Catholic Christians are likely wrong

Hello again Joe. The formatting is fine. Of course you can instigate a debate any way you like. Because of the character limit, though, I want to go at the themes directly this round. The idea of the virgin birth is not “weird” and “absurd”. This is a lovely example because to my mind it summarizes the entire problem here. You believe that a virgin could not have given birth in the days before IVF. But why? It cannot be a certainty derived from your own experience. Rather, you judge the case to be inconsistent with a biological rule that you believe in. The rule is that pregnancy is caused by sexual intercourse and no other means (pre-IVF). You believe in the rule because everyone in our society believes it to be true. You have probably had the rule explained to you by your parents, and by your science teachers. The rule is supported by the books you read and the conversations you have. It is consistent with broader theories of biology. Like everyone else in our society, you accept its truth without searching for further evidence. Catholic Christians believe in the virgin birth. The virgin birth violates the biological rule. Therefore, you conclude that Catholic Christians are wrong. The other possibility, of course, is that the rule may be broken in certain rare circumstances. However, you don’t believe that it has been. Why not? Because you’d need “amazing evidence” for something “that weird”. In other words, you would need evidence that was consistent with your scientific understanding of biology. I suggest to you that you would also change your mind in the face of broad social acceptance. For instance, if there was a sudden consensus among leading scientists that the virgin birth did occur, if it was headlined as true in all mainstream media with accompanying graphics, if your teachers, family and friends were convinced and talking about it in an excited way, then you too would change your mind and think that it could well have happened. The point I want to make here is that the belief process is the same for you and for Catholic Christians. During your life so far, you have drawn a pattern of belief from the society around you. Catholic Christians have done the same. You may speak of “evidence” for your beliefs, but what you really mean is that your beliefs are supported by scientific and social authorities. In a Catholic Christian society, beliefs are supported by religious and social authorities. To a Catholic Christian immersed in Catholic society, it is not weird or absurd to believe in the virgin birth, but rather utterly ordinary. So how to decide who is wrong? The Vatican claims that there are almost 1.2 billion Catholics in the world today, about one sixth of the world population. http://www.catholicculture.org... There are 45 countries where Catholics are in the majority. http://www.nationmaster.com... And about a third of the world is Christian. http://en.wikipedia.org... So Catholic beliefs are not “weird” in the sense of being very strange but, on the contrary, widely held. It is not enough to say that their beliefs are inconsistent with your beliefs to prove that they are wrong. Faith, evidence and ignorance “What we know is a drop, what we don't know is an ocean.” Isaac Newton "There are more things in heaven and earth…/ Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” Hamlet, Shakespeare. The vastness of our ignorance, the smallness of our vision, these are constants of the human condition. Catholicism encourages its adherents to maintain a humble awareness of their own ignorance. They would not presume to understand everything about God. The parallel would be an atheist who does not claim to understand everything about the universe, who would accept that such understanding is beyond a mortal’s abilities. This is a sane and realistic perspective. It is what I mean when I said “God moves in mysterious ways”. Therefore, it is possible for a Catholic to continue in her faith even if parts of the doctrine make no sense to her. Personally, I have never been able to make much sense from the good and evil, sin and redemption, Heaven and Hell aspects to religion. However, I often meet Christians who speak confidently, earnestly, and with controlled patience on this subject as if it is all quite clear to them and my obtuseness remarkable. Alas, it’s the same thing again for me with quantum mechanics, James Joyce, and many other subjects. When you start to meditate on how much we operate on faith and how much on evidence, it soon becomes obvious that even the most hardened atheist is a faith-based creature. For example, when you wake up in the morning, you have the following beliefs, among others: that your memories are representations of actual events that your recent dreams, although vivid, were random mental associations and otherwise meaningless that there is a future you can plan for and anticipate. These are no more than beliefs. A minority of people may sit about ruminating on their truth or otherwise. Most people, however, simply assume their truth and move on to more interesting activities. Here is a site that claims that the moon landings were faked by NASA. http://stuffucanuse.com... I haven’t read it closely, because without a shred of evidence other than popular opinion, and without more than a glance at it, I don’t believe it. I have faith in NASA. Why? Path of least resistance. You can’t live life like a jealous husband, checking her wallet for receipts when she claims to have been shopping, snooping on her phone, trying to catch her in a contradiction. People who live life in a state of suspicion are often diagnosed with a mental disorder, and rightly so. I don't mean that we should never be suspicious, never check sources, always believe what we're told. Far from it. I love that a whole lot of people are suspicious of NASA. I'm just trying to make the point that everyday life, even for the non-religious, requires constant acts of faith, and that this is good, adaptive behaviour. Every week at mass, Catholics gather together to say the Creed. “We believe in one God, the father, the almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen…” Evidence is not mentioned. Arguments of justification are not given. Humbly, knowing they are operating on faith, these Catholics are stating the assumptions on which they centre themselves during the week. Not only is this not wrong, it is marvelously self-aware, pragmatic and sublimely human. Historical Jesus I'm running out of space, so I'll be very brief. Christian and non-Christian sources are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org...There's no space to discuss it all, but I want to make one argument.The Gospel of Mark begins, "This is the Good News about Jesus Christ, the Son of God." To a cynical mind, it sounds like an introduction to ancient propaganda. Let's suppose, for the sake of the current discussion, that it is. Suppose Mark and all the other writers of in the New Testament were part of a movement that was using the story of Jesus for its own purposes. In my opinion, it is far more likely that they would distort and exaggerate a real story than make one up from nothing, simply because it's easier. It's not far-fetched to suppose that there was a man who preached against religious laws, annoyed the authorities and was executed. In an age of oral history, it would be easy enough to take the story and use it for your own ends. I am not trying to suggest that this is what actually happened! There are other, better, arguments (see link above), but this is why I personally believe in a historical Jesus.The Joseph/Jesus theory seems to me to be a list of weak coincidences, but I'll say more next round.Old testament= allegorical, gospels=literal. Very different texts.I look forward to your next post.