The trouble with too forensic Biblical Criticism, like the search for the historical Jesus (eg Barbara Thiering), is the incidental and sometimes quite deliberate discarding of the mythos which is an essential element of faith.

You can argue that John's gospel, written later than the synoptic gospels, is not a historical account of actual words of Jesus, but a theological primer. Its opening verse asserts the divinity of Jesus throughout time. The writer knew Jesus or at the very least the other apostles, and wanted to sum up authoritatively some of the core beliefs of Christianity.

I accept the theological truth of the words attributed to Jesus: "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man comes unto the Father but by me." In Matthew 16:16 Peter confesses "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God". John's gospel asserts on behalf of Christ a claim to exclusive truth. As Jesus told Pilate (in John 18), "For this reason I came into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Anyone who is on the side of truth listens to me."

The church today has to contend with many enemies. First is modernist rationality which destroys imagination, as Sells says, and faith. But the essence of faith is not the absence of doubt: it is the absence of certainty! If there were scientific certainty, there’d be no need for faith.

Second is postmodernist nihilism.

Third, deriving from the postmodernist condition, is junking of religious faith for a subjective and relativist spiritual ‘search’. This has caused some parts of the church to yield to New Age ideas like "there are many paths to God", and "the essential unity of all religions". Absolutely incompatible with Christ's claim to exclusive truth!

Some ‘seeker-sensitive’ churches try to plug into the psychological needs and desires of 'seekers' and concentrate on 'personal improvement' stuff - a theme of New Age and gnosticism: the belief that, with the right attitude and special knowledge, you can be or become God.

Churches sucked into this, or prepared to 'explain away' mythos elements of Christianity [MORE]

such as the miracles and the death and literal resurrection, forfeit authenticity. They lose credibility and are doomed.

Above all earthly pow'rs - Christ in a Postmodern World by David Wells is a superb book on this subject.

Following the end of the Enlightenment project, modernism has stressed pure rationalism and debunked belief that truth can be accessed by means other than scientific-rational: it decries faith as mystical rubbish.

Postmodernism has brought a pervasive mindset that denies the existence of any absolutes, any eternal standards of right and wrong, beautiful or ugly, good or evil, other than what suits the individual's situation interest now. It has junked sense of community, of shared community values, respect for the extended family, a sense of social responsibility, as distinct from belief in limitless personal freedom (licence) to do anything.

With wonderful results, right?!

So many of the anti-Sells, anti-religious and anti-Christian postings on this forum reflect a junking of belief in absolutes, a descent into pervasive nihilism (belief in nothing), an endless desire to criticise, to deconstruct, and a sneering attitude toward people of faith which offers nothing constructive in its place.

This mindset is no longer limited to philosopher-nerds, but swamps contemporary western culture and lifestyle. It has ripped the guts out of our culture and left inner desolation - a vacuum of values and rootlessness. People attempt to assuage the ache caused by it, by endless pursuit of ephemeral sensation or experience - drugs, the latest fads, empty consumerism, 'retail therapy', and the endless array of belief-system goodies that comprise the New Age supermarket for 'spiritual seekers', or environmentalism (not a bad thing in itself), or some political panacea.

Spiritually, the individual is left to wallow in a lonely bog of quicksand: invent it, or pick-n-mix it.

Following Christ – accepting REVEALED truth not dependent on oneself alone - gives a thoroughly coherent and cogently satisfying answer to the question "How are we to live?"

As John Dickson has said, “Only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism”

Glorfindel wrote: "As John Dickson has said, “Only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism”"

The opposite of Christianity is not atheism.

Atheists refuse to accept fairy tales. They see no more reason to accept the humanoid three-piece god of Christianity than the monotheism of Jews and Muslims, the many gods of Hinduism, the Nirvana of the Buddhists, the gods of the Greeks, Romans and Norse, New Age superstition or any other of the many inventions of the supernatural that humans have made. Christianity is just one among many belief systems incorporating fairy tales. There is no reason to follow any of them.

Much of the current world has replaced past mythologies with the current Christian mythology which pervades the western world. Christianity. like other religions, is an antiquated belief system from our cultural past that continues its violent and bloody reign throughout the world.

No, Glorfindel, any kind of life is not logically compatible with atheism. Atheists refuse to accept non-provable propositions and myths as truth. Atheism is not only incompatible with Christianity. It is also incompatible with any system which is not based on evidence. Christianity is only one of many delusional systems incompatible with atheism.

However, an atheist is not a nihilist. We generally accept that the most effective way of obtaining knowledge is through the scientific method. Many of us find meaning in the pursuit of scientific and other knowledge, the creation of and appreciation of art, closeness to nature and political activity to work for a better world. Those are more constructive activities than assuaging inner emptiness by religious mumbo-jumbo.

Unfortunately Glorfindel throws his accusations widely with no regard for truth or coherence. Atheists do not accept New Age superstitions since they are no more reasonable than Christianity. Essentially there is little difference between belief in New Age or Christian superstition. They are both delusional systems not based on evidence.

David F
You said:
"However, an atheist is not a nihilist. We generally accept that the most effective way of obtaining knowledge is through the scientific method."
Im astounded that any rational person could make such a statement. Ethics, politics, love and most of the other really important things in life require some sort of commitment to one "value system" or another whereas science requires the suspension of value based judgement. Knowledge built on science is of little use in determining what course of action might maximise justice or constitute an appropriate response to an act of love.
Value systems are largely derived culturally and in the western world they are strongly influenced by our christian tradition.
The point is that although religious fundamentalism may be an intellectual crock, which intelligent people may legitimately dismiss, it only diminishes the value of the tradition locally.

Christian faith, properly understood, is not to be equated with giving intellectual assent to certain propositions about God. Faith is the measure of our life as judged by God. God does not have to materially 'exist' in order to fulfill this role any more than Macbeth has to be a real person in history to expose the strengths and weaknesses in the nature of humanity.

Faith can lead you greater truths than science can ever imagine and I challenge you to find any serious, practising scientist who believes that scientific knowledge is sufficient to support a satisfying and worthwhile life.

Dear Waterboy,

Faith is one thing, and truth is another. Because one has faith that something is so does not make it so. Faith may lead one to blow oneself up, to deny medical treatment or to act unreasonably in other ways. Facts and truth are stubborn things. They are not arrived at through belief.

davidf

Im not sure I understand your post at all. You still seem to be assuming that faith is about asserting certain propositions (assuming that is what you mean by 'beliefs'). I thought I made it clear that I do not equate faith with any particular set of propositions that can be affirmed (believed) or negated.

You are obviously very concerned with the notion of what is 'true'. How then does science help you given that it only operates on refutable hypotheses, recognising that positive proof is a virtual impossibility. What sort of truth do you claim for scientific knowledge? As far as I am aware science deals only with certain sorts of useful information and not with truth.

You have asserted that "faith may lead one to blow oneself up, etc etc". I agree that certain belief systems have been associated with the sorts of behaviours you describe. But remember: Hitler was a champion of uegenics & scientists invented nuclear weapons.

Please do not respond in terms of belief systems or irrelevant propositions (such as arguments about the 'existence of God'). Such things tend to be culturally determined artefacts of pop-religion and as such are of little interest to me.

The faith that has underpinned so many great lives is, however, interesting, important and eminently worthy of discussion