20,000 Sects Of Christianity

Posted in Quickies, Religion on  | 1 minute | 8 Comments →

I’ve alluded to these sentiments before, but this short post is meant to clarify and summarize some of those ideas. I suggest reading Mike Gene’s wonderful posts on the subjectivity of evidence, here and here, then coming back to read what I’m about to say, which is only a single paragraph. Seriously, read his posts first! My words will make much more sense if you do, especially if you’re an atheist.

Atheists are on solid ground to point at the thousands of Protestant sects within Christianity and state that there is a grave problem. However, the atheist’s mistake is in the conclusion they draw. They see this schism as evidence of the falsity of Christianity, when in fact it is direct confirmation of the words of Christ, Who told us that branches would break off the vine, and that there exists a great deceiver who will confuse and distort Truth with the ultimate goal of usurping the hearts of humankind. Hopefully now it is clear why I advised reading Mike’s posts first: for here we have an example of the subjectivity of evidence.


8 comments

  1. Syllabus

     says...

    Even without the words of Christ, claiming this as proof of Christianity’s falsity is like claiming the Copenhagen, Bohmian, Many-Worlds and other interpretations of quantum mechanics as proof that quantum mechanics is horse manure.

  2. cl

     says...

    I agree. That’s why my stock response to the “argument from religious disagreement” (ARD) has always been “the argument from scientific disagreement.” However, I like this response as a follow-up, because instead of simply nullifying the ARD, this argument actually transforms ARD into a positive argument for the opposite conclusion it was intended to prove.

  3. dale

     says...

    cl,

    i know that when christ references the different parts of the body, and how they need to work together in order to live, he’s referencing personal aptitudes, such as spiritual sensitivity, or ability to verbally communicate, or to inspire others to action, as being indications of where and how someone can contribute to and be productive members of the church.

    but could someone look at the diversity of christian sects as something comparable in your opinion? in asking that, i am aware that too far of a divergence from the intended message is not considered what i’m talking about. what i am talking about is genuine differences in opinion, that are sincere to the believer’s beliefs.

    thought?

    and if you see fit, a second though:

    how far can two, or multiple, opinions go apart from each other and still be within the boundaries of the original starting point and still be said to be of the same stock?

  4. DVD Bach

     says...

    I think you’re getting the argument slightly wrong. It’s that we have no way to know which of the 20,000 versions of Christianity are correct, so what reason do we have to believe any of them are?

    Quoting a Bible verse as an answer is meaningless unless you assume the truth of the Bible, which atheists don’t. How would you answer the argument without quoting the Bible?

  5. cl

     says...

    dale,

    The answer to your question is going to vary depending upon whom you ask. I think the best way to tackle it would be with a real-world example. If you can think of anything, I can get more into it…

    DVD Bach,

    How would you answer the argument without quoting the Bible?

    I wouldn’t. The whole question of “which version of Christianity is true” absolutely requires the Bible in order to be answered. If you’re not going to allow the Bible as a valid guide to itself, then, the discussion can’t even get off the ground.

  6. DVD Bach,

    “How would you answer the argument without quoting the Bible?”

    To take another angle from what cl’s already said, this is like asking how one would answer the argument from scientific disagreement without referencing the scientific literature involved in a particular point of debate.

    otoh, to make a blanket claim that we can’t really know which (if any) may be right is an epistemic overstep, since Christianity is subject to the same conventions of historic, cultural and textual examination as any other area of history. To the extent that history and various areas of cultural study are knowable, we can consider it in the realm of the knowable to discern where religion has gone wrong.

    Have a good one!

    ~CathiLyn

  7. cl

     says...

    Hi CathiLyn, so nice to hear from ya :)

    It’s funny you mention that because a while back I thought of something similar but just never bothered to post it since DVD Bach doesn’t seem too interested in discussing. Basically, this is like asking someone to deliberate between punctuated equilibrium and gradualism without looking at the fossil record. This is pretty much a field-specific example of the awesome analogy you just gave.

  8. Well, cl, hopefully the thoughts posted will be useful to other readers, if not DVDB.

    There’s a book on the historical epistemics of Christianity, with particular reference to postmodernism — Truth Considered and Applied, by Dr. Stewart Kelly.

    Dr. Kelly’s a former student of Plantinga and teaches philosophy at Minot State U. I had the privilege of spending an afternoon talking with him last winter, which was very cool.

    Anyway, it’s one you might enjoy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *