SARA'S OFFENSE
Reader comment on item: The Bible's Role in American Support for Israel
in response to reader comment: Bart Willruth

Submitted by Bart Willruth (United States), Sep 14, 2006 at 09:04

Sara,

My original message to Dr. Pipes was simply to give pause to getting too cozy with the branch of fundamentalist Christians in their support of Israel. Certainly they are currently a help to Israel's agenda. Friends are hard to come by. But it must be recognized that throughout most of Christian history, Jews were considered cursed Christ killers and were mistreated more often than tolerated.

Today, the vast majority of Christians still have no love for Israel, nor do they see the modern nation as having any significance in their religion. The fundamentalist position on Israel is an anomaly in Christian history and is a minority position today. It is based on a particular interpretation of the bible using a particular set of hermeneutical principles. Even among fundamentalists, these principles have changed over the last 100 years. They will likely change once again. Friendships can change. That is what I meant by "amorphous."

When I spoke of the irrationality of faith, I was referring to the epistemological definition exclusively. That is, faith as a means of acquiring knowledge. Faith used in this manner short circuits the normal procedure of advancing knowledge through observation, verification, and logical extrapolation. I was not using the term "faith" in the sense of loyalty, confidence, expectation, etc. "Faith" is one of those words with a host of meanings in the English language. When having a philosophical discussion, it is important to carefully define terms and definitions.

My intent was not to offend, and I wish you had not taken offense to my comments. However, telling me to "shut up" is not an atypical response from those whose intellectual powder is wet. To tell another person to "shut up" is not simply an ill mannered statement. It is a mild form of shutting down another person's expressions of thought. While it is far different in degree, it is not different in kind from previous generations of intolerant and hateful believers who told told dissenters to "shut up" by force. Human barbecues were once the response of choice for silencing those who questioned the Christian doctrines du jour, Protestant as well as Catholic.

When faced with any claim, the faith-reason dichotomy is in play. Will I question claims? Ask for verification? Ask how the claim fits in with previously verified knowledge? Or will I short circuit this process and simply bow to the authority of the claimant? Claims of extraordinary proportions require extraordinary evidence. Mohammad's claim that god spoke to him and revealed the Koran is a statement not subject to analysis. It is a subjective claim which is arbitrary. It can be accepted only by faith. No person of reason would accept such a claim. An arbitrary claim should rightly be treated as though nothing was said at all, because in effect, nothing of substance has been said. The claim in non-verifiable and non-falsifiable.

Paul's claim that he had a vision of a deity named Jesus is in the same category. A Christian of faith will agree with my analysis of Mohammad's claim, but take vehement issue with my statement about Paul. A Muslim will agree with the statement concerning Paul, but will vehemently disagree with the criticism of Mohammad. Neither will recognize their internal inconsistency. Faith doesn't require consistency. It is not reasonable.

Bart

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.