Re: Faith and Skepticism
- From: "Brushwork" <late_apecks@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 03:11:47 GMT
bimms@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> We have the same type of evidence for the origin of Christianity that
> we have for ANY ancient historical event. The following several types
> of evidence might apply either to the origin of the "Roman Empire" or
> to the origin of "Christianity." Here they are:
>
> 1. we have documents that purport to describe these events
We have redactions of just ONE independent document that supposedly
describes the Resurrection, the gospel of Mark. And even that is
original only in its historical context and some of its details;
antecedents for almost the entire Passion sequence can be found in
Isiah, Psalms, Wisdom, and in the Mystery Cults.
(The other gospels are NOT considered by most NT scholars to be
independent.)
> 2. we have modern institutions based on these supposed historical
> events
> 3. we have large sections of humanity that are affected by, and
> continue to believe in, these historical events.
Neither of these constitute any kind of evidence. Many falsehoods are
widely believed, and that was even more true in the past. Institutions,
especially religions, are often based on false beliefs. All of your
so-called "evidence" also applies to Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism.
> Now, an atheist such as yourself, for some unknown reason, desperately
> tries to disprove the origins of Christianity. Yet the grounds that you
> use could be used just as well to disprove the origins of the Roman
> Empire.
Talk about desperate! Historians consider "proof" to be independent
confirmation from multiple sources that have at least a modicum of
reliability. I take it that by "origins of the Roman Empire" you mean
the transitional events that took place in the first century BCE. There
is plenty of unbiased evidence for those events, and it's not just
literary; it's also epigraphic and archeological. And it's from
multiple sources.
You have no such proof for the accuracy of the gospels. You have no
epigraphic or archeological evidence. Your literary sources are
anonymous and, by their own acknowledgement, highly biased. They do not
even CLAIM that their stories are first-hand, eyewitness accounts. For
that matter, they make no claim of having interviewed eyewitnesses. The
narratives themselves are anything but independent highly derivative
from a)other biased attestation, b)other literary sources, including
the Old Testament and Hebrew Apocrypha, c)Greek, and particularly
Cynic, philosophy, and d)the Mystery Cults. The only non-Christian
literature that SEEMS TO confirm the gospel accounts did not appear
until the beginning of the 2nd century.
> So, if you were objective, you would be JUST AS DESPERATE to disprove
> the origins of the Roman Empire, as you are to disprove the origins of
> Christianity.
(One wonders why your post is replete with the word "desperate." What
are you trying to tell us?)
Why should I try to disprove such a well-evidenced event as the
transition from the Roman Republic to the Empire?
> The real question is, why are you so desperate to disprove
> Christianity, but you dont care to disprove the existence of the Roman
> Empire?
Why is that a "real question"?
> The evidence for the one is very similar to the other,
Not true.
> yet your
> desperation only shows when the specter of "Christianity" arises to
> frighten you.
Christianity doesn't frighten me. But many Christians do.
> Why are you so desperate that Christianity be false?
What in the world makes you think I'm "desperate"? Or that I want
Christianity to be false? That's like saying that I desperately want
water to be wet.
> The evidence we have for Christianity is very similar to the evidence
> we have for the existence of Julius Caesar, Cicero, Tacitus, et cetera.
There is no similarity at all. We have confirmatory evidence for Caesar
from multiple sources, from multiple geographical regions and in
multiple genres: literary, archeological and epigraphic. We only have
meager literary evidence of a historical Jesus, i.e., Mark's gospel and
bits of Q. (Paul was uniformative about Jesus' ministry on earth.) All
later writings are dependent.
OTOH, we have abundant writings of Cicero and Tacitus, as well as
letters TO Cicero and Tacitus from other Romans, as well as writings
ABOUT Cicero and Tacitus by other Romans. We have no writings to or by
Jesus.
I don't know who "et cetera" might be.
For all your bluster, you have certainly revealed a shocking lack of
knowledge about the evidence for ancient figures.
> An "unprovable" proposition? So what? As Descartes informed us, EVERY
> proposition is UNPROVABLE. You keep on bringing up the red herring
> argument: "You can't prove it."
Of course, everything is unprovable if it's all just a dream. Or if God
created the universe at 10 pm last night and planted our memories in
our brains. But if this isn't some sort of Matrix, and you accept the
authenticity of material reality, then some propositions can be shown
to be true and others can't.
In case you hadn't noticed it, Christianity accepts the reality of the
physical universe. Historically, to advocate otherwise has been
considered heresy.
> The fact is, what can be either "proved" or "not-proved" is irrelevant.
> The only thing that is relevant is what LEVEL OF FAITH your discussion
> is currently operating on. (In other words, the only thing that is
> relevant is what SYSTEM OF AXIOMS your discussion is currently
> operating under).
>
> In any debate or discussion, both parties must accept certain axioms.
> Whatever axioms the two sides agree upon, must be accepted by FAITH,
> and CANNOT BE PROVED. Having accepted these axioms, the discussion can
> proceed.
Does that mean a criminal case can't be tried unless the jury
stipulates to certain articles of FAITH before hearing a case? Come on!
When we're talking about Christian beliefs, we're talking about
history. The events that underly Christian beliefs supposedly took
place IN HISTORY, so it's only consistent to assess them by applying
the evidentiary criteria of historiography. There's nothing deep or
abstract about this; it's nuts and bolts: Like good members of a jury,
we should do our best to assess the evidence, reason it out, and follow
it where it leads.
> If you insist on constantly saying, "You can't prove it" you just sound
> boring and dull.
Well, the truth is often boring and dull. Sorry if I sound that way.
> And I can simply say, "very well. If you insist on
> demanding proof, how about YOU proving to me that the human mind can
> correctly reason its way to the truth."
Well, if you don't believe that it can, you might as well discard all
science, all law, all history, all mathematics, all philosophy, as well
as anything resembling democracy.
> ...there is NO WAY you can ever prove
> that the human mind is capable of arriving at "true" conclusions.
This is just an escape clause. If you don't accept that premise, what's
the point of debate? Or of history? We might just contemplate our
navels.
> My point? It is worthless and dumb for you to keep demanding proof.
> Because I can demand proof from you as well for whatever YOU are trying
> to say. The whole discussion is pointless.
So is all historical inquiry "worthless and dumb" because there's often
a division of opinion? Because both the defense and the prosecution can
make a case of some sort, is it "worthless and dumb" for a jury to hear
evidence? If proof is meaningless, why not just punish people by
lottery, a la Shirley Jackson? Or, for that matter, why bother to try
people for crimes at all?
> To show you what I mean, for my next few responses, I will simply
> attack your axioms, rather than asserting anything of my own. See how
> far the discussion proceeds when all one side does it attack the axioms
> of the other!
I don't see the point of this. But go ahead.
> Here goes:
> > Human suffering IS a scandal. Period. The "incarnation," even if it had
> > taken place, did not change that fact. Only man's actions can mitigate
> > or eliminate human suffering.
> Please prove that only man's actions can mitigate or eliminate human
> suffering.
There is ample evidence that human beings are capable of altering the
conditions of their lives. Do you really need proof of that? How long
have you lived on Planet Earth?
Now. I'd like YOU to prove that the actions of any NON-human being can
mitigate or eliminate human suffering. Where and when can this
phenomenon be observed?
> > You've really submerged yourself in this stuff, haven't you? All you
> > have are suppositions and messianic expectations, based on ancient
> > texts. There is not a shred of evidence that God "has suffered
> > alongside us" or that he empathizes with us.
> Please prove that there is not a shred of evidence that God empathizes
> with us.
Of course, that's non-falsifiable, because there's a infinitesimally
small chance that that missing shred might be hiding in some remote
corner of the universe. But you're splitting hairs. Would you be
happier if I said: "In all the reading and research I've done, I have
yet to learn of a shred of evidence that God 'has suffered alongside
us' or that he empathizes with us"?
Regardless, do you claim such evidence exists? If you have it, now's
the time to show it to the world!
> > I think you suffer from a dearth of imagination.
> Please prove that I suffer from a lack of imagination.
It was only an opinion, not an axiom or a claim.
> > And delusions of grandeur.
> Please prove that I suffer from grand delusions.
Another opinion. But your words speak for themselves, as words have a
way of doing.
> > Yes, it is. But people are generally good, except when they're driven
> > by criminal impulses or an excess of ideological or theological zeal.
> Please prove this.
Again: Not an immutable truth, not an axiom, just an opinion.
> > Western Civilization has only reached great heights when it has put
> > that "axiom" on the back burner. Many of the evils perpetrated by WC
> > have been in God's name. Slavery, colonialism, the "dark Satanic
> > mills," all were justified with biblical texts. OTOH, there's virtually
> > nothing in the Bible to support the rule of law, the authority of the
> > governed, the right of privacy and ownership, or freedom of speech,
> > religion, association and peaceful assembly. And if you don't think
> > those things are the best we have to offer, think again.
> Prove it.
Don't have to. Take it or leave it. But I notice you offer no
refutation! If you will recall, you were the one who said that Western
Civ was founded on Christian principles. So I set forth several
examples of highly regarded Western values that are NOT based on
biblical principles.
Instead of responding, you want to play some sort of silly "axiom"
game. Are we to take it that you concede the point?
> If you are going to attack the other person's axioms, it is
> WORTHLESS..... unless you have the guts to propose an alternate set of
> axioms that both parties can agree to.
Okay, I propose that we apply the rules of evidence of the judicial
system of the State of California to determine the historical veracity
of the gospel account of the life of Jesus. We'll start with the birth
story and proceed in Lukan order, and we'll accept ancient writings in
lieu of live testimony. But we'll reserve the right to examine the
provenance of these writings to assess their credibility.
Your alternative?
Christians insist that their beliefs are based on HISTORICAL FACT. They
claim to possess the ABSOLUTE TRUTH, KNOWLEDGE RECEIVED DIRECTLY FROM
GOD. Such claims are not merely matters of opinion: either those things
happened or they did not.
When you make a claim of historical fact, it is reasonable for others
to demand evidence of that claim. And it is also reasonable for them to
evaluate the veracity of the evidence.
By repeatedly rejecting calls for evidence, you seem to think we should
forget about evidence and just take your word for it. I demand
evidence; YOU DEMAND CREDULITY, i.e., believe it because you (or the
Bible or theologians or preachers) say it's true.
If not evidence, upon WHAT should we base religious faith? Ancient
fables? Subjective feelings? Mystical experiences? Gaps in scientific
understanding? Drug induced trances? What if not evidence?
By the way, even the early Christian fathers like Eusebius didn't
dismiss evidence as irrelevant. They went to great lengths to contrive
"proofs" and factual claims in support of their beliefs.
> I re-emphasize that, whatever axiom-set we agree to, will be based upon
> SOME LEVEL OF FAITH.
Enough! That's just a dodge you've repeatedly used to avoid supporting
your claims.
> > But if mankind had accepted the "God did it" explanation for all
> > unexplained events, there would have been no raison for science, and we
> > would still be dying of polio and diptheria. Good thing we're not ALL
> > religious fanatics, isn't it?
> Virtually all the major scientists were believers in God. From Newton,
> to Galileo, to Copernicus, ....and even Darwin..... were Theists. So
> apparently your little argument is a non-sequiter.
All believers in a deity are not religious fanatics. Most people - and
that includes scientists - don't jeopardize the status quo or their
professional standing by following their religious beliefs to their
logical conclusions. Frankly, most don't give a damn. They'll make
whatever public statements about religion that will keep them out of
trouble and allow them to continue their work.
> Apparently, you can believe in God, and yet look for natural
> explanations for events as well. Who knew?
Not the ID-iots, who repeatedly lie about science and scientific
findings. If natural explanations conflict with their bible-based
myths, they try to undermine the science with falsehoods, bad math and
distortions. Behe is a prime example, by the way.
> > Science can't explain many things. That will probably always be true.
> > It is pure hubris on your part to assume that you possess some sort of
>
> It is pure hubris for you to assume that the entire Western
> Civilization was based upon a giant pack of lies, and only now, in the
> year 2005, have we finally discovered the truth.
Who said anything about a "giant pack of lies" or that we have "finally
discovered the truth"? Even the Romans knew that the Jesus story was a
fable.
The "entire Western Civilization" is not based on fundamentalist
Christian beliefs like yours. In fact, the greatest progress toward
individual freedom, a fuller understanding of the natural world and the
resultant improvement of the human condition, have taken place when
religious faith has taken a backseat to empiricism.
> The very belief that they held
> most dear, that God existed, was a giant lie, according to you.
I don't think belief in God is a lie or that theists are insincere.
Most, like yourself, are merely determined to believe in "a higher
power" despite the lack of evidence. Others are merely credulous. Or
apathetic.
In any event, we should all be grateful that those "previous
generations of Europeans" didn't take their religion all that
seriously.
> Please. You are giving me a good laugh. There is no reason for DNA to
> have a desperate desire to replicate.
Yes, there is. Mocking science is not going to help you win your case.
In fact, just as salt seeks to coalesce with water, certain amino acids
DO have a "desperate" desire to link with certain other amino acids.
> Try reading Behe, Lewis, Varghese, et al.
Christian apologists posing as philosophers and scientists? Come on.
Brushwork
----
[John appears to be reasonably independent of Mark, and Matthew and
Luke depend upon Q in addition to Mark. While Paul doesn't give
accounts like the Gospels, the Resurrection is covered in, e.g. 1 Cor
15. --clh]
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Killing yourself will send you to hell?
- Next by Date: Re: Faith and Skepticism
- Previous by thread: Re: Faith and Skepticism
- Next by thread: Re: Faith and Skepticism
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
