe these things. However, ya gotta serve somebody, and it makes the most sense to acknowledge the worldview that guides your governmental practice. Regarding fairness, notice it’s not “In Jesus We Trust”; just acknowledging theism is pretty darn inclusive, since a tremendous majority of Americans believe in a God of some sort.

America is founded on the idea that rights are inherent in the human condition, and not just granted by government. This is a profoundly theistic idea, with many ramifications that have assisted in making America great. We abandon it at our peril.

Objective Morality

One of the strongest arguments for the existence of God, in my opinion, is the existence of an objective morality that isn’t exlainable non-theistically. Many have tried to create a measure of “good” without God, but it’s not too difficult to explore these efforts and see where they err either in the direction of :

a. subjective morality - whatever someone believes is good actually is good, genocidal maniacs are equivalent to the woman who bakes cookies for the orphanage

or

b. utilitarianism - things are good if they work in favor of the greatest number of people (or the strongest, or the smartest, etc.), which tends to make the disabled, the young, and the elderly rather disposable

or

c. selfishness - things are good if they favor me, forget everyone else (I can at least respect selfish people for being intellectually honest!)

I really honestly would like to hear from anyone who thinks they have a theory of morality that is objective, rational, and yet doesn’t require God. Please, someone!

Horror Movies

We are awash in horror films! There have been so many horror movies over the last few years, it makes me wonder what this strange draw could be. Perhaps our society is just inherently macabre, or perhaps this is our way of dealing with death. In any case, I wonder what it says about the health of our culture when so much of our artistic output is so dark. I always stand for allowing maximum freedom and personal autonomy, so I certainly would never push for managing content through government or group pressure, but I am concerned. Is it harmless, or does the concept of the sanctity of life get slashed when bodies do?

Living Together

Everyone is shacking up. It’s truly astounding how rampant unmarried couples living together is, especially in light of how much it was discouraged so recently in history. It pains me to see so many people repeating the cycle of moving in with someone, breaking up with them, moving out (or kicking someone out), hooking up with someone else, then lathering, rinsing, and doing the whole thing again. If something doesn’t work, why keep trying it thinking that the outcome will differ?

I suppose people don’t see fault with the concept, and only with the person with whom they tried it. However, for anyone out there contemplating this “lifestyle choice”, consider the following:
- The risk of divorce is increased by 80%(!) for couples who cohabitate before marriage.
- Cohabitation has been statistically linked to an increase in cases of domestic violence.
- The longer a couple lives together, the less likely they are to marry.

Frank Pastore, the awesome radio talk show host, did a riff today about how our liberal culture moves on emotion and not reason. I think this may be, in part, a reaction to prior generations who acted passionlessly with cold logic. To embrace one’s passions yet direct them through one’s intellect is an awesome force for a positive life.

To this end, I beg anyone who is thinking of moving in with their lover to consider the facts, and not give themselves over blindly to their emotions. Christians are often characterized as victorian prudes, and written off accordingly, but a growing pile of relationship carcasses is starting to smell strongly of lies, and Christian relational values are a breath of fresh air.