The Bible and particularly the New Testament, claims to be an eyewitness account of actual events that happened at a particular place and time, in history. It names people places and events that can be independently corroborated.
I know what it claims, and I don't believe the claims. A few references to known individuals and events are not going to make me believe that anyone ever walked on water or rose from the dead. The Buddhist version is a myth, so is the Christian version. Both probably derive from oral myth-archetypes that had been circulating for thousands of years.
Only an anti-supernatural bias would automatically dismiss these claims outright as you have.
I have no reason to believe that any supernatural event has ever taken place. If someone told me that there was a sage over the next hill who could make rocks fall up, my immediate conclusion would be that the story was a load of crap. Experience suggests that the basic laws governing the behaviour of matter and energy are not easily violated; experience also suggests that humans are very gullible and inclined to believe improbable things. When I hear stories of miracles I am inclined to ascribe them to human gullibility rather than supernatural intervention because I have abundant reason to believe in the former and no reason at all to believe in the latter. If that is an anti-supernatural bias, then I proudly confess that I've got one.
Good and evil, for example, exist. How would you measure them? How about Love? Hey you like logic, can you show me why these laws are universal?
Good and evil, like God, exist because we created them. We will have to measure them according to criteria we create; what other criteria are we going to find?
Logic does not show that these "laws" are universal. If anything, it shows the opposite. |
