It seems to me that our major argument is about if there is or isn't fallibility in the testimonies in the Bible.
To make it clear, the human memory is not only fallible but more importantly, it is malleable.
Watch this short video as evidence of this. Please make special note as to how the witnesses can be lead to believe something they didn't see, even without realizing it. This happens every day. I'm not calling anyone an "ignorant ignoramus" as you have put it. We are all susceptible to it, even scientists.
THIS fallability is exactly why I won't accept eyewitness accounts as evidence. You MUST have better evidence for the truth of your claims then eyewitness accounts. This should be true not only as proving the existence of god, but also in the courtroom.
I acknowledge that the Bible has many accuracies as proven through actual archaeological evidence. But please, show me the actual archeological evidence that proves Jesus actually fulfilled the prophecies you have indicated. If all you have is the writings of the Bible, I'm sorry, but that's just not good enough.
Just as I acknowledge the Bible does contain accuracies as well as inaccuracies, I can put that argument to other texts like that of Socrates or Homer are probably not 100% accurate as well. I will full on acknowledge that what we know of Julius Caesar may not be completely true.
Also, as a role reversal for you Dan (and a side argument), if you're so sure that eyewitness testimony is proof, then please read the first few parts of the Book of Mormon, which has the testimony of 11 eyewitnesses to the truth of it's claims. Tell me why you would discount the eleven of them, and yet you accept the testimony of the four Apostles.
In defense of the "Eyewitnesses writing in the time of other eyewitnesses" argument:
The gospels of Matthew and Luke are based on and used the Gospel of Mark to make their writings. The Gospel of Mark was based on the DISCOURSES of the Apostle Peter.
The Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by Luke, who was most likely NOT an eyewitness to Jesus.
The Gospel of John is actually written based on the TESTIMONY of the Apostle John, and not by John himself.
NONE of the four gospels of Jesus' life were written by eyewitnesses. The stories of Jesus that we account as true are based off of stories told by others. The earliest estimation of the first of these writings was 70 years after the life of Christ.
I'm not talking about how many times the Bible has been translated. When I say the New Testament is like a game of telephone, I mean, the original works are a game of telephone. They are written by people who heard stories decades after the events took place. This is not an intellectually dishonest claim.
I acknowledge your "Two Fathers" argument, but like I said before, I think it's a band-aid response. This is the same for the Census argument. You are side-stepping the error by coming up with a way it "could" be true, thus keeping your argument valid. In the same vein, I could side step the stories of Jesus as the being metaphorical, and that's how they "could" be invalid. This is not proving you are wrong, but I ask you, if the gospels are true, why aren't they blatantly accurate? Why do we have to find a way to make them work, when it's much easier to explain that they are probably just sometimes wrong? Again, this argument is getting off topic, and I acknowledge it for later debate.
"So you really don't believe that eyewitness testimony is completely unreliable. Belief is not belief unless you're willing to live it out when even when it is inconvenient for you; otherwise what you have is pragmatism--whatever works at the time'll do. You are applying one standard for yourself and another for those who walked the roads and fields of Israel during the 1st century A.D.--eyewitness testimony is okay if it agrees with your position, but unreliable when it grates against your belief system."
No, I wouldn't tell someone, "Believe me, because I'm infallable." I never said that eyewitness testimony was completely unreliable. There's a difference between "completely unreliable" and "possibly innacurate". If you're talking about a court of law, of course I would use eyewitness testimony to prove my innocence. That's a matter of self preservation. But if I were on the other side, and I was trying to prosecute someone who had eyewitness testimony to prove their innocence, I just may use the argument against testimony to prosecute them. IS that pragmatism? Absolutely: YES. But does it actually PROVE innocence or guilt? Nope. That's the difference between "courtroom truth" and "actual truth" that I'm so desperately trying to define for you. We are not in a court of law trying to convince 12 people that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. We are actually trying to prove if Jesus fulfilled the prophecies.
I think Cory better argues about Joseph Smith than I can, so I'll leave that argument alone from here.
"I think Cory mentioned this in one of his earlier posts--you have set up an impossible criteria for believability, Mike. You cry "bullocks" because something sounds ridiculous without really trying to understand it. You ask for proof of historical events, but then reject a priori eyewitness testimony as recorded in the Bible…because it's in the Bible. Then you turn around and ask for corroborating accounts from outside of Scripture for every miracle recorded--but this would require more eyewitness testimony from superstitious folks who simply cannot tell fact from fiction. When a plausible explanation is given for reconciling the discrepancy, you call it a "Band-Aid answer" and dismiss it a priori as so much "poo-poo."
No, I don't want more eyewitness testimony at all. I want real evidence. I'm not dismissing it a priori because I don't want to believe. I'm dismissing it I don't accept testimony to be infallable evidence. I will accept eyewitness testimony when there is actual infallable evidence to back up what the testimony says. To go back to my cake in the box argument: I can question you if you say you have a cake in the box, but you can prove it by actually showing me the cake.
Using your example:You CAN prove to me that you had a smoothie for every morning last week. One piece of evidence would be to show me the receipts from the smoothie bar. Another, better piece of evidence would be to show me (forgive me for being disgusting) analysis of your stool samples which were collected throughout the week which show smoothie pieces. At least these pieces of evidence are based on proof that is much less fallible than human testimony.
I don't have an infinitely scalable wall. I will accept actual evidence. But human testimony is NOT that evidence.
Please excuse my "terseness" as well. My arguments may come off as attacks, but they are meant as a matter of discourse and not as personal attacks.
-Mike
No comments:
Post a Comment