This post's comments section is an extension from an earlier post on the issues surrounding both "weak" & "strong" atheism and my thesis that both incorporate a LOT of faith, just not faith in Jesus. The conversation partners are myself and an anonymous writer who goes by the handle, JStreeter.
As always, thank you for reading!
-CL
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Corbin. I've just stumbled across you blog, and I'm pretty intrigued with what you have to say. However, I can't help but notice a couple discrepancies with your contentions, and if it's all right with you, I'd like to ask some questions about them.
ReplyDeleteReading your abstract on the sidebar, I can't help but pause at this phrase, "I have discovered that the more I really study the Bible, the better it holds up under intense scrutiny. And the more I hear counter-arguments, the more I realize how much blind faith that they are built on. Over and over, I am confronted with the fact that not believing in Christ requires more faith than being his follower does." I have to challenge you on these claims, but for simplicity's sake I'll stick to just one, and that also is the theme of this entry.
The idea that believing in Christianity requires less faith than believing in anything else (including no believing in anything at all, ironically) is doubtful. I'm sure your personal experiences have led you to believe this, but that idea requires at least a bit of evidence or explaining, I'd say. Do you think that any other religious person would agree that their beliefs require more faith, presumably from overcoming the alleged truth of Christianity? Is it likely, do you think, that a devout Muslim or Jew or Zoroastrian would admit that the must have additional faith that Christianity is "wrong" in conforming with their respective beliefs? If so, they do you not hold the same amount of faith that their beliefs are incorrect?
And on top of all this, how does atheism, in which one is not convinced by the claims made by any religion, necessarily have any faith at all?
I hope to continue this discussion with your response, and look forward to reading your thoughts.
Respectfully,
JStreeter
JStreeter,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment & your engagement here; it is well appreciated. I think you have made a very good point about my side-bar's statement and more or less faith. I've been thinking about that a lot lately, and as you rightly pointed out, it seems that I am overstating the case a bit. Upon further reflection, I must acknowledge that faith in Christ is not as easy as some (at times me) might otherwise have people believe. I actually appreciate one of Richard Dawkin's comments in the movie that I reviewed elsewhere on this blog, Ben Stein's "No Intelligence Allowed." I am certainly no Dawkin's fan, but at the very end of the film, Stein asks Dawkins about the possibility that he, Dawkins, might be wrong about God and ultimately find himself standing before the Almighty. Stein: "What would you say to him?" Dawkins: "Why did you go to such great lengths to conceal yourself."
I'd be lying if I said that I never thought to myself, "why DOESN'T God make himself a little more obvious." This is perhaps God's dilemma, if he was too obvious, then what fool wouldn't believe in him & try to honor him. But if he is too obscure, then what fool would bother about honoring him or trying to get to know him in the first place? There is a fine balance, and sometimes I lean more one way than the other. On the other hand, there were allegedly some humans to whom God indeed prove himself, people who held to that in the face of persecution and death and who certainly would have been in a position to really have known what happened to Jesus. I find their martyrdom to be fairly compelling as well as the differences between Jesus and other religious leaders (like Joseph Smith and Muhammed). Lots of religious followers have died for a lie they mistook as truth, but very few followers (if any) are willing to die for a lie that they know is a ruse.
Back to my side-bar. While I am certain it takes some faith commitments to reject Christianity (like the belief that miracles are impossible etc.), I might like to think I was writing in hyperbole to make a point, but this doesn't mean that criticism is not called for. If I may attempt a clarification/ emendation, I'd say that it seems to take a significant amount of faith to reject the storyline about Jesus, his resurrection in particular. We can talk more about why I think this is a linchpin in my faith as a Christian, but only if you are legitimately interested. I don't want to bore you with the details of my faith if you aren't keen on that discussion.
ReplyDeleteAs for your question about the faith of an atheist, thank you again for your polite engagement. Recently I have had a conversation that started friendly but got uglier and uglier the more I pressed a recent poster (Danny) about his own faith. You can see some of that thread on this blog under the heading "The Weakness of Weak Atheism." Fortunately, the nastiest parts of that conversation were in a private Facebook exchange and need not sully the rest of the 'net. I'd rather make friends than enemies, that doesn't mean I'm willing to be a punching bag. Danny has since de-"friended" me and apparently is unwilling to tolerate my questions any longer. I wish this were not the case, but alas, what can we do?
Essentially my point was that the only way to not have faith in Jesus or about Jesus is to either a) Never have encountered any information about him in the first place, or b) have some sort of proof about what did or did not happen to him. Failing either one of those options, it seems to me that a faith commitment simply must be present. For his part, Danny apparently has faith that Jesus is an a-historical figure of myth and gullible/ needy people who use faith as some sort of crutch to survive battlefield-earth. Of course he is welcome to believe/ have faith in such conclusions, but he concurrently refused to admit having either any faith or any proof. I don't know how he or others like him handle that discrepancy. I also don't know if any of this resonates with you, but you seem to be appropriately skeptical (yet friendly) about Christianity and what I may have offered here, so I would appreciate your commentary and input if you are so inclined.
As a final note, since Danny attempted to debate me, I have had an irregular amount of posters on my blog. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the attention, but I was wondering if there is some kind of connection. Do you know Danny or has he drawn attention to my blog in some other format/ discussion thread? Any information you can provide would be interesting to me. How did you stumble upon my typing here?
Thanks again!
Sincerely,
-C. Lambeth
PS: If you get the Google error message that your message is too large, go ahead and try to post it anyway. As long as it is under 4096 characters, you should be okay.
Thanks for the response, Corbin. You've brought up several interesting topics, but just for clarity's sake I'll try to stick to the ones I brought up in my original post you've addressed.
ReplyDeleteI think there's a lot of truth in your statement, "Lots of religious followers have died for a lie they mistook as truth, but very few followers (if any) are willing to die for a lie that they know is a ruse." I can't think of anyone, and I dare say that you'll agree with me, who willingly deludes oneself. I don't believe it's a matter of a religious person actively thinking, "Okay, I know my beliefs are incorrect, but I'm going to follow them anyway because I have some other vested interest in holding them," but it's a more subtle version. Perhaps those people to whom God had alleged revealed Himself actually did think they were in communion with The Almighty, but their interpretation of those personal events does not necessarily make them "true," per se. If I was walking home from the store, and no one else happened to be on the street, and I saw a triceratops, I may believe that what I saw actually happened. Without any tracks, or video or audio recording, any sort of evidence outside of my personal explanation, I will have to live with the fact that I cannot absolutely claim that I saw a triceratops walking down the street. That would drive me crazy knowing that what I perceived with my own eyes and ears might be doubted by others, especially since my senses serve me so well in 99.999% of life, but it'd be a bitter pill I'd have to swallow. Unless I can provide some sort of demonstrable, independantly-verifiable evidence to strengthen my dinosaur sighting, I would have to consider that I was mistaken or just wrong, no matter how much my personal experience tells me I'm right.
And as far as the faith commitment not to believe in the historicity or sanctity of Jesus without any sort of "proof," I have to challenge you on that. We could start a whole other discussion on who has the burden of proof in making positive claims; believing versus knowing; and work for a common definitions for faith, a/theism, and a/gnosticism, but I'll try to limit this to one step at a time.
Forgive me for using another example, but let's suppose I told you I found a five-dollar bill in my jacket pocket. That's a relatively ordinary experience and you could likely accept its truth just based upon my say so. If, however, I told you I found a page out a a journal Moses was keeping when he led the Israelites to the Promised Land, I would think you'd be a little more skeptical in accepting my claim merely on the authority of my word. You'd probably want to see the page itself, have it authenticated through dating methods and linguistic history, and you'd probably want me to prove that Moses actually kept a journal during that time (since the Bible never explicitly says that he kept one). Now, would it be accurate for me to disregard your scrutinities and say that you merely have a "faith system" that denies the existence of this journal page because you express some doubt about its history and validity?
Yikes, that's a pretty long comment I posted there. I'll try to keep them more digestable in the future. And for the last part, yes I do know Danny and he did direct me to your blog. I've looked over that entry in particular, and I thought striking up a conversation here might provide a fresh start.
Respectfully,
JStreeter
JStreeter,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your continued engagement. You have some good questions regarding Christian faith. If I’ve understood you correctly, you have offered that interpretations of honest people who believe they were in communion with The Almighty does not necessarily render the initial event that inspired that interpretation as legitimately “from God.” If that is what you are saying, then I agree with you, but only to a point. The argument centers on the word “necessarily,” for one’s interpretation of an event does not render the event itself as either “true” OR “false,” and in that sense, the argument cuts both ways.
Let’s consider your triceratops analogy. If this were intended as a critique of Islam or Mormonism, or any other system built on the writings of a single person, then it would be appropriate. When it comes to Christianity however, the analogy falters. Skeptical non-Christians & fundamentalists alike recognize that the Bible (Old Testament & New) is not a monograph, written in the same location, historical era or even in the same language(s). Even the 3 Synoptic Gospels of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark & Luke) are believed to have incorporated 4 different sources for the books that now bear their names. Then there is the Book of John, which came towards the end of the 1st century and represents at least one source different than anything encountered in the first three narratives about Jesus’ ministry.
So back to the triceratops analogy. If we want to make it connect with Christianity, some changes will need to be made. In fact, please allow me to substitute a resurrected man who had just been brutally executed but seems healthy and spry less than 72 hours later in its stead. Since I am in advocacy of Christianity and don’t really know what significance a triceratops has on our culture, I think this is an improvement. Would it change your perspective if you were not the only person to see this uncanny vision, but one of many, and that you had seen the living man in the presence of other conscious, sober individuals known for their steady outlook and general reliability in life. Not only this, but you also had conversations with him, ate real food with him and had your entire understanding and approach to life altered by the significance of these post-resurrection interactions. Unless you were somehow led to BELIEVE that everyone (including yourself) was delusional, that people collectively experience the same hallucination at the same time, that your regular powers of perception were not just “a bit off” here and there but completely and consistently unreliable, and that the missing body of the allegedly resurrected man had some other, better attested possibility etc, I suspect that you would be fairly committed to what you had seen and heard even without our modern-day expectations for scientific proof. To round full circle on my side-bar statement that you questioned earlier, I suggest that it might well take more faith for a person privy to the scenario I just described to decide against the resurrected man than it would to decide for him.
As I said in my brief criticism of Hume in “The Weakness of Weak Atheism” thread, I try to reject bending evidence to fit the theory rather than the other way around. Put another way, I won’t discount my own perceptive abilities (or those of others) just because some people want to impose a faith which dictates the impossibility of supernatural events. I am open to the possibility of supernatural events, but that doesn’t mean that I uncritically accept all accounts thereof. Neither should we reject all of them. We are still to have our minds engaged.
I would also like to interact with you about definitions of faith and the burden of proof, as well as your 2nd analogy about the alleged writings of Moses, but I want to create space for a reply concerning this recent post. If it is acceptable to you, maybe we could place those issues on hold for the moment? If not, let me know, & I’ll try to address them right away.
-CL
As for your proposition in the last paragraph, I'm fine with that. I mean, this is your blog, after all, and you can do whatever you very well please. Haha
ReplyDeleteI'm a little puzzled that you reject my analogy for the resurrection, but on the other hand, I believe some of the points you bring up strengthen my argument. And pardon me for doing so, but I must attempt another analogy, which I hope to establish still holds to Christianity.
Okay, throw out the dinosaur walking about and substitute a living, breathing George Washington (that should allow for the cultural significance you desire (though I must admit I don't see the importance of that)) clad in battle regalia. As it turns out, other people actually witnessed an incarnate Founding Father the same day I did. However, their accounts differ drastically from mine. One person claims to have seen Alexander Hamilton. Another witnessed George but said he was wearing his pajamas. A third says George walked down the street in the morning, but the event I experience happened in the afternoon.
I'm sure you can recognize the point I'm making. I'll accept for the sake of argument your tacit assumption that the The four Gospels each chronicle the resurrection, yet they report different details. Some are more trivial (who all the witnesses to the empty tomb were, and why time they went) while others are problematic (how the stone was rolled away, who was in Jesus' tomb, and who the women told of the miracle). Not to mention Matthew 27:51-53's rogue depiction of the bodies of the saints rising from graves, entering town, and appeared to the townsfolk, and yet this otherwise fantastic event is documented nowhere else in the Bible, much less in recorded history. The accounts can't all be right, but they can all be wrong (and by extension ALL contradictory, mutually-exclusive supernatural claims).
I do have to credit you for pointing out the Gospels and Bible itself are composite texts recorded over multiple locations and time frames and by multiple authors in various editions and languages. Not many believers know that, or nor will some own up to it, either. Thank you for your refreshing honesty.
I'll allow we have our respective biases, but I have to ask if you would accept such contradictory (and sometimes incompatible) claims about the alleged same event for any single, "miraculous," occurence other than the resurrection? And if you wouldn't, is that not a crippling prejudice insofar as rejecting all supernatural claims save your pet belief belies your objectivity in determining the truth of other such claims?
I know you're replying to many comments on this forum, and I do appreciate your interaction. I look forward to continuing this discussion.
Respectfully,
JStreeter
JStreeter,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure why you believe that multiple, independent attestations of Jesus’ resurrection bolsters your argument against the event. Neither do I understand the presidential comparison to the resurrection of Jesus, for the unanimous conclusion of all four Gospels (and others) is that it was indeed Jesus of Nazareth who physically rose from the dead. Yes, the women at the tomb were afraid and confused at first (who wouldn’t be?), but since they didn’t expect a bodily resurrection and were certainly distraught, it isn’t too difficult to understand their initial lack of clarity. We also shouldn’t rule out the possibility that Jesus went to some effort to reveal his resurrected self subtly. The Bible is fairly clear that ostentatious entrances were not his style. I freely admit that there is variance in the early resurrection accounts, yet I find nothing mutually exclusive that would rule out the event itself. Indeed, the nature of these accounts and the differences between them are remarkably similar to eyewitness accounts of any event told by different parties who came upon an unfolding scene.
Perhaps you are aware of the example, usually from a psychology or criminal justice class, wherein a crime scene unfolds before an unwitting class. After the scene is over, the teacher reveals the set up for what it is and asks each student to compose an account of the events as they happened, right down to the characteristics of the actors, their clothing, what was said etc. Invariably, no two student reports are the same, and sometimes the details vary greatly. Knowing this, what do you suppose the teachers would conclude if they let the students write their reports without supervision, and upon the grading of the assignments, they found 4 reports that were identical? I suspect that there would be some allegations of academic malfeasance. I also suspect that you would be quick to recognize & criticize this if it were germane to the resurrection (as others have done with other parts of the Bible culled from the same sources).
I remain skeptical of your conclusion, for you aren’t just asserting that we cannot be precise with the timeline or the exact events as they unfolded, but rather that there was no event in the first place. I wonder if any psychology class would be impressed with such an analysis of their differing narratives? Given the evidence, we should also consider which conclusion takes more faith: that something quite odd happened, even if we aren’t clear on all the details, or that nothing happened? In short, I disagree with your assessment; the variance in details between the stories lends greater credibility to the event in question, not less. The initial reports might be fuzzy on some sequencing and details, but they are unambiguous when it comes to the big picture.
Also, had Jesus left at this point, then his followers’ confusion may well have persisted. Like you & I, they were conditioned to believe that dead people (especially brutally executed ones) stayed dead, and (like Hume) they may have otherwise been able to talk themselves out of the experience. But Jesus didn’t vanish. He continued to meet with people, not just individually but corporately, and he ate with them, touched them and had them touch him. One way or another, God got the message across.
Finally, the preservation of the discrepancies also gives testimony to the fidelity that the initial reporters and subsequent believers treated these stories with. Why would inconsistencies and cultural gaffs (like the primacy of women’s testimony) remain unedited and unharmonized unless this is what the witnesses actually reported? It is popular to assert that the resurrection narratives were later inventions of the church or the eager productions of zealous (& unhinged) followers of Jesus, but these are unsubstantiated, and they seem to require as much (or more) faith than the gospel accounts themselves.
In your previous post’s next to last paragraph, you asked on what basis I accept miraculous events. A fair question, but one that merits a longer post. For now, let me say, that I am open to many accounts of the miraculous until I have good reason not to be. As such, I think the rest of your allegations in that paragraph are a bit misplaced. Perhaps I could relate to you why I reject the Islamic account of the crucifixion of Jesus for an example, but I will wait until you ask. For now, let me say that the resurrection is the strongest case for a miracle in ancient times that I have encountered. As a byproduct of the resurrection, the surrounding context of Christianity/ Judaism achieves ascendency over and against other religious narratives and claims, at least when those alternatives part from Christianity. Put another way, the resurrection is the key that unlocks the strength of Christianity against its rivals’ dissension. This is also a key part of my thesis that everyone has faith. For example, it’s not just that I disbelieve in Zeus (absence of faith), but that I believe he is not a real god at all because of the legitimacy and supremacy of Christ (presence of faith). In that sense, yes, I am quite biased but no more so than anyone else who adheres to their own faith commitments (notice I didn’t say “pet beliefs”). Of course I am open to the possibility that Christianity has been perpetuated as a grand hoax, but that will take more evidence and convincing than I have encountered in life so far. I am open to wherever the evidence leads. What data would you present?
ReplyDeleteBut to come back to your question, the Bible relates numerous miracles in the lives of non-Jews and non-Jesus followers alike, so I am initially open to reports of them. I also think it is important to note the improbability that all miracles have been reported in the Bible. I affirm that God can (still) move in whatever ways he feels necessary in the lives of whosoever he chooses regardless of their current or conscious allegiance to him.
Sorry for the double-posting. I am trying to be brief, believe it or not.
Thank you for your continued engagement.
-CL
"I am not sure why you believe that multiple, independent attestations of Jesus’ resurrection bolsters your argument against the event."
ReplyDeleteI will repeat why I believe this is, more explicitly, and hopefully leave it at that. While there is certainly some discrepancy to be expected in eye witness testimony (though you yourself acknowledge the Gospels and Bible itself are not first person accounts), the wildly different details put forth by the Gospels would naturally raise some suspicion. The Gospels don't agree on many issues: if the sun had risen yet on the discovery, who all was at Jesus' tomb, how the stone was removed, if an earthquake occured, how many people or angels were in Jesus' tomb, who the women told (if anyone), IF THE DECAYING CORPSES OF THE SAINTS ROSE FROM THE GROUND AND WALKED THE EARTH, to whom Jesus first appeared and where, if they recognized him, if they could touch him, how long Jesus stayed, whether he ascended into heaven bodily, and what his last words are, to name a few. I'm not asking you to rationalize or consolidate these different details. Rather, that you can accept these conflicting details and contradictory stories from a single, self-affirming source--referenced no where else in recorded history--as credible, substantial proof for a miracle claim attests to the discouraging level of critical inquiry and skepticism required for the theistic mind.
"Given the evidence, we should also consider which conclusion takes more faith: that something quite odd happened, even if we aren’t clear on all the details, or that nothing happened?"
The false dilemma aside (perhaps some one or some group absconded with Jesus' body for any multitude of motives), I'm still stupefied by your tenacity with this notion of everyone having faith. And yet, you insist, too much faith is a bad thing, since you've repeated time and again that any religion other than Christianity and even atheism oddly requires more faith than your pet belief, or faith commitment as you prefer. In your second response, I think you make a dangerous concession by admitting, "I am open to many accounts of the miraculous until I have good reason not to be." You said you'll get to this in further detail in another post, so I'll hold off on commenting further until that goes up.
If it's quite all right with you, I'll hang back on replying to the rest of this post in the hopes that another one will appear. I hope you won't interpret this as a disengagement or some shady tactic of sorts, but I feel this upcoming post might more quickly get to the heart of the issue. Again, I recognize your other commitments, to this forum and your personal life, won't guarantee a speedy post, but I am willing to be patient. I look forward to our continued discussion.
Respectfully,
JStreeter
JStreeter,
ReplyDeleteApologies for not having communicated more effectively. If I may offer a corrective, what I affirm is that the Bible is a collection of sources (writers) which contains many different genres, some of which are of secondary source reporting while others are eye-witness accounts, penned by the witnesses themselves or related to a secretary or reporter of sorts. Concerning the resurrection of Jesus, you are overstating the discrepancies’ significance while being too eager to discount the harmonies between the accounts. Hume’s dictum may actually be helpful here for the greater weight of historical evidence on this specific issue favors the actual, physical resurrection rather than some other hypothesis. You may protest that these accounts come from people biased by belief, but I must point out that disposition alone is not enough to render a source as unreliable. This also mixes up the sequence, for faith in the resurrected Christ seems to have come after he resurrected, not before.
Secondly, I disagree with your assessment of my outlook as “too much faith [being] a bad thing” of its own accord. What I mean(t) is that faith, regardless of the amount, is only as good or bad as the conclusions it is invested in. In the case of atheism, its faith commitments are a bit underhanded or at least absent of cognizance, but this is regardless of the amount of faith that it takes to identify with that label. Nevertheless, some commitments take more faith than others, & I get uneasy when such faith persists in the presence of quality evidence to the contrary. For example, while the reliability of our senses is something we must take with a degree of faith, I think it would take far more faith (too much in fact) to believe the opposite (that they are never reliable). What I have said about faith in Christ can be found in my blog’s side bar: “I am confronted with the fact that not believing in Christ requires as much (or more) faith as being his follower does.” I offered an additional modification in my second reply on this thread: “...it seems to take a significant amount of faith to reject the storyline about Jesus, his resurrection in particular.” I stand by both these statements, but your recent entry implies that you are perplexed by my consistency. Perhaps I have not understood your previous posts, but thus far you’ve supplied no arguments to challenge my thesis that everyone has faith. Indeed, you have even offered a few faith commitments of your own (or “pet beliefs” as you prefer).
The dilemma I discussed above remains, for you have apparently come to believe that nothing happened according to the closest and best sources for the resurrection of Jesus & instead offered a conspiracy theory suggesting that some clandestine operatives stole his body. This highlights a parallel piece of my thesis, for it is not simply that you disbelieve the independent accounts of the resurrection (absence of faith), but that you believe they can be explained away via other hypotheses (presence of faith). You also seem to have faith that stand-alone reports (Matt. 27:51-53 in particular) cannot yield reliable data. I suspect that you are lacking evidence, let alone proof, on all counts, but I could be wrong. So I am curious; what method will you employ to test your hypotheses? What evidence will you marshal? Or are they untested assumptions you started with because your worldview dictates that no miracles are possible and that no god exists? This is a legitimate question, but perhaps I have finally blundered into a false dichotomy here, so I ask that if you “know” that Jesus did not rise from the dead (or anyone else for that matter) and have not faith, then tell me how you know so that I may know as well. I remain willing to consider anything that you believe to be relevant, but I think you will have an easier time (at least logistically) professing faith in these untested (and untestable?) hypotheses rather than trying to summon proof for your cause.
I look forward to your reply.
-C. Lambeth
"Even the 3 Synoptic Gospels of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark & Luke) are believed to have incorporated 4 different sources for the books that now bear their names. Then there is the Book of John, which came towards the end of the 1st century and represents at least one source different than anything encountered in the first three narratives about Jesus’ ministry."
ReplyDeleteI know just from day to day social interaction that miscommunication can happen, and on that basis I accept your revision. Yet what you describe of the Gospels, from your own wording and without any provocation, does not qualify as an eye witness account. I'm willing to acknowledge that the Gospels all agree on this idea of Jesus' divinity and resurrection; I, or anyone else for that matter, would be a fool to claim otherwise. I truly apologize if this offends you too terribly, but your acceptance and insistance of an account as historically valid, eye witness testimony that includes zombies illuminates much about your standards for evidence.
"Hume’s dictum may actually be helpful here for the greater weight of historical evidence on this specific issue favors the actual, physical resurrection rather than some other hypothesis."
You are free to accept a single, composite book written and editted generations after the allegedly true events by men with undisputable and transparent ulterior motives as compelling evidence for miraculous claims. Not to be one to trot out tired aphorisms, but this is a free country after all. Like my previous point, I'm sorry to say that this forms a striking illustration of what is considered authentic, valid evidence for the theist.
I'd like to discuss your entire second paragraph in another post, if that's all right with you, merely so you and I won't be taking on too many topics in one place. I hope this will be the subject of an upcoming post, but I won't presume to run your own blog for you.
"The dilemma I discussed above remains, for you have apparently come to believe that nothing happened according to the closest and best sources for the resurrection of Jesus & instead offered a conspiracy theory suggesting that some clandestine operatives stole his body. This highlights a parallel piece of my thesis, for it is not simply that you disbelieve the independent accounts of the resurrection (absence of faith), but that you believe they can be explained away via other hypotheses (presence of faith)."
I've said nothing of the sort. When I supplied a third alternative, considered by many skeptics throughout history, that is not a personal endorsement of the same. If I hadn't put forth a proper argument, I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth. I will contend that I am absent of all faith whatsoever, and if you'd presume to speak for me (knowing more about me than myself), be my guest.
"You also seem to have faith that stand-alone reports (Matt. 27:51-53 in particular) cannot yield reliable data."
Small point to be made here. A single event, like stand-alone reports, cannot by definition be reliable. Reliability attests to repeatability, validity to accuracy. A small, hair-splitting point, but one that I'd like to submit regardless. However, going with the more familiar definition, when we have multiple scientific accounts of zombies (with respect to both/either Jesus' resurrection and/or the deceased saints roaming the city) that don't come from a millenia-years old book penned by people for whom the wheelbarrow was emergent technology (to borrow a phrase from Sam Harris), then I'll consider the possibility.
I'll renew my request that a new post be put forward to continue this discussion in a new direction. We've gotten quite a ways off the original topic, and I'd like to start fresh with a common agreement on definitions. As always, I'll leave that task to you.
Respectfully,
JStreeter
JStreeter,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your continued engagement. Nothing in my assessment of the 4 gospels that you quoted precludes them from being grounded in eye-witness reports. That you simply assume this reveals more than you many realize about your own standards for what counts as evidence. But thank you for acknowledging that conspiracy theories about a stolen Jesus-body are unworthy of your faith. On this we are in agreement, but I have to wonder why you mentioned it in the first place if it is totally irrelevant to your position. Nevertheless, your subsequent faith commitment that the Bible was written generations after the events (& is therefore unreliable) will do just as well, unless you can prove it of course, for this merely adds another link in the chain of your faith commitment(s) that the events surrounding Jesus’ life didn’t really happen. So once again I ask you to share how you “know” what you claim so that I may know too. And while we’re on the subject of faith, can you please prove to me that you have none, or am I to take that on faith as well? Remember, according to you, singly-reported events are unreliable by definition.
At this point I think it is also necessary to inquire about your position on epistemology, for you have offered a text-book example of materialism. To be more specific, is empiricism/ the scientific method and things that are true by definition the only way you think we can come to legitimate knowledge?
Let’s talk about Matt. 27:51-53. Your insertion of the word “zombies” certainly garners attention (and a smile). The Greek manuscripts of this text can most literally be translated as, “And the tombs opened and many saints’ bodies who were asleep were raised/ lifted up. And they came out from the tombs after his raising up/ lifting up and they entered into the holy city and appeared to many.” There are several possibilities here, but nowhere in the Bible are the resurrected described as zombie-like entities who wobble around in hordes and feast on human brains. That is nothing more than your own projection. The real issue here is grounded in your faith that dead people always stay dead throughout all times and places. If not by faith, then once again I must ask, “How do you ‘know’ this?” People being brought back to life is attested in several places in the Bible. Jesus comes to mind, as does his friend Lazarus and a little girl (among others). If we are open to the possibility that God exists and that he can indeed raise people from the dead, the only other obstacle to Matthew’s report is that it’s found only in his gospel. On this point I again disagree with your assessment about the unreliability of single-shot events and reporting. The fact remains that the actuality of an event or situation is in no way contingent upon the number of people who witnessed (or recorded) it. Neither is it a smart move (via Harris) to judge the validity of an event based on the said event’s age or the technological level of the ones who reported it. Do you really think that is a good argument? Nevertheless, I also recognize that multiple sources for an event are preferable to a stand-alone account. Could it be that Matthew was a bit overzealous in making a theological point about Jesus’ resurrection? I concede that this too is a possibility, but I must also point out that Matthew’s theological assessment is sound. This is echoed in non-Matthean reporting, for Jesus’ resurrection does indeed mean that the dead will rise, not with zombie stats, but with full cognizance and motor functions. For or against the literalness of this passage, faith of some sort is incorporated. Either way I have to ask, “if this portion of the text was absent, what about my faith would be different?” I have to answer, “Not much,” and certainly nothing of great significance would be lost. Not so with the resurrection of Jesus himself, so again I ask, what do you know about Jesus, and how do you know it? Venture a guess, if you can be so bold, what did happen to Jesus body?
I look forward to your reply.
-CL
"But thank you for acknowledging that conspiracy theories about a stolen Jesus-body are unworthy of your faith. On this we are in agreement, but I have to wonder why you mentioned it in the first place if it is totally irrelevant to your position."
ReplyDeleteIn my October 1 post, I claimed you commited a false dilemma fallacy by suggesting only something odd may have happened or nothing happened at all, or to simplify, that a miracle occured or nothing did at all. To provide evidence for my claim, I offered a third alternative while not once ever suggesting that I held that alternative to be the actual, valid occurence. I'm trying to do a better job of providing evidence for my claims, since you have asked for it.
"Nevertheless, your subsequent faith commitment that the Bible was written generations after the events (& is therefore unreliable) will do just as well, unless you can prove it of course, for this merely adds another link in the chain of your faith commitment(s) that the events surrounding Jesus’ life didn’t really happen."
In responding to your blog, I keep a little notepad in which I jot my notes and outline my responses. Scribbled in the margins, proclaimed in all capital letters, and dominating most of my objections to your posts is your "EQUIVOCATION" regarding "faith" and "faith commitments." I hope to address this topic in another post and do not want to delved into it here, as I have pledged earlier, so please forgive me for bring it up here and not elaborating upon it.
"And while we’re on the subject of faith, can you please prove to me that you have none, or am I to take that on faith as well?"
You first made the claim, in your sidebar before I even began reading and commenting on this forum, that people of all stripes have faith, including myself as an atheist. I realize this is not a formal debate in any sense of the word, but I'm sure you are aware that as the person submitting a claim, the burden of proof is yours, not mine. If I make my own claim that I have no faith, which I have made, then I have my separate burden of proof to a discrete claim. I am still awaiting the fulfillment of your initial burden of proof, and I think it's only fair that I will provide mine after you provide yours, as you made your claim before I was around to read it. And if this topic is discussed in another post, kindly direct me to it so we can talk about it there.
"To be more specific, is empiricism/ the scientific method and things that are true by definition the only way you think we can come to legitimate knowledge?"
Empiricism and the scientific method is, time and again, the single best method we have currently for understanding the working and processes of our universe. As far as materialism is concerned, I have not absolutely claimed that there is only the material universe (I reject claims of absolute knowledge). I follow where the evidence leads regarding all claims, and if there is no valid evidence for supernatural claims, then I cannot accept them by default.
"Let’s talk about Matt. 27:51-53. Your insertion of the word “zombies” certainly garners attention (and a smile)."
ReplyDeleteI'm glad it effected the former and especially the latter. I realize that it's unlikely for either of us to join the other's camp, and while I've had to bang my head in frustration (as I'm sure you have, too) at least we can maintain some levity, yeah? I'm sure you'll agree with me that the Bible doesn't mention the bokor witch doctors either, although I never suggested the Biblical zombies shambled after the citizens to feast upon their flesh. My hyperbole was intended to draw a critical skepticism to the claim in a humorous fashion.
"The real issue here is grounded in your faith that dead people always stay dead throughout all times and places. If not by faith, then once again I must ask, “How do you ‘know’ this?” "
Setting aside the continuing equivocation of faith, I'll answer your question more straightforward. In all of my personal experiences, and the personal experiences of everyone I know, and the personal experiences documented in scientic writings, once the central nervous system of a human being turns necrotic, that individual dies and does not reanimate. As I said in my previous post, and I will quote myself, "when we have multiple scientific accounts of zombies (with respect to both/either Jesus' resurrection and/or the deceased saints roaming the city) that don't come from a millenia-years old book penned by people for whom the wheelbarrow was emergent technology (to borrow a phrase from Sam Harris), then I'll consider the possibility." This segues into my next contention, and one you recognized:
"The fact remains that the actuality of an event or situation is in no way contingent upon the number of people who witnessed (or recorded) it. Neither is it a smart move (via Harris) to judge the validity of an event based on the said event’s age or the technological level of the ones who reported it. Do you really think that is a good argument?"
To an extent, I agree with you. While those events that individuals have experienced by themselves long ago in the past are not by default false, I think you will agree with me that the farther back in time an event occured, and the fewer people who witnessed it, and the lesser their understanding and practice of methodological naturalism, the harder it is to establish the validity of their claim. And this is only for claims of the natural world! Factor in the additional evidence necessary for establishing the validity of supernatural claims (the old "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" aphorism), and those claims are near impossible to establish.
I'd also like to take a moment to be very clear here, so I don't misrepresent myself. My last sentence reads "those claims are NEAR impossible to establish," with added emphasis. I did not, nor would I ever say, that no supernatural occurences ever happened nor will ever happen. I want to be very clear on that. I do so to bring up this point:
"Nevertheless, your subsequent faith commitment that the Bible was written generations after the events (& is therefore unreliable) will do just as well, unless you can prove it of course, for this merely adds another link in the chain of your faith commitment(s) that the events surrounding Jesus’ life didn’t really happen. (emphasis added)"
I will tell you this up front. I am completely open to the possibility that Jesus existed based upon examing the evidence of his historicity. I'm fine with that proposition. I do not immediately turn off my brain when someone states he was real. I'm okay with that. You somehow presupposed that I don't believe Jesus is real, and I'm okay with your error that as long as you can admit it.
However, my admission is far and away removed from making or accepting any supernatural or miraculous claims. Don't think I make this distinction for Christianity, either. I hold every and all supernatural claim to the same level of skepticism. The same can be said for Buddha and Muhammad; their historicity is well established (some would argue, BUT NOT I, even more so that Jesus'), but I hold their supernatural experiences are under equal scrutiny. Though I may disagree with you, I hope you can appreciate my honesty in this area.
ReplyDeleteAnd finally, the coda to this very long response, is some discourse and scholarship on the matter of the Gospels found merely from the Wikipedia links section. I am not claiming to have studied all these works, but the fact that a simple Wikipedia search produces some evidence of showing the Gospels written generations after the alleged resurrection circa 33 CE:
Scholarly-agreed dates of authorship:
Matthew, c70-100 CE
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mmmatthew.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html
Mark, c70 CE
Funk, Robert W.; Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar (1993). The five Gospels: the search for the authentic words of Jesus: new translation and commentary. New York, New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0025419498.
Crossan, John Dominic (1991). The historical Jesus: the life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant. San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0060616296.
Eisenman, Robert H. (1998). James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Penguin Books. p. 56. ISBN 014025773X.
Luke, c 60-65 or c 80-90 CE
Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. pp. 226. ISBN 0-385-24767-2.
Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Doubleday, 1991, v. 1, pp. 43
John, c 80-95
Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985
Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? p.7
And for a meta-dating of all Gospels, and other books of the Bible, I'd recommend this site:
http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT.htm
I apologize for the length of this response, and will try not to repeat it if I can help it. I suppose we had a lot to cover. Haha
I continue to appreciate your correspondence, and look forward to its continuation.
Respectfully,
JStreeter
Streeter,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your continued engagement and your civility. That is not something that Danny Ledonne or others have been able to sustain for long.
On several instances you have hinted that my position is inconsistent, but you have yet to make any attempt to elaborate. Similarly, (thus far) when I ask you to tell me how you “know” something, you defer and counter with a phrase reminiscent of a childhood playground (“I asked you first!”). I am excited to think we may finally be coming to discuss what I perceive as the foundational weakness of your position: That you remain unaware of (or unwilling to acknowledge) faith’s presence in your worldview. Sooner or later, you need to address this.
Of course I disagree with your claim that the burden for proof is mine, but I am open to the evidence. Can you please prove (empirically if you don’t mind) that it is my burden? I contend that the burden rests not on the person who claims faith, but knowledge. So the question is: Do you know, or do you believe?
For my part, I freely admit that I believe Jesus is God’s literal and resurrected son, but I don’t claim to know this in the same way that I know I’m typing to a person on the internet. Perhaps I have made a significant miscalculation and remain ignorant of my own thesis’ soft underbelly. If that is the case, then I invite you once again to explain it to me. If you are looking for space to do so, I think that my original post, “The Weakness of Weak Atheism,” would be an appropriate thread for you to comment on. If you would like, there is also space to discuss the faith that science depends on to function in another entry (http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2009/01/conversing-with-postmodernism.html).
As for my so-called “error,” I apologize for the misunderstanding, but you have offered a retort against an assessment that I did not make, namely about Jesus’ reality as a historical figure. As with the implausibility of a stolen body theory, I’m glad that you recognize that Jesus was an actual person, but what I continue to criticize is your faith that the supernatural events reported about him did not actually occur. Jesus either resurrected or he didn’t. Those are the options. Whatever hypothesis you may insert to contest the resurrection is somewhat secondary to my point. In that sense, the dilemma I offered still remains. So once again, if you have not faith, but knowledge of Jesus’ non-resurrection, then just tell me how you know. Prove my thesis about your alleged faith wrong if you can. I invite it. This is the key to our entire discussion and to my post on the weakness of Weak Atheism.
Since your recent posts accuse me of equivocation, I think it only fair to point out the inconsistencies I have perceived in your position as well as the ways in which your words have confirmed my faith-thesis thus far. In your case, you seem to have bought into arguments about the unreliability of the Bible, but only when it suits your purposes. Additionally, you have repeatedly offered belief that 1) all supernatural events are bogus because many are.
ReplyDelete2) That the New Testament in particular is unreliable when it comes to reporting supernatural events.
3) That stand-alone reports are “by definition” unreliable (except for yours).
4) That you have no faith.
5) That the Bible was both written by different people at different times AND at the same time that it is “a single, self-affirming source.”
6) That there is no absolute knowledge, (an absolute claim?).
7) that the five senses ancient people used to discern phenomena are inferior to the exact same five senses that moderns (and scientists) utilize in our own epoch.
8) That Harris’ wheelbarrow argument is both valid and invalid, and
9) that methodological naturalism is the “single” method by which we come to understanding.
I have to ask, which one of these do you actually mean, and which ones can you support with unequivocal proof?
Similarly, your faith in the Jesus Seminar is misplaced, for they can hardly be cast as a passive, agenda-free or objective authority. They start with the presupposition that miracles are not possible, so of course their “findings” will conform with that paradigm. Secondly, are you aware of how they came to proclaim which parts of the New Testament (the life of Jesus in particular) are authentic or later fabrications? They voted on it. How this is any different than saying God exists merely because the majority of the world believes in a higher power remains to be seen. Thirdly, if you find the divergent details of the resurrection narratives untenable, then I have to wonder if you are even aware of the positions offered by the Jesus Seminar fellows, for they do not offer a unified voice in the least (except for their faith commitments ruling out miracles). They cannot seem to agree on what Jesus really was, or exactly when the documents about him were first penned or what he actually said or did.
Finally, did you know that some of the Wiki-authors you recently cited are on very different sides of this issue and that FF Bruce and Raymond Brown among others, were devoted Jesus-followers? Do you think this is because they were unaware of the possible vintages of the written documents for the NT, or because they recognized that these documents were nevertheless grounded in the best and closest, early sources that had access to the witnesses and events surrounding the life of Christ? Believe me, we can cite various documents and scholarly assessments about the Bible and marshal all the evidence and arguments we like before one another, but underneath it all is a set of beliefs, faith commitments if you will, about which side is closest to the truth and which position is worthy of our allegiance. Certainty is an elusive thing, so I still maintain that faith is requisite where “absolute knowledge” is out of reach. We shouldn’t be embarrassed by this; we should embrace it. Faith implies no weakness, but it is only as good as the hypotheses & conclusions that it is invested in.
I look forward to your reply.
-CL
Hello again, Corbin.
ReplyDeleteBefore I address the body of your work, I wish to comment on your opening. I realize you and Danny did not agree and dropped the civility of discussion you ask for on this site, but please stop comparing me to him. Though he has fallen from your favor, he is still my friend, and I would greatly appreciate it if you would desist giving these compound, backhanded compliments to me/insults to him. I'm quite happy to oblige you in your request of respectful conversation, but please stop flattering me at the expense of sneering at my friend (and all other atheists for that matter).
As far as "knowing" versus "believing" and "knowledge" versus "faith commitments," I see you have added a "Start a Discussion" post, so I'm tempting to address this separate issue there. Of course, I have other ideas for new discussions, so that may or may not be my first choice.
As far as your request for evidence that the burden of proof is yours, and since you have apparently accepted Wikipedia as a resource for this discussion, I'll provide the link to the page that a simple search for "Philosophic burden of proof" would have yielded. Additionally, I would recommend asking any philosophy professor or debater in your area, if you sought some more references. As the Wikipedia article states, it is generally held that the person holding the positive and/or more "extraordinary" claim. By asking me to provide a separate burden of proof for my claim, you are taking the beginning steps on the path to "you can't prove God doesn't exist."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
I will also provide a link to IronChariots.org's entry for "Burden of proof." This site is an excellent Wikia for apologists, counter-apologists, the curious, and Net surfers of all stripes. I guess I'll take a second, if it's all right, and make that short plug for them.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Burden_of_proof
"As with the implausibility of a stolen body theory, I’m glad that you recognize that Jesus was an actual person, but what I continue to criticize is your faith that the supernatural events reported about him did not actually occur. Jesus either resurrected or he didn’t."
I'm starting to suspect that your continued misunderstanding or misrepresentation of my responses shows either a lack of reading comprehension or a deliberate dishonesty. I won't even attempt to apologize if that comes off as an insult, and if you want to cry ad hominem that's your prerogative. What my actual post read was, "I am completely open to the possibility that Jesus existed based upon examing [sic] the evidence of his historicity. I'm fine with that proposition." How you interpret that statement as "Jesus was definitely a historic person" is why I make that potentially inflammatory remark.
"Jesus either resurrected or he didn’t. Those are the options."
I agree, and what you have provided there is a true dilemma. Those are, in fact, the only options. On the one hand, Jesus could have resurrect, and on the other, his body could have been stolen (by any number of people for any number of reasons); he could have not really have died, revived, and somehow escaped from the tomb (which I admit is absurdly unlikely based upon the generally agreed upon details); he could have been a character in a legend--perhaps inspired by an actual man and embellished with details found in geographically and contemporarily similar religions; or perhaps another occurrence. Like with your request for the burden of proof, I'll post links to Wikipedia and IronChariots for both you and any readers out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Resurrection
I must now change gears slightly to address your enumerated list of my alleged inconsistences. I hope my brief responses will clear up any confusion:
ReplyDelete1) [A]ll supernatural events are bogus because many are.
You constructed a beautiful strawman here, Corbin. And while I can admire your craftsmanship on some level, I sadden that you've fallen, like so many apologists before you, deeper into the realm of logical fallacies. What I said, and will continue to say for clarity's sake, is that I have yet to receive convincing evidence of any supernatural event. Once I do, I will gladly change my mind.
2) That the New Testament in particular is unreliable when it comes to reporting supernatural events.
If I may add, not only is the New Testament unreliable in reporting supernatural events, but so is the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, the Torah, the Nevi'im, the Ketuvim, the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Book of Mormon, the Nihon shoki and Kojiki, The Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, the Tao te Ching, the Dhammapada, the Confucian Analects, The Great Learning, the Viking Sagas, the Inca pictographs, the Book of the Dead, and on and on and on. I think that any single text written by people lacking an understanding and practice of methodological naturalism is insufficient evidence to establish the validity of the supernatural.
3) That stand-alone reports are “by definition” unreliable (except for yours).
From dictionary.com's entry for "reliable": "Reliable suggests consistent dependability of judgment, character, performance, or result.
4) That you have no faith.
Yes, I hold this to be true.
5) That the Bible was both written by different people at different times AND at the same time that it is “a single, self-affirming source.”
I think we are in agreement that the Bible was written by different people at different times, so I hope I need not rehash our shared view. By "a single, self-affirming source" I mean to say the Bible is circular in its claim to divinity. Like many other religious texts, the Bible states we should believe in it because it is the word of God, and we know it is the word of God because the Bible tells us. We could go through the fineries, perhaps focusing on specific passages, on another post, but the same holds for generally every passage.
6) That there is no absolute knowledge, (an absolute claim?).
ReplyDeleteAgain, either your reading or reciting of my points is misunderstood or dishonest. I said, "I reject claims of absolute knowledge," which is an entirely different from "There is no absolute knowledge." I can see how one might misconstrue one for the other, and I'm sure you know that contradictions revel in the realm of absolutism, but I'll try to elaborate more. A particular favorite among theists and a few fledgling apologists is the idea that "In order to disprove God, one would need to visit all of the universe (and some say even beyond it) and prove Him isn't there." And really, this claim fits in better with your own thinking than you might realize. Time and again, you've asked me and others how we can trust our senses are delivering valid and reliable details. You claim that there's no real way on knowing if our senses, brains, and experiences could be deceiving us, and on some level I agree with you. I've wrestled with stages of solipsism, too, but then I entered my sophomore year of high school. Naturally you can accuse me of bias, but I'd say the real inconsistence lies in your camp. Perhaps I'm also making a strawman here, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but your view holds that every mind is flawed and unable to gather absolute truth or knowledge (via our unreliable, uncorrectable senses), but then there is one perfect mind, God's, who can comprehend absolute truth and knowledge and that if we surrender ourselves to him, he can enter our own minds and bestow his absolute truth and knowledge upon us.
7) [T]hat the five senses ancient people used to discern phenomena are inferior to the exact same five senses that moderns (and scientists) utilize in our own epoch.
It was not their five senses that tainted their understanding of the world, but their lack of understanding and practice of methodological naturalism and the scientific method. An ancient Greek could feasible understand that fire burns us hot, ice freezes us cold, wine intoxicates us, and so on. Yet, my understanding of methodological naturalism enables me to realize that lightning is caused by discharge of the static electricity accumulated through molecular friction in clouds, not an angry, libertine deity hurling energy javelins at his foes. More pertinent to your religion, we know that the Earth moves around the sun, not the other way around as Ecclesiastes 1:5 would lead us to believe. We also know something about the conservation of energy and motion, that the sun will continue to appear to rise and set due to the Earth's rotation, making the description of Joshua halting the sun in the sky long enough to win a battle as twelfth and thirteenth verses of the tenth chapter of his book proclaim he did (or at least not without a tremendous amount of energy to both stop and restart the rotation, not to mention the globally cataclysmic effects during this foolish and arrogant display of God's power) highly unlikely (doubly so since the event is corroborated by no other writing, much less geological evidence we could still study today).
8) That Harris’ wheelbarrow argument is both valid and invalid, and
I don't remember claiming his argument was invalid. Could you remind me where I said that?
9) that methodological naturalism is the “single” method by which we come to understanding.
ReplyDeleteA slight quote mine, though nothing more than a trifle compared to some of the other logical fallacies and intellectual deficiencies/dishonesties (intentional or innocent) you've displayed. What I really said was, "Empiricism and the scientific method is [sic], time and again, the single best method we have currently for understanding the working and processes of our universe." And to that I would also add the scientific method's marvelous powers of prediction. Certainly there are other ways to understand the universe: the Abrahamic viewpoint, the Diné cosmology, the Buddhist philosophy, and so on. Yet methodological naturalism has outshone all contenders in its consistence, reliability, accuracy, and practicality in paving the way for everything from medicine to bullet trains to video game consoles.
"Similarly, your faith in the Jesus Seminar is misplaced, for they can hardly be cast as a passive, agenda-free or objective authority. They start with the presupposition that miracles are not possible, so of course their 'findings' will conform with that paradigm."
As I said while posting these references, I have not taken the time to study much into them. However, and this is with a healthy dose of cynicism, I can only guess that your staunch disapproval of them would be a likely indicator that I would actually agree with their conclusions on this and other issues. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and scratch that one off the list. Now how about the other eight citations and the hundreds of scholars listed at ErrantSkeptics.org?
"Secondly, are you aware of how they came to proclaim which parts of the New Testament (the life of Jesus in particular) are authentic or later fabrications? They voted on it."
I'm sorry to say this, but I nearly fell out of my chair when I read this. Are you aware with how the Bible we have today was constructed? They voted on it. At the Council of Trent. You have argued against your own position. The hypocrisy and special pleading you have just displayed is bewildering. You could substituted "Jesus Seminar" for "Council of Trent" and remove a few negatives to form a bitter skepticism about the divinity of the Bible. In fact, I'll do that for you right now:
Similarly, your faith in the Council of Trent is misplaced, for they can hardly be cast as a passive, agenda-free or objective authority. They start with the presupposition that miracles [are] possible, so of course their “findings” will conform with that paradigm. Secondly, are you aware of how they came to proclaim which parts of the New Testament (the life of Jesus in particular) are authentic or later fabrications? They voted on it. How this is any different than saying God exists merely because the majority of the world believes in a higher power remains to be seen. Thirdly, if you find the divergent details of the resurrection narratives tenable, then I have to wonder if you are even aware of the positions offered by the Council of Trent fellows, for they do not offer a unified voice in the least (except for their faith commitments ruling [for] miracles). They cannot seem to agree on what Jesus really was, or exactly when the documents about him were first penned or what he actually said or did.
And finally to end another unfortunately long post, I refer you and your readers to this:
ReplyDelete"Faith implies no weakness, but it is only as good as the hypotheses & conclusions that it is invested in."
This is a judgment call, pure and simple, and a very weak argument. You surely can recognize as well as I do that any idea or any notion can be used to inspire actions helpful and painful, stemming from the Crusades and Jihad, the atrocities committed against Jews by many different people (Christians included) over many different centuries to Non-Believers Giving Aid with the Haitian earthquake and the curiously overlooked Pakistani floods. You'd be right to point out that I'm picking and choosing, and I would say you'd be equally guilty in mounting a counter. This argument is equivalent of multiplying or dividing both sides by the same number. We can factor out the same coefficient.
And I think faith can and does imply weakness. Faith encourages accepting facts at face value, shutting down intellectual and philosophical pursuits, encouraging xenophobia, distancing ourselves from that which we don't understand, condemning critical inquiry and sincere questions, planting fear for falling outside the norm, and, quite honestly, a reprehensible system to establish any society upon. This system, and why any human being (especially those like you, Corbin, who are intelligent, compassionate, and thoughtful people) would waste a breath trying to defend it is why Ledonne, Harris, Dawkings, Hitchens, Dennett, the countless, faceless atheists out there, and even Streeter at times, flash signs of frustration, anger, and sometimes even contempt. I wish I could get you to see that you (like me, like your friends and family, like the great majority of kind, decent people) are better than your God.
I again apologize for the long post. As always, I look forward to your response.
Respectfully,
JStreeter
I told Corbin from the outset that the nature and scope of our discussion/debate was limited. There are more productive uses of my time than continued discourse on matters that are settled in the minds of both men prior from the outset. Because Corbin's readership is exceedingly limited, I saw little value in continuing to write for Corbin's gratification alone.
ReplyDeleteMy words to Corbin were passionate but hardly inflammatory to the degree Corbin portrays them. His compulsion to continually invoke and insult my character long after I have left (and only upon having JStreeter bring this to my attention much later) demonstrates his obsessive fixation with myopic rhetoric. While it may suit Corbin to portray me in this manner, he would wisely note that I have moved on and deem him of too little mention to make issue of it.
Corbin was no fan of links when I was posting, so I'll just quote from a recent article instead:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHey Danny,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that you managed to unplug your ears, but you are interrupting. If you'd like to post in one of the open forums on the blog, please do so. I've noticed a tendency (amongst both Christians and atheists) that many love to gang up on their opposition and intend to lob more arguments at them than can reasonably be responded to. This then evokes the school of fish phenomena wherein the respondent confronts and corrects a single attack that misses all while the attacker never admits defeat but merely changes the goalposts, the subject and launches a new round of sorties. That is not going to happen here, so I ask that you re-post your words in another area before I remove them from this thread between Streeter and I.
Thanks,
-CL
Streeter,
ReplyDeleteIt’s not that Ledonne has “fallen from [my] favor” so much as it was that he started vomiting insults at me while jamming his fingers in his ears and running away. Even now that he’s back he can’t seem to resist the urge to insult and tell me that I am not worth typing to… by typing to me. I hope he can see the irony in that, especially since this is at least the third time he’s threatened. Anyway, most of his unpleasantness was on a private Facebook thread, so it is duplicitous for him to say that he didn’t want to post on my blog because of its “limited readership.” I don’t always understand the emotional need to have an audience to perform in front of, and I actually like my blog because it is not well read. Forums to have mass arguments/ bash-fests are not hard to come by. They render meaningful conversation almost impossible and frankly, they bore me. Nevertheless, if Danny gives me permission, I will post the unedited Facebook thread (in another area) so that readers can judge for themselves.
As for his recent argument, Danny has failed to consider that his cause célèbre cuts both ways and that he is the one shouting for his own faith commitments. Anyway, I found it a better home on my blog, and it can be viewed as comment #15 here: thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2010/10/political-filiblustering.html?showComment=1289052458607
He actually honored me by recruiting a friend (you) to post on my blog. I simply wanted to commend you for not being much of a jerk thus far. However, I have noticed that you’re starting to lean that way, so I ask that if you want to be different than Danny, that you BE different than Danny. You are certainly capable. I appreciate your thoughts on these things in your better moments.
Concerning Wikipedia, you started citing it, not me. It can be helpful, but it’s not exactly an authority or free from biases. Its articles are only as good as their authors. But I asked for empirical proof for your claim about the burden of proof, do you have any? The absence of any direct responses when I ask for insight into how you “know” things does not further your position. Yes, I am aware of some of the philosophical arguments in support of your claim about the burden of proof, but surely you can see that these are not proofs themselves and that there are dissenting positions about who actually shoulders the “burden”. However, I hope we can both agree that it is impossible to prove a negative. This of course leads back to my original critique of Strong Atheism wherein the claim ‘God does not exist’ is clearly an expression of faith. What I am saying is that I believe Jesus has risen from the dead & that said resurrection makes the best accounting for all the evidence at our disposal. Once again, I freely admit that I do not know this absolutely, but that I have faith in it and for good reason. As for your part, I can’t help but notice that you are more content to offer a plethora of non-resurrection options than you are to take a stand on any one of them. Can you not at least admit that you don’t know what happened to Jesus after his execution?
As for Jesus’ historicity, all the evidence (Christian and otherwise) suggests that he was an actual person of history. If you want to believe otherwise, then you may make a case elsewhere on the blog if you like, but it is an argument from silence and beyond the scope of our present exchange.
The list of equivocations (cont’d):
ReplyDelete1) The ‘Some, Therefore All’ Fallacy:
Streeter, we are criticizing the same logical fallacy. On Sept. 18 you used it: “The accounts can't all be right, but they can all be wrong (and by extension ALL contradictory, mutually-exclusive supernatural claims).”
I am glad that you can finally recognize the fallacy. Let’s not repeat it. As for the rest of your paragraph, I’m going to ignore your snarkiness and merely point out that you again confirm my thesis: you have faith about Jesus. In this case, it is built upon what you believe about the quality of the evidence.
2) New Testament reliability:
Your response here is a variation of the fallacy we just tried to lay to rest. Perhaps we can find a commonality in our mutual faith that the majority of supernatural claims in the world are bogus. Nevertheless, this does not mean that all such claims are false by default. You are free to have faith that the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are unreliable, but that is just that: faith. Consider your last sentence in that paragraph:
“I think that any single text written by people lacking an understanding and practice of methodological naturalism is insufficient evidence to establish the validity of the supernatural.”
I need to point out to you what I see here that supports my thesis. Focus on your word “think.” What definition/ synonym best explains what you mean here? I’ll let you choose one or supply your own: (know, claim, believe, have faith, trust, ____?).
3) Stand-alone reports are “by definition” unreliable (except for yours).
Smile. The issue here is not the definition of “reliable,” but of stand-alone reports. Following your lead, do you think it would it be helpful for our conversation if I claimed you to be either confused or “dishonest” in your first reply to #3?
4) That you have no faith
You claimed that you have no faith. I would merely like to know if this is a stand-alone report or if you have some hard data to support it. I suspect it is yet another faith claim.
5) "a single, self-affirming source" & biblical circularity:
I understand your circularity objection, but I suspect that you hold it inconsistently. There are many ancient works we hold to be written by certain people for no other reason than they claim to be. The same can be said of unsigned works that tradition attributes to certain authors. Secondly, all scientists believe that senses yield reliable data (at least some of the time), yet there is no way to prove that faith assumption without invoking a circular argument. Thirdly, I suspect you have a poor understanding of what “inspiration” of the Bible actually means (as do most Christians). Perhaps we can find another point of agreement here, for I do not believe the Bible is “perfect,” as if God put it on a jump-drive & stuck it in an author’s “drive” for download. I think we could also agree that human fingerprints are all over it. The Bible doesn’t even claim to be perfect. Even in those cases where an “error” could be found, it seems like you are tempted to subscribe once again to our mutually discredited logical fallacy: Some are wrong, therefore all are wrong.
6) Absolute claims & Knowledge: Thanks for the attempt at clarification, but I have to ask a follow-up question: On what grounds do you reject all claims of absolute knowledge? It seems as though you are saying that a person cannot know anything absolutely, or if they can, they are incapable of making an absolute claim. This IS a point where there seems to be mutual confusion. However, for all our ills, Xian apologists are right in affirming the impossibility of proving a negative. To claim that something doesn’t exist IS, in fact, somewhat of a faith claim.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, you have knocked a straw-man down that I didn’t prop up. The issue seems to be muddled, for I have not asked you to explain how you trust your senses at all. Again we can cheer for the same side here, for I too believe our senses yield reliable data most of the time. Where we part company seems to be about who can actually trust their senses and relay that data on to others. I contend this includes people in the 1st century who witnessed a man spry as a spring chick, eating, touching and being touched less than 36 hours after his brutal execution. For your part, it seems that you are playing by special rules to determine whose senses and reporting are valid and whose are not. To summarize, my view is that we can come to legitimate knowledge, but it’s not likely to be perfect or absolute very often, at least not in a way that we can test empirically, and this has nothing to do with what historical epoch we find ourselves in.
7) Faith in Methodological Naturalism: You have some good points about the reported OT phenomena, but your underlying assumption about the “necessity of practicing methodological naturalism and the scientific method” is little more than another faith claim. You can’t seem to hold it consistently either. Perhaps you should explain what you mean by “methodological naturalism” before I criticize it. In the mean time, I should point out that similes should be differentiated from literal event reporting. They can be easily confused, but I argue that an ancient Greek burning a hand in fire is of a similar type of sensory experience as a doubting disciple touching the resurrected Jesus. You can argue that it was only “AS IF” Thomas touched Jesus for example, but that seems to be against the greater evidence and remains in the territory of faith either way. Are you aware that most 21st century educated folks still speak in terms of “sunrises” and “sunsets.” Does that mean we should discount everything else that they say?
8) Harris’ Wheelbarrow: When I criticized Harris’ quote, you said that you agreed with me to a point (and I only had 1). Ironically, this was right after you re-quoted it in seriousness. A fuller and more fun critique of his faith statement can be found here:
http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2010/09/start-discussion.html
9) Naturalism & Knowledge: Again I’d urge you not to sink into the darkness of hateful Atheistville. We were doing so well. To stay on-point, do you think there are kinds of knowledge that we can come to for which empiricism and the scientific method are the wrong tool for the job? Again it seems you are saying the only things we can know are those which are true by definition or by empiricism. This is advanced by your notion that science beats Christianity and other religions etc. But I am saying that they both incorporate faith & cover mostly separate spheres of knowledge. It is a self-defeating syllogism to say that God’s creation can be enlisted as evidence against God.
Jesus-Seminar et. al: I don’t think I understand your argument here. Are you saying that we should compare which side has more scholars and academics and then vote for the “truth” accordingly? And you didn’t answer my questions about FF Bruce and R Brown. Care to venture a guess as to why these scholars followed Christ?
Council of ???:
ReplyDeleteI understand why you think I’m being inconsistent here, but some reflection reveals that this isn’t apples to apples. You should know that it was not the Council of Trent (mid-1500’s) that first recognized the biblical canon. That designation belongs to the Council of Nicea in 325, and then to the Council of Hippo in 393. The first recognized all 27 NT Books that we have today, but there was discussion over whether or not James, Hebrews, 2 Pet, 2-3 John, Jude & Revelation should be included. Hippo resolved the issues in 393. As far as Trent goes, the issue related to canon was the status of extra-biblical documents (the Apocrypha). The Catholic church said that these works of tradition were on par with the rest of Christian Scripture, but the Protestants rejected the claim. The point is that the 27 Books we know as the NT had been undisputed for more than 1100 years before Trent.
Secondly, recognition/ “closing” of the canon is not the same thing as “creating” the canon. The documents ultimately included in the NT in 393 had already been around for hundreds of years and considered authoritative for churches far and wide. In the growing tide of rival and errant religious movements however, recognizing an official list was merely to help churches know what was authentic and what wasn’t. Think in terms of an insurance adjuster amidst a sea of claims, some of which are fraudulent. Perimeters have to be set.
Thirdly, I hope you can recognize the difference between researchers merely deciding which documents are most pertinent to their field of study, and a group who takes it upon themselves not just to select their sources, but to rule out any parts of those sources that do not already confirm their preconceived theories of what is possible. The church and the Jesus Seminar use some of the same documents, but the Seminar claims to have special insight into what really did/ did not happen. The biblical canon reports what the best sources said & experienced, but the Seminar goes in and says: Jesus didn’t really say this, and that didn’t really happen. As with you, how they “know” such things remains conveniently unexplained.
This leads to my last point on the Seminar. I appreciate your recognition that people vote according to the choices they’ve already made, but your counter criticism actually reinforces my thesis. Like you, the Jesus Seminar undoubtedly has faith in its various methodologies & conclusions about the NT and hence, Jesus. As they voted as a group, each of us votes as individuals. We all have our biases and make our faith commitments accordingly. There are no purely objective or unbiased voices in the debate, but the Seminar’s methodology is comparatively more suspect than that of the early church councils. To use your own argument about presidents and the elapsed time between events and the records thereof, can you not see that those early ecumenical councils were better situated (historically & geographically) to assess the records of Jesus’ life than the Jesus Seminar?
Finally, I don’t think I understand your final two paragraphs’ arguments. You are welcome to have faith that faith implies weakness, but unless you can shoulder the burden of proof for your claim the argument doesn’t hold up if you reject all circularity. Similarly, I know that some faith commitments can lead to terrible things. If you were to stop there, you would find me as a co-conspirator against such darkened faith. However, the ‘Some-Therefore-All’ fallacy seems to have reared its head again, and I suggest that atheistic faith commitments are part of the problematic faith spectrum. I appreciate your concern that I not waste my time with Xianity, but I must also express concern for your acceptance of atheism. I believe you are attacking and defending the wrong things, to the detriment of yourself and others.
Sincerely,
-C. Lambeth
Hello again, Corbin,
ReplyDeleteAs far as Danny is concerned, I’ll offer my two cents and hopefully this will be the end of it. As I’ve said before, this is your forum, and you are perfectly free to do what you please, but I’d advise against posting the private messages between you and Danny, even if he gives his permission. I’ll repeat, that’s only my take on the matter.
Now on to the topics more germane to this discussion. I agree that Wikipedia is hit or miss as a reference source. Initially you didn’t cast any immediate rejection of my using it, so that’s why I continued. I’ll try to limit myself to using other, perhaps more credible links in the future. As far as empirical evidence for who holds the burden of proof is concerned, I’ll offer another source, one that I hope you can accept. Don’t judge a book by its cover, but http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/burdenofproof.htm has a nice, balanced description of burden of proof. However, I’d say that your request for empirical evidence for this field is misplaced. Debate is a human construction, and empirical evidence only comes from and best addresses natural phenomena. It would be akin to asking for empirical evidence that BLT sandwiches have mayonnaise.
“Once again, I freely admit that I do not know this absolutely, but that I have faith in it and for good reason.”
I’d quibble about this sentence, particularly whether or not you have “good reason,” but I’m working on shrinking the scope of this rapidly expanding discussion.
“Can you not at least admit that you don’t know what happened to Jesus after his execution?”
YES!! I can admit that. I’ll admit that any day of the week. It is the more honest answer to that situation that to make a wild claim and stick to it (in the face of evidence to the contrary).
“As for Jesus’ historicity, all the evidence (Christian and otherwise) suggests that he was an actual person of history. If you want to believe otherwise, then you may make a case elsewhere on the blog if you like, but it is an argument from silence and beyond the scope of our present exchange.”
Perhaps I shall make that case someday, somewhere.
To our list:
1) The ‘Some, Therefore All’ Fallacy
The only guilt I have of the association fallacy is in your mind. I’m sorry to bring this up again, and I implore not to take this personally or as an insult, but I truly am starting to doubt your reading comprehension. “The accounts can't all be right, but they can all be wrong (and by extension ALL contradictory, mutually-exclusive supernatural claims).” The rub lies in the modal verb “can.” If I said, “The accounts aren’t all right,” then I’d be using the association fallacy. As far as my parenthetical note goes, that’s sound and valid as I see it. Any contradictory, self-refuting (“mutually-exclusive”) claim is by default wrong.
“[Y]ou have faith about Jesus. In this case, it is built upon what you believe about the quality of the evidence.”
Having standards of evidence for supernatural claims, including but not limited to Jesus, is not faith.
2) New Testament reliability:
“Your response here is a variation of the fallacy we just tried to lay to rest.”
No. It is not. You’re guilty of the special pleading fallacy by holding Christianity apart from all the other world religions spread geographically and historically. This is why we went round after round about my usage of the phrase “pet beliefs.”
“Focus on your word “think.” What definition/ synonym best explains what you mean here? I’ll let you choose one or supply your own: (know, claim, believe, have faith, trust, ____?).”
I hope you’ve noticed I take great care in the precision of my diction, even to the detriment of its concision. When I said “think,” that’s just what I meant. I’ll humor you by elaborating on my exact meaning further by supplying my own definition (in this context): to think is to cogitate based off repeated observation, critical inquiry, and logic.
3) Stand-alone reports are “by definition” unreliable
ReplyDelete“Following your lead, do you think it would it be helpful for our conversation if I claimed you to be either confused or “dishonest” in your first reply to #3?”
Yes, I think it would be helpful, and I’m not just being contrary. I was confused and misunderstood the objection you had, and I’m asking for clarification now. I’m perfectly okay with being mistaken or even out and out wrong, and I will own up to it (which sadly cannot be said about many stripes of theists). So I’ll ask you now, could you help me out and be a little more specific in your objection?
4) That you have no faith
Time and again I have asked you to define “faith,” “faith commitments,” and now (in your latest post) “faith assumptions.” Pending these definitions, I have to excuse myself from responding to this charge any further.
5) "a single, self-affirming source" & biblical circularity:
“There are many ancient works we hold to be written by certain people for no other reason than they claim to be. The same can be said of unsigned works that tradition attributes to certain authors.”
Thank you for understanding my claim. Whether or not I am selective in applying this to ancient texts (or even modern ones for that matter), I hope to resolve some issues. We as a modern people, have no solid evidence that the likes of Homer and Socrates, to use as an example. This funnels back to the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof/evidence” aphorism. Neither of these authors wrote that they created the cosmos, walked on water, or otherwise performed supernatural feats. In The Odyssey, Odysseus descends into Hades and living to tell about it, a resurrection of sorts, but not a single person claims this actually happened. We have learned much about Greek mythology and the epic poem form, and it is on these grounds that we can accept these stories as fiction. How is, or why should, the Bible, the Qur’an, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, or any such other book be held to a different level simply because it has believers to this day? Socrates may have only been an invention of Plato, and while his intellect and philosophy were surprisingly advanced for his day, no supernatural feats are attributed to him. It is for that reason you and I can accept the otherwise paltry evidence of his historicity.
“Secondly, all scientists believe that senses yield reliable data (at least some of the time), yet there is no way to prove that faith assumption without invoking a circular argument.”
If you talk about on the individual’s level, verifying the reliability of one’s senses, that is why scientists repeat their tests themselves and by others and seek large samples of data. Though I still don’t know what a “faith assumption” is....
“Thirdly, I suspect you have a poor understanding of what “inspiration” of the Bible actually means (as do most Christians). Perhaps we can find another point of agreement here, for I do not believe the Bible is “perfect,” as if God put it on a jump-drive & stuck it in an author’s “drive” for download. I think we could also agree that human fingerprints are all over it. The Bible doesn’t even claim to be perfect. Even in those cases where an “error” could be found, it seems like you are tempted to subscribe once again to our mutually discredited logical fallacy: Some are wrong, therefore all are wrong.”
That separates your theology from several other branches of Christianity, much less other world religions. For all the seemingly disparaging remarks I’ve made, surely I’m correct in saying you aren’t so naive or ignorant to know that there are Biblical literalist Christians right here in the USA (not to mention the world). Anyway, that contention is not mine to argue; you can debate that with a theist who disagrees with you. Your last sentence is another strawman. While I recognize some counter-apologists make that argument, or a variation of it, it is not one I hold.
6) Absolute claims & Knowledge
ReplyDelete“Thanks for the attempt at clarification, but I have to ask a follow-up question: On what grounds do you reject all claims of absolute knowledge? It seems as though you are saying that a person cannot know anything absolutely, or if they can, they are incapable of making an absolute claim.”
Nope, you got it right, specifically the first clause of your second sentence. This harkens back to Hume, in a roundabout way.
“And yes, you have knocked a straw-man down that I didn’t prop up.”
On another technical note, that’s not quite how the strawman metaphor works, but thanks for pointing out my error.
“Where we part company seems to be about who can actually trust their senses and relay that data on to others. I contend this includes people in the 1st century who witnessed a man spry as a spring chick, eating, touching and being touched less than 36 hours after his brutal execution.”
I think you’re mistaken on our disagreement. I hold, much like you do, that our senses today are not that much different than they were a few thousand years ago. It’s not early humankind’s senses, but their primitive understanding of the world and their lack of the scientific method that calls their accounts into question (and really into no more question than claims made today).
7) Faith in Methodological Naturalism
“You have some good points about the reported OT phenomena, but your underlying assumption about the “[b]necessity[/b] of practicing methodological naturalism and the scientific method” is little more than another faith claim.” (emphasis added)
I’ve looked up and down on this blog, but I don’t ever remember writing the “necessity of practicing....” I don’t know if you’re attempting to quote me or perhaps be ironic, but if it’s the former it’s a misquote, intentional or accidental.
“Perhaps you should explain what you mean by “methodological naturalism” before I criticize it.”
I apologize for not providing a definition sooner. Methodological naturalism is, in so many words, a synonym for empiricism and the employ of the scientific method.
“In the mean time, I should point out that similes should be differentiated from literal event reporting.... Are you aware that most 21st century educated folks still speak in terms of “sunrises” and “sunsets.” Does that mean we should discount everything else that they say?”
I agree. Figurative language should not be mistaken for literal language (which is another commonly launched objection against the Bible, but let’s not address that here, yeah?). And I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt for being facetious, because this is one of the weakest, dumbest arguments I’ve ever heard.
8) Harris’ Wheelbarrow
I’ve browsed that post a time or two and really have nothing to add other than what I’ve said over and over about methodological naturalism.
9) Naturalism & Knowledge
“Again I’d urge you not to sink into the darkness of hateful Atheistville.”
Please, please, please don’t ever think that hatespeech, snarkiness, and backhanded compliments are exclusive to atheists. There are plenty of Christians and theists who relish in these, and if you’re going to say they “aren’t true Christians,” you can add the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to your steadily growing apologist curriculum vitae. And I agree, we were doing so well, and as far as I can tell we still are.
“To stay on-point, do you think there are kinds of knowledge that we can come to for which empiricism and the scientific method are the wrong tool for the job?”
Depending on your definition of “knowledge,” I’ll say sure. There are things that science cannot necessarily address, things were the arts and other such activities flourish. Yet, the arts seldom rely on hypothesis, inference, and experimentation. Additionally, I would never go to a play to cure a disease or view a painting to fix my car engine.
“This is advanced by your notion that science beats Christianity and other religions etc. But I am saying that they both incorporate faith & cover mostly separate spheres of knowledge.”
ReplyDeleteScience runs circles around Christianity and other religions in matters of the material world, which is coincidentally the only world we’ve been able to establish. That might seem circular; of course science defines its limitations and scope, but even in that realm it is unbeaten. Gould proposed NOMA, but, as Dawkins and others have pointed out, that idea is bupkis. If religion makes claims about the natural world, which it does, all the time, then it falls within the realm of science, and the two can be pitted against each other.
“It is a self-defeating syllogism to say that God’s creation can be enlisted as evidence against God.”
We joked about the “sunrise” and “sunset” argument mainly because your intelligence elsewhere leads me to believe that that question was put forth humorously. However, this, Corbin, I cannot excuse, and what’s worse is that you seem to be sincere about it. This idea is so weak, so fundamentally flawed it’s close to pushing me out of continued discussion with you. This is kindergarten theology, and if you can’t see how it is, then Danny’s prediction that this would be a waste of my time has been sadly fulfilled.
Jesus Seminar et al.:
“Are you saying that we should compare which side has more scholars and academics and then vote for the “truth” accordingly?”
To be blunt, yes. We could go into nuances later, though.
“And you didn’t answer my questions about FF Bruce and R Brown. Care to venture a guess as to why these scholars followed Christ?”
I didn’t answer because it’s a non sequitur. If pressed for a comment, I’d say these two are examples of the laudable theists who can put their theology aside for academic pursuits.
Councils aplenty!
To begin, I chose the Council of Trent because my research led me to believe that was where most of the Bible construction occurred. Including info from this link: http://www.christian-history.org/nicea-myths.html
Thank you for supplying extra information, but my point still remains. A canon was constructed and voted upon by fallible men hundreds of years and miles removed from the alleged events.
“The documents ultimately included in the NT in 393 had already been around for hundreds of years and considered authoritative for churches far and wide. In the growing tide of rival and errant religious movements however, recognizing an official list was merely to help churches know what was authentic and what wasn’t. Think in terms of an insurance adjuster amidst a sea of claims, some of which are fraudulent. Perimeters have to be set.”
Who is to say that those rival, “errant” religious movements were not divinely inspired nor more aligned with what your god wanted? This may seem like an immature complaint, but can you see its validity? Who is to say that the canon and church of today was comprised of nothing else but brute force and men ferociously guarding what power they had?
“The church and the Jesus Seminar use some of the same documents, but the Seminar claims to have special insight into what really did/ did not happen.”
The same could be said of the bishops and men of cloth at all these Councils. I am fundamentally at odds with esoteric knowledge, much like absolute knowledge.
Epilogue:
“I appreciate your concern that I not waste my time with Xianity, but I must also express concern for your acceptance of atheism. I believe you are attacking and defending the wrong things, to the detriment of yourself and others.”
This is deserving of an entirely new post, and as fervent and heated my objections to your bald assertions, I must hold my tongue. This post, in spite of your and my best efforts, has already become too bloated and ponderous.
I thank you for your continued engagement and anticipate it further.
Respectfully,
JStreeter
Thanks for your continued engagement, Streeter. I can see that you've tried to post some amended entries, but I ask that you wait to post more until I can give your replies due attention. Let's not let the number of posts or conversation get too unwieldy. I have to think that perhaps the powers at Blogspot purposefully limited the character count to prevent runaway posters from monopolizing threads (not that you would do that).
ReplyDelete-CL
Corbin,
ReplyDeleteThat's perfectly fine, and I'll really try to limited my responses in the future. However, if nothing else, there's one item that I have to bring up:
"It is a self-defeating syllogism to say that God’s creation can be enlisted as evidence against God."
I'm willing to laugh past your "sunrise" and "sunset" comment because I've seen your intelligence in our back and forth. But this idea is uncharacteristically asinine of you. This argument is so weak, so fundamentally flawed, that your usage of it is giving me pause to continue this discussion. I'll wait to explain why it is; however, this argument's idiocy seems pretty apparent to me.
With that last note, I'll cease my commentary so you can form your responses (and so I won't overload blogspot so much).
Respectfully,
JStreeter
Streeter,
ReplyDeleteIn an effort to limit our trend of multi-post responses, I am going to remove all but two in the last series of your recent posts, and then reply with two of my own so we can address fewer issues and let them play out before I get back to the rest of your (alleged) equivocations. This is simply an effort to have a natural back and forth on issues as they arise and a way to limit the breadth and length of responses. These things can spiral out of control, especially as truth takes longer to explain than falsehood. Translation: We need to keep it to one, or MAYBE two replies. This 3 & 4 in a row won’t work, although I could devote other blog entries to different topics. You haven’t accepted that offer before, but it may ultimately be necessary. Nevertheless, I know that you think you’ve made some good arguments, and I don’t want you to have to retype them if you’ve not saved them in an off-line document. So I won’t remove (or add) any posts for a week or so, to make sure that you’ve had opportunity to cut and paste any of your recent threads that you’d like to recycle.
-CL