Re: All Evidence is Subjective...

neverbetter wrote:
roger_pea...@xxxxxxxxxxx kirjoitti:

gesres@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Statement: Some (nonsupernatural) events described in the Gospels also
have no supporting references from other sources.

Response: To which I responded: "Argument from silence."

As far as I can tell, Raven1 isn't so much arguing that the events are
false, but they are unsupported. In other words, there is no
particular reason to belief them.

Sorry but I did not see your post until just now.

I have to say that I think he *is* arguing that the events are false
(or may be ignored), unless there are non-Christian sources that say
the same.

This argument, if so, would dispose of the majority of our knowledge of
antiquity. At the moment I'm reading the "Saturnalia" of Macrobius.
Few of the things in it are noted elsewhere, yet it is a compendium of
vital information about Roman society.

Does it describe any supernatural occurrences and miracles, and are you
prepared to take them as facts just because Saturnalia says so?

I hope you can see what is wrong with this terribly tired materialist
jeer. Do we apply the same logic to non-supernatural occurrences which
happen to be wrong?

The addition of the word 'supernatural' to the sentence does not give
it any logical value; it merely twists it into a jeer.

I'm merely pointing out that dismissing data on these sorts of grounds
is obscurantist.

I'll grant you that we can't declare that Christianity must be untrue
just because we don't find any non-Christians writing that they saw
Jesus rising out of his grave (and we'd label them as Christians anyway
if somebody did).

Your last comment is perceptive. John Wesley, at the start of his
journal, remarks that when he started to be abused, he thought that he
could defuse the anger by finding some close friends who could vouch
for him. Instead he found that these friends were merely labelled
'Methodists' in order to ignore them.

However, if we feel obliged to believe every single
uncorroborated thing that ever got written down by ancient scribes, no
matter how unlikely it seems, just because dismissing data on the
grounds of "it's not mentioned anywhere else and it might be untrue" is
obscurantist, we will end up with a fairly confusing worldview with
several mutually contradictory beliefs. There are lots of other
uncorroborated miracle stories and legends in other mythologies as well
as historical accounts.

Well, that's one extreme. I would not go so far, myself. But what is
not acceptable, surely, is to use prejudice as a system for selection?
If we got together to vet a text, we would have to start by asking,
"Your prejudice or mine?"!

Just returning to Macrobius, book 2 is a collection of witticisms, and
I can't resist one that I have just read. Apparently Caesar was
supposed to be bedding both Servilia and her daughter Tertia. During
the confiscations of property, Servilia bought one of the estates very
cheaply. Cicero remarked, "You'll better understand Servilia's bargain
if you know that Caesar was knocking off a third" (tertia='a third').

Cicero's remark and the circumstances are not otherwise preserved,
except in this 5th century text.

And it is entirely plausible that Cicero never said so, but that it was
an old joke or urban legend that Macrobius or others before him
attributed to Cicero.

Which piece of ancient evidence could not be dismissed on these or
similar grounds? This is why I think this type of argument must be
disallowed.

I think this discussion sort of misses the point anyway. Why is it so
important for Christians to find historical mentions of Jesus?

It isn't. It's taken up, as a rule, in response to demands that these
be produced.

We would have evidence that enabled us to *know* that he existed but it
wouldn't give us *faith*.

The two things are quite distinct, I agree. But we cannot rationally
have faith in something that is not actually true, you know.

If you trust the Bible, remember that it
never said "go hunt for historical references that mention Jesus and
then you'll know if it's true", it says God gives faith to you or
you'll find it in your heart if you're willing to ask Him. Therefore
the number of first century Roman references to Jesus should be largely
irrelevant to a Christian because he believes anyway and it's also
irrelevant in terms of proselytizing non-Christians because if the
Bible tells the truth, they won't be convinced by Roman authors, no
matter how many mentions there are.

There is much sense in this. My own answer would be that I happen to
be an ancient history buff, so am interested anyway. But I agree that
people can be saved without it.

However your comments called to mind some by Origen, dealing with the
issue of simple faith versus investigation, in Contra Celsum book 1,
chapter 9. Celsus is jeering at Christians for adopting the position
of just trusting in Jesus:

[Celsus] asserts that certain persons who do not wish either to give or
receive a reason for their belief, keep repeating, "Do not examine, but
believe!" and, "Your faith will save you!" And he alleges that such
also say, "The wisdom of this life is bad, but that foolishness is a
good thing!"

To which we have to answer, that if it were possible for all to leave
the business of life, and devote themselves to philosophy, no other
method ought to be adopted by any one, but this alone. For in the
Christian system also it will be found that there is, not to speak at
all arrogantly, at least as much of investigation into articles of
belief, and of explanation of dark sayings, occurring in the
prophetical writings, and of the parables in the Gospels, and of
countless other things, which either were narrated or enacted with a
symbolical signification, (as is the case with other systems).

But since the course alluded to is impossible, partly on account of the
necessities of life, partly on account of the weakness of men, as only
a very few individuals devote themselves earnestly to study, what
better method could be devised with a view of assisting the multitude,
than that which was delivered by Jesus to the heathen? And let us
inquire, with respect to the great multitude of believers, who have
washed away the mire of wickedness in which they formerly wallowed,
whether it were better for them to believe without a reason, and (so)
to have become reformed and improved in their habits, through the
belief that men are chastised for sins, and honoured for good works or
not to have allowed themselves to be converted on the strength of mere
faith, but have waited) until they could give themselves to a thorough
examination of the (necessary) reasons.

For it is manifest that, (on such a plan), all men, with very few
exceptions, would not obtain this (amelioration of conduct) which they
have obtained through a simple faith, but would continue to remain in
the practice of a wicked life.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-55.htm#P7691_1792276

All the best,

Roger Pearse

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Proof?
    ... our Lord Jesus Christ. ... corrupted, it can not boost you islamic faith, anyway. ... killing mediums in the Old Testament (Leviticus 20:27 and 1 Samuel ... (It is a sad fact that Christians in history have done this, ...
    (soc.culture.indonesia)
  • Re: All Evidence is Subjective...
    ... particular reason to belief them. ... Jesus rising out of his grave (and we'd label them as Christians anyway ... But since they're all uncorroborated and matters of faith, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: All Evidence is Subjective...
    ... Jesus rising out of his grave (and we'd label them as Christians anyway ... I don't think that there is absence of evidence. ... have faith in something that is not actually true, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: One Savior with many faces
    ... I can see people answering, yes, I agree, we do too, but His name is Jesus. ... rambling into principles and history of the Faith. ... of commitment to a savior of their own, be it Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha ... for most Christians, there is much of an emotional tie to Christ. ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • Re: Historical evidence?
    ... references was modified by Christians. ... Jesus lived and that the Christians were his followers. ... but none it contradicts the third century evidence. ...
    (soc.religion.christian)