Mikey,
Things have not panned out this weekend like I hoped and my reply to you on this thread will be delayed yet again. additionally, Dan went the direction I was headed (albeit with slighty different arguments) so much of my next post would have been repetious anyway. The sum total of this circumstance is that I will be replying with something different in the coming days. Sorry for *more* delay. You have been endlessly patient; one day I hope to reward it with a philosophically brilliant argument.
In the mean time, I want to quickly make some corrections, or clarifications as it were (regarding your post titled "the cake is a lie"):
#1 - This is the Scotsman fallacy to which I referred in my title. You are defining a term to such a degree that nothing will qualify (premise: miracles MUST violate the law of nature; observation: this miracle has a logical, natural explanation, however unlikely the condition is; conclusion: this miracle is not a miracle), thus the entire argument is moot. There is no evidence to suggest that miracles WILL violate the law of nature, only an assumption that they must. Thus, your premise is wrong, therefore your conclusion will be flawed, but you will hold to the premise nonetheless. Nothing that anyone could offer for consideration could ever meet your standards (since there is nothing to suggest that a miracle MUST violate nature, likely no miralce WILL violate nature) and therefore we have no ground to gain, in either direction, with this line of argumentation.
#2 - The arguments regarding death row as an aside, I am not making an appeal to popularity here; you are correct that if something is true it is true no matter how many people believe it or not. That said, it wouldn't matter if a million people said you had no cake in the box; if 2 people saw you do it and could testify that there was cake in the box, all the people in the world couldn't make such a thing untrue by not believing it. There is simply cake in the box and someone besides you said there is. Now whether or not people want to believe your eyewitnesses is a different story, and clearly this is where we are reaching our impasse. But as you explained to Dan, you would take the eyewitness testimony if it were on your behalf and meant the difference in your freedom (as I suspect we all would) but would argue the eyewitness testimony if it were against your case. In either situation, the more people there are who can testify of a truth, the higher the likelihood is that whatever thing they are testifying of is true so far as others are concerned. Really the more pertinent question is: what is the credibility of the witnesses? What is the crediblity of the source? These are the things that bear discussion, not the value of eyewitnesses themselves. But that is another post and another direction entirely, one that I intend to take up at some point in the future.
#3 - As for the Bible as a credible piece of historical literature, you have hashed this out with Dan fairly well. I hope to readdress your arguments within my own post, as I think there are a couple places that are being overlooked and/or over-generalized regarding the Bible and its credibility. Also (and I know we have tried to keep this religion-nuetral but I see no way around it - Christianity is what I know best as well and it's beginning to look like we'll have no alternative but to discuss it in more detail) much of my upcoming argument will rely on Christian works and authors as evidence (read: not proof) for the divinity of Christ and thus the existence of God (if we can prove Christ is who he said he was, it follows that God exists - there's my coming argument in a nutshell). Thus much of what I have to say parallels what you and Dan have discussed and will therefore be somewhat repetitious. But we'll see where we end up when we get there. My only point within this context is that the bible has more credibilty than you appear to be giving it credit for - even in light of certain discrepancies.
Nice work on your recent posts, btw. You have been holding out on me; I had no idea you were so well versed in Christianity.
This has already gone on too long. Good night.
Cory
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Objections re-objectified
Hey Dan! Wow! What a long retort! I apologize if this has taken me a while to respond.
1. I understand that the Bible was written over several centuries by many people. You still can't use it to justify itself. It doesn't matter if it was written by one person, or a hundred thousand people. You can't say the Bible is correct because it says it is. You MUST have outside evidence, of which, we just don't have.
2. You said, "I don't think you really believe this, Mike. Do you apply this standard to all historical works of non-fiction like, say...the history books you used in school or autobiographies of people like Abraham Lincoln? If you were arrested and tried for a crime you did not commit, would you ask the judge to dismiss the testimony of a dozen eye witnesses who are willing to testify under oath that you are innocent?"
Yes, I actually believe this. I addressed this in my post to Cory, but I'll address it again. If I felt that there was a discrepancy about a certain event in Lincoln's life while reading his biography... yes, I would want outside evidence of his claims. If I didn't believe that he gave the Emancipation Proclamation, I would look for newspaper articles written in that time which talked about his speech. It's an outside source given at the time of the speech. It may actually be more accurate than Lincoln would claim himself 30 years after giving the speech. In your courtroom example: of course I would take every possible measure to prove my innocence. But I would absolutely use that excuse if a dozen eyewitnesses were claiming I was guilty. But in this example, like I said in my previous post: There is a difference between courtroom "Proof" and "actual proof". We are talking about what's true, not what people THINK is true. Something is either true or it isn't, and it doesn't matter how many people believe it, that doesn't make it true.
3. You said, "By this line of reasoning, would you not have to then conclude that no scientist today really knows anything about anything because they argue, debate over thetheory du jour? You seem to be arguing that 'because there is debate, there can be no truth.'" There is clearly a difference between what story is to be considered true and what is to be considered myth, and what theory is backed by evidence and what theory isn't backed by evidence. You are making a false analogy. You are making a comparison where there just isn't one to be made. If the debate was about "What do we have EVIDENCE for, and what don't we have evidence for." And "whatever actually has evidence goes in, and the rest is left out." But that's not why things were left out. They were left out for the literary purposes you posited, which is not evidence based.
4. You said, "The key words in this objection, though, are "most likely". Most likely based upon what? This theory, and that's really all it is, has no compelling evidence to support it that I've ever seen, and it completely ignores the substantial differences between the account of Christ's life and the ancient legends/fables that are claimed to be their antecedents. If you'd like to discuss specific evidence to support this claim, I'd be more than happy to entertain it, but as it stands right now the topic bears no further comment."
I gave you the example of Jesus' descent into hades. I could give you the example of Jesus turning water into wine as an example of proving he's better than Dionysus (also known as Bacchus) the Greek god of wine who A. was born of a god and moral woman, B. Was killed as a Martyr only to come back through resurrection. C. His followers drank wine and ate bread which they believed became his blood and flesh. I can continue making comparisons of things attributed to Jesus with things attributed to the gods that came before him. I can also do the same with Christianity in general. I don't know what more proof you need. I would suggest you look into it yourself. Here is a Wikipedia article about Jesus compared to other gods.
It's true that these may just be similarities. But the difference between the similarities of the god stories and the scientific theories is that the god stories came hundreds of years before Christianity ever did. The people had plenty of time to have heard the stories of Dionysus, RA, Mythra, Krishna, and Horus. Have you ever heard of, "The passion of Osiris"? In making a comparison to Jesus' ability to hit the mark in terms of prophecy, there are just too many similarities for me to consider this to be a coincidence.
5. You said, "b) As I've already stated, the Bible was written by eye witnesses during the lifetime of other eye witnesses, and the apostles actually encouraged people to check out the story for themselves (1 Corinthians 15:1-11) just as Paul's traveling companion, Luke the physician did in writing his Gospel (John 1:1-4)." You are saying that the Bible was written by people who knew people that saw it? Sorry, but I've played the telephone game before, I know how that works out. By the way, let me tell you what happened to a friend of a friend of mine *insert urban legend here*.
"c) Of the 12 apostles (Judas was replaced by Paul), all but one of them (John) were murdered for their testimony (see http://poptop.hypermart.net/howdied.html). If what you are saying is true, then 11 men went from utter cowards, running when Jesus was arrested (Matthew 26:56) and cowering in a locked room "for fear of the Jews" after his crucifixion (John 20:19,20) to dying for their testimony that Christ has risen from the dead even though, as you say, they knew they were lying the whole time. " Well.. for one, we don't know how true this story is. And 2. I've heard from Cory that you're not LDS. Do you take that when Joseph Smith's didn't confess to making up the church on his deathbed as proof that the LDS Church is true? Just because someone doesn't confess to making it up doesn't mean they weren't wrong. As far as we know, they believed every word of what was preached and were still wrong.
Your numbers kind of died off after #5, but I'm going to keep that going.
6. Here's an article about the Roman censuses of that time period. Luke is not only wrong about Joseph having to go to Bethlehem. He's also wrong about what time period the census was taken.
"I have a friend who was born in Okinawa, Japan because his dad was in the military; but not long after his birth, his family came back to the State of Washington. Is my friend a liar for saying that he's from Washington when he was clearly born in Japan? Or is he a liar for saying that he was born in Japan when he clearly has spent nearly all of his life in Washington?" Your friend is not a liar, but he's ALSO not traveling to Japan to take the census there. I was born in Virginia, but I tell people I'm from Utah, because that's where I spent the majority of my life. When I take the census, I take it where I live. That's the point. The whole point of the census is to tell about current demographics in our country. If I traveled to Virginia to take the census, then it would skew not only Virginia's findings, but Utah's as well. Why would Joseph travel to Bethlehem to take the census when it would clearly skew the numbers for both Bethlehem and Nazareth? It just doesn't make sense.
7. "The discrepancy between Matthew's and Luke's genealogies comes from their starting/ending points. Matthew, writing to demonstrate that Jesus is the promised Messiah, demonstrates Christ's right to be called the King of the Jews (as a descendant of David)--it's his legal ancestry as the adopted son of Joseph. Luke's genealogy in chapter 3 of his gospel likely traces Jesus' lineage back through Mary all the way back to Adam, but there are other possibilities as well. I've only just now skimmed it, but an article on Wikipedia discusses a half-dozen or so explanations for the discrepancy." You are admitting that there's a discrepancy, which is all the point I was trying to make. Obviously you understand that there is room for error in the Bible. And since we can't know how many errors they are, we can't assume anything is absolutely true. There is obviously an explanation for the error, which you linked to, but it is obvious proof that the Bible isn't 100% accurate.
Well, thanks Dan for the spirited debate! You and Cory are certainly keeping me on my toes!
-Mike
1. I understand that the Bible was written over several centuries by many people. You still can't use it to justify itself. It doesn't matter if it was written by one person, or a hundred thousand people. You can't say the Bible is correct because it says it is. You MUST have outside evidence, of which, we just don't have.
2. You said, "I don't think you really believe this, Mike. Do you apply this standard to all historical works of non-fiction like, say...the history books you used in school or autobiographies of people like Abraham Lincoln? If you were arrested and tried for a crime you did not commit, would you ask the judge to dismiss the testimony of a dozen eye witnesses who are willing to testify under oath that you are innocent?"
Yes, I actually believe this. I addressed this in my post to Cory, but I'll address it again. If I felt that there was a discrepancy about a certain event in Lincoln's life while reading his biography... yes, I would want outside evidence of his claims. If I didn't believe that he gave the Emancipation Proclamation, I would look for newspaper articles written in that time which talked about his speech. It's an outside source given at the time of the speech. It may actually be more accurate than Lincoln would claim himself 30 years after giving the speech. In your courtroom example: of course I would take every possible measure to prove my innocence. But I would absolutely use that excuse if a dozen eyewitnesses were claiming I was guilty. But in this example, like I said in my previous post: There is a difference between courtroom "Proof" and "actual proof". We are talking about what's true, not what people THINK is true. Something is either true or it isn't, and it doesn't matter how many people believe it, that doesn't make it true.
3. You said, "By this line of reasoning, would you not have to then conclude that no scientist today really knows anything about anything because they argue, debate over thetheory du jour? You seem to be arguing that 'because there is debate, there can be no truth.'" There is clearly a difference between what story is to be considered true and what is to be considered myth, and what theory is backed by evidence and what theory isn't backed by evidence. You are making a false analogy. You are making a comparison where there just isn't one to be made. If the debate was about "What do we have EVIDENCE for, and what don't we have evidence for." And "whatever actually has evidence goes in, and the rest is left out." But that's not why things were left out. They were left out for the literary purposes you posited, which is not evidence based.
4. You said, "The key words in this objection, though, are "most likely". Most likely based upon what? This theory, and that's really all it is, has no compelling evidence to support it that I've ever seen, and it completely ignores the substantial differences between the account of Christ's life and the ancient legends/fables that are claimed to be their antecedents. If you'd like to discuss specific evidence to support this claim, I'd be more than happy to entertain it, but as it stands right now the topic bears no further comment."
I gave you the example of Jesus' descent into hades. I could give you the example of Jesus turning water into wine as an example of proving he's better than Dionysus (also known as Bacchus) the Greek god of wine who A. was born of a god and moral woman, B. Was killed as a Martyr only to come back through resurrection. C. His followers drank wine and ate bread which they believed became his blood and flesh. I can continue making comparisons of things attributed to Jesus with things attributed to the gods that came before him. I can also do the same with Christianity in general. I don't know what more proof you need. I would suggest you look into it yourself. Here is a Wikipedia article about Jesus compared to other gods.
It's true that these may just be similarities. But the difference between the similarities of the god stories and the scientific theories is that the god stories came hundreds of years before Christianity ever did. The people had plenty of time to have heard the stories of Dionysus, RA, Mythra, Krishna, and Horus. Have you ever heard of, "The passion of Osiris"? In making a comparison to Jesus' ability to hit the mark in terms of prophecy, there are just too many similarities for me to consider this to be a coincidence.
5. You said, "b) As I've already stated, the Bible was written by eye witnesses during the lifetime of other eye witnesses, and the apostles actually encouraged people to check out the story for themselves (1 Corinthians 15:1-11) just as Paul's traveling companion, Luke the physician did in writing his Gospel (John 1:1-4)." You are saying that the Bible was written by people who knew people that saw it? Sorry, but I've played the telephone game before, I know how that works out. By the way, let me tell you what happened to a friend of a friend of mine *insert urban legend here*.
"c) Of the 12 apostles (Judas was replaced by Paul), all but one of them (John) were murdered for their testimony (see http://poptop.hypermart.net/howdied.html). If what you are saying is true, then 11 men went from utter cowards, running when Jesus was arrested (Matthew 26:56) and cowering in a locked room "for fear of the Jews" after his crucifixion (John 20:19,20) to dying for their testimony that Christ has risen from the dead even though, as you say, they knew they were lying the whole time. " Well.. for one, we don't know how true this story is. And 2. I've heard from Cory that you're not LDS. Do you take that when Joseph Smith's didn't confess to making up the church on his deathbed as proof that the LDS Church is true? Just because someone doesn't confess to making it up doesn't mean they weren't wrong. As far as we know, they believed every word of what was preached and were still wrong.
Your numbers kind of died off after #5, but I'm going to keep that going.
6. Here's an article about the Roman censuses of that time period. Luke is not only wrong about Joseph having to go to Bethlehem. He's also wrong about what time period the census was taken.
"I have a friend who was born in Okinawa, Japan because his dad was in the military; but not long after his birth, his family came back to the State of Washington. Is my friend a liar for saying that he's from Washington when he was clearly born in Japan? Or is he a liar for saying that he was born in Japan when he clearly has spent nearly all of his life in Washington?" Your friend is not a liar, but he's ALSO not traveling to Japan to take the census there. I was born in Virginia, but I tell people I'm from Utah, because that's where I spent the majority of my life. When I take the census, I take it where I live. That's the point. The whole point of the census is to tell about current demographics in our country. If I traveled to Virginia to take the census, then it would skew not only Virginia's findings, but Utah's as well. Why would Joseph travel to Bethlehem to take the census when it would clearly skew the numbers for both Bethlehem and Nazareth? It just doesn't make sense.
7. "The discrepancy between Matthew's and Luke's genealogies comes from their starting/ending points. Matthew, writing to demonstrate that Jesus is the promised Messiah, demonstrates Christ's right to be called the King of the Jews (as a descendant of David)--it's his legal ancestry as the adopted son of Joseph. Luke's genealogy in chapter 3 of his gospel likely traces Jesus' lineage back through Mary all the way back to Adam, but there are other possibilities as well. I've only just now skimmed it, but an article on Wikipedia discusses a half-dozen or so explanations for the discrepancy." You are admitting that there's a discrepancy, which is all the point I was trying to make. Obviously you understand that there is room for error in the Bible. And since we can't know how many errors they are, we can't assume anything is absolutely true. There is obviously an explanation for the error, which you linked to, but it is obvious proof that the Bible isn't 100% accurate.
Well, thanks Dan for the spirited debate! You and Cory are certainly keeping me on my toes!
-Mike
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Objections Answered
Hi, Mike.
I can surely appreciate your desire to keep the discussion of the existence of God as religion-neutral as possible. After all, we don't want to get into a "my religion can kick your religion's butt any day" match. However, since the topic of prophesy was broached, and since I believe it's possible to demonstrate that the Bible is unique in this regard (and other regards as well), it seemed fitting to bring it to the table. Also, as arguably the most scrutinized book in history, it is never far from discussions between atheists and theists, I didn't think you'd have a problem with it. :-)
So I don't miss any of your points, I'd like to address your objects in a point-by-point fashion.
1. You are using the Bible to prove the validity of itself. This is circular reasoning. You are basically saying, "Jesus of the Bible is true, because the Bible says so."
I'm not seeing the circularity. I don't want to insult your intelligence, but neither do I want to take things for granted, so please bear with me if the following is old hat to you.
I think that perhaps the reason you feel the argument is circular is that perhaps you believe that the Bible was written by one individual or by a group of contemporaries. If we were to present another "holy" book that was written in this manner, then I think you might begin to have a case for the argument of circular reasoning.
But remember that the Bible is actually a collection of 66 books that were written in three different languages by 40 or so eye witnesses during the lifetime of other eye witnesses over the course of some 1,500 years--most of the authors never met each other. These authors lived on three different continents and hailed from all walks of life; among its authors are kings, shepherds, farmers, fishermen, a doctor, and a Hebrew scholar.
It's also important to remember that there was a 400 year gap between the last book of the OT (Malachi) and the advent of Jesus Christ. So really what you have here is not "the Bible" testifying to its own validity, but we have multiple Old Testament prophets who claimed to have received the oracles of God making predictions about One who wasn't born until hundreds or thousands of years later (e.g. David's vivid portrayal of the crucifixion in Psalm 22 was written roughly 1,000 years before Christ was born). The Dead Sea scrolls, dated to about the 2nd century BC, bear an air tight testimony to the accuracy and preservation of the Old Testament text that we have in our Bibles today--so there is no room for revisionism (barring interference from a teenager in a tricked-out DeLorean).
Now, the charge is usually leveled that Christ did things just to fulfill prophesy or that his followers directly "massaged" the facts to paint a picture of Christ as having fulfilled some or all of these prophesies. I can address that in a follow-up post if you like, but I think the present post is going to be long enough without tackling that issue, too.
So, if using the specific, written prophesies of individuals who lived no less than 400 years before Christ leaves me open to the charge of circular reasoning simply by virtue of these writings being bound under the same cover, I'm afraid I'll have to plead guilty as charged.
2. As I posted in a previous post, the fallibility of human recollection dictates that human testimony, however earnest, is not a valid form of proof that something happened the way that they said it did. This being said, and considering the Gospels of Jesus weren't written until decades after his death, I have a hard time believing the accuracies of their claims.
I don't think you really believe this, Mike. Do you apply this standard to all historical works of non-fiction like, say...the history books you used in school or autobiographies of people like Abraham Lincoln? If you were arrested and tried for a crime you did not commit, would you ask the judge to dismiss the testimony of a dozen eye witnesses who are willing to testify under oath that you are innocent?
You are right when you say that human recollection is easily corrupted. This is explicitly taught in the Bible:
The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes
and examines him. (Proverbs 18:17)
One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime
or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established
by the testimony of two or three witnesses. (Deut. 19:5)
...and this is the reason why we cross-examine witnesses in the court room. Does this guarantee absolute justice 100% of the time? No, it doesn't, because we're still dealing with fallible people making fallible judgements based upon the testimony of other fallible people. However, it's quite a leap from "eye witnesses may be corrupted" to "all eye witnesses are unreliable"--this is the fallacy of hasty generalization.
3. The Gnostic Text, Apocrypha, and the convening of the Council of Nicaea, are just a few pieces of evidence that we have that in the first few hundred years after Jesus' death, early Christians were still debating what was true, what wasn't, what was going to be considered dogma, what was going to be in the Bible, and what was going to be left out and forgotten. This is obvious evidence that what is in the New Testament is not necessarily accurate to what actually happened.
By this line of reasoning, would you not have to then conclude that no scientist today really knows anything about anything because they argue, debate over the theory du jour? You seem to be arguing that "because there is debate, there can be no truth."
We actually don't even have to wait for a couple of hundred years after Christ's death and resurrection before we start seeing false doctrine (i.e. doctrine that flatly contradicted the plain teachings of Christ and the Twelve Apostles). For example, Paul wrote Galatians between 53 and 57 AD in refutation of the false gospel of the Judaizers (who were teaching that Christians had to, among other things, be circumsized before they could be true Christians). The Apostle John wrote 1 John between 85 and 95 AD to refute the gnostics of his day.
The reason the texts you cite were not considered canonical (even though some, like the books of the Maccabees have historical value) can be summed up in six quick points which I quote from The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (McDowell, p. 25,26):
4. As in my previous post, the stories of Jesus are very similar to many Messiah-gods of older religions. The stories of Jesus are most likely amalgamations of the stories of the older gods as a series of "one-upmanship" stories told as if to say, "My God is better than your god" to those of differing beliefs. [...snip...]
Similarities do not necessarily imply correlation or relationship. Scientific history is replete with example of men who didn't know each other who made essentially the same discovery completely independent of one another. Just because two men discover the two phenomenon at the same time does not necessarily imply collusion.
The key words in this objection, though, are "most likely". Most likely based upon what? This theory, and that's really all it is, has no compelling evidence to support it that I've ever seen, and it completely ignores the substantial differences between the account of Christ's life and the ancient legends/fables that are claimed to be their antecedents. If you'd like to discuss specific evidence to support this claim, I'd be more than happy to entertain it, but as it stands right now the topic bears no further comment.
5. Considering the amount of time it took for the Christian church to become organized, and the amount of arguing within the early Church about what stories were true and what weren't, I find it far more likely that the stories of Jesus were written to make him sound like the one foretold in the prophecies, and not that he actually fulfilled the prophecies. If that is the case (which I believe it is) then it makes perfect sense that Jesus would fulfill such a staggeringly impossible amount of foretold events. He fulfills the prophecies because the stories we have of him wrote of him to specifically fulfill those prophecies.
There are several reasons why this objection simply doesn't hold any water:
a) The amount of debate over "what stories were true and what weren't" is grossly overstated. There was actually very little debate in the early church about which writings were canonical and which weren't. Please refer back to my response on your objection #3.
b) As I've already stated, the Bible was written by eye witnesses during the lifetime of other eye witnesses, and the apostles actually encouraged people to check out the story for themselves (1 Corinthians 15:1-11) just as Paul's traveling companion, Luke the physician did in writing his Gospel (John 1:1-4).
c) Of the 12 apostles (Judas was replaced by Paul), all but one of them (John) were murdered for their testimony (see http://poptop.hypermart.net/howdied.html). If what you are saying is true, then 11 men went from utter cowards, running when Jesus was arrested (Matthew 26:56) and cowering in a locked room "for fear of the Jews" after his crucifixion (John 20:19,20) to dying for their testimony that Christ has risen from the dead even though, as you say, they knew they were lying the whole time.
Does it really seem likely to you that a dozen men would have their lives so radically transformed (remember, Paul was busily persecuting and executing Christians before he met Jesus on the road to Damascus--he wound up authoring about 2/3rds of the New Testament!) and die for what they know to be untrue?
Case in point #10 from your list: The messiah is born in Bethlehem. Jesus was from Nazareth. It seems terribly convenient to me that Joseph and Mary traveled many days to go to Bethlehem at the time Jesus was born. The reasoning behind this is because there was to be a census. We have enough documentation from the Roman records at that time to know that they would not have required people to go to the town of their ancestors for a census. In fact, that doesn't even make any sense. Sending people elsewhere to take a census ruins the results of the census and is in direct opposition to the whole reason the census is used. This is clearly a band-aid answer to cover up the fact that Jesus is a Nazarene and yet still supposedly the foretold Messiah.
Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean there aren't good reasons for it--kinda like the way out of Chinese finger cuffs seems totally counter-intuitive to those who first encounter them. But once you understand how they work, there's no problem getting out of 'em. If you would like to present some specific documentation from the Roman records that support your claim, I'd be more than happy to look 'em over.
I'm not sure what the problem is here. Micah 5:2 says the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem and that's what happened: Matt. 2:1,4,5; Luke 2:4-7; John 7:42. Joseph is warned in a dream that Herod was on the rampage and that he should take his family to Egypt (Matthew 2:13,14). After Herod died, they returned from Egypt (Matthew 2:15) in fulfillment of another prophesy made hundreds of years before (Hosea 11:1). But he couldn't go back to Judea because Herod's son Archelaus was in power, so the family settled in a little town in the region of Galilee known as Nazareth (Matthew 2:19ff). I have a friend who was born in Okinawa, Japan because his dad was in the military; but not long after his birth, his family came back to the State of Washington. Is my friend a liar for saying that he's from Washington when he was clearly born in Japan? Or is he a liar for saying that he was born in Japan when he clearly has spent nearly all of his life in Washington?
Case in point #9 from your list: Jesus is from the house of David: Is Jesus the son of God? If so, he's not descended from Joseph. Is he descended from Joseph? If so.... Is Joseph from the house of David? He apparently has two fathers: Jacob (Matthew 1:16) and Heli (Luke 3:23). This two-fathers example alone shows the fallibility of the claims by the New Testament. Now that we've established that the New Testament could be wrong... we have no way of knowing what ELSE could be wrong. Yet again, another reason that I can't accept the Bible as accurate proof of anything.
"Though the phrase 'son of' can mean 'offspring of,' it also carries the meaning, 'of the order of.' Thus in the Old Testament 'sons of the prophets' meant of the order of prophets (1 Kings 20:35), and 'sons of the singers' meant of the order of the singers (Nehemiah 12:28). The designation 'Son of God' when used of our Lord means of the order of God and is a strong and clear claim to full Deity." (Charles Ryrie, quoted by McDowell, p. 152).
The discrepancy between Matthew's and Luke's genealogies comes from their starting/ending points. Matthew, writing to demonstrate that Jesus is the promised Messiah, demonstrates Christ's right to be called the King of the Jews (as a descendant of David)--it's his legal ancestry as the adopted son of Joseph. Luke's genealogy in chapter 3 of his gospel likely traces Jesus' lineage back through Mary all the way back to Adam, but there are other possibilities as well. I've only just now skimmed it, but an article on Wikipedia discusses a half-dozen or so explanations for the discrepancy.
Again, you've got to remember that when reading about events in the Bible we're reading literature that comes from and documents events that occurred in a culture very different than our own. Just because we don't immediately "grok" what's said or it seems foreign to us, remember that there's a good reason it seems foreign--it is foreign. This is why when we go to the text (any text, really) we employ a historical-grammatical hermeneutic. If we don't consider both the cultural context as well as the grammatical context of passages under examination, we're almost surely going to butcher the text and get out of it what was never intended.
I could go on and on.
Cool! So can I. Bring 'em! I love this stuff. :-)
-dan
I can surely appreciate your desire to keep the discussion of the existence of God as religion-neutral as possible. After all, we don't want to get into a "my religion can kick your religion's butt any day" match. However, since the topic of prophesy was broached, and since I believe it's possible to demonstrate that the Bible is unique in this regard (and other regards as well), it seemed fitting to bring it to the table. Also, as arguably the most scrutinized book in history, it is never far from discussions between atheists and theists, I didn't think you'd have a problem with it. :-)
So I don't miss any of your points, I'd like to address your objects in a point-by-point fashion.
1. You are using the Bible to prove the validity of itself. This is circular reasoning. You are basically saying, "Jesus of the Bible is true, because the Bible says so."
I'm not seeing the circularity. I don't want to insult your intelligence, but neither do I want to take things for granted, so please bear with me if the following is old hat to you.
I think that perhaps the reason you feel the argument is circular is that perhaps you believe that the Bible was written by one individual or by a group of contemporaries. If we were to present another "holy" book that was written in this manner, then I think you might begin to have a case for the argument of circular reasoning.
But remember that the Bible is actually a collection of 66 books that were written in three different languages by 40 or so eye witnesses during the lifetime of other eye witnesses over the course of some 1,500 years--most of the authors never met each other. These authors lived on three different continents and hailed from all walks of life; among its authors are kings, shepherds, farmers, fishermen, a doctor, and a Hebrew scholar.
It's also important to remember that there was a 400 year gap between the last book of the OT (Malachi) and the advent of Jesus Christ. So really what you have here is not "the Bible" testifying to its own validity, but we have multiple Old Testament prophets who claimed to have received the oracles of God making predictions about One who wasn't born until hundreds or thousands of years later (e.g. David's vivid portrayal of the crucifixion in Psalm 22 was written roughly 1,000 years before Christ was born). The Dead Sea scrolls, dated to about the 2nd century BC, bear an air tight testimony to the accuracy and preservation of the Old Testament text that we have in our Bibles today--so there is no room for revisionism (barring interference from a teenager in a tricked-out DeLorean).
Now, the charge is usually leveled that Christ did things just to fulfill prophesy or that his followers directly "massaged" the facts to paint a picture of Christ as having fulfilled some or all of these prophesies. I can address that in a follow-up post if you like, but I think the present post is going to be long enough without tackling that issue, too.
So, if using the specific, written prophesies of individuals who lived no less than 400 years before Christ leaves me open to the charge of circular reasoning simply by virtue of these writings being bound under the same cover, I'm afraid I'll have to plead guilty as charged.
2. As I posted in a previous post, the fallibility of human recollection dictates that human testimony, however earnest, is not a valid form of proof that something happened the way that they said it did. This being said, and considering the Gospels of Jesus weren't written until decades after his death, I have a hard time believing the accuracies of their claims.
I don't think you really believe this, Mike. Do you apply this standard to all historical works of non-fiction like, say...the history books you used in school or autobiographies of people like Abraham Lincoln? If you were arrested and tried for a crime you did not commit, would you ask the judge to dismiss the testimony of a dozen eye witnesses who are willing to testify under oath that you are innocent?
You are right when you say that human recollection is easily corrupted. This is explicitly taught in the Bible:
The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes
and examines him. (Proverbs 18:17)
One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime
or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established
by the testimony of two or three witnesses. (Deut. 19:5)
...and this is the reason why we cross-examine witnesses in the court room. Does this guarantee absolute justice 100% of the time? No, it doesn't, because we're still dealing with fallible people making fallible judgements based upon the testimony of other fallible people. However, it's quite a leap from "eye witnesses may be corrupted" to "all eye witnesses are unreliable"--this is the fallacy of hasty generalization.
3. The Gnostic Text, Apocrypha, and the convening of the Council of Nicaea, are just a few pieces of evidence that we have that in the first few hundred years after Jesus' death, early Christians were still debating what was true, what wasn't, what was going to be considered dogma, what was going to be in the Bible, and what was going to be left out and forgotten. This is obvious evidence that what is in the New Testament is not necessarily accurate to what actually happened.
By this line of reasoning, would you not have to then conclude that no scientist today really knows anything about anything because they argue, debate over the theory du jour? You seem to be arguing that "because there is debate, there can be no truth."
We actually don't even have to wait for a couple of hundred years after Christ's death and resurrection before we start seeing false doctrine (i.e. doctrine that flatly contradicted the plain teachings of Christ and the Twelve Apostles). For example, Paul wrote Galatians between 53 and 57 AD in refutation of the false gospel of the Judaizers (who were teaching that Christians had to, among other things, be circumsized before they could be true Christians). The Apostle John wrote 1 John between 85 and 95 AD to refute the gnostics of his day.
The reason the texts you cite were not considered canonical (even though some, like the books of the Maccabees have historical value) can be summed up in six quick points which I quote from The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (McDowell, p. 25,26):
- None of them enjoyed any more than a temporary or local recognition.
- Most of them never did have anything more than a semi-canonical status, being appended to various manuscripts or mentioned in tables of contents.
- No major canon or church council included them as inspired books of the New Testament.
- The limited acceptance enjoyed by most of these books is attributable to the fact that they attached themselves to references in canonical books (e.g. Laodiceans to Colossians 4:16), because of their alleged apostolic authorship (e.g. Acts of Paul).
4. As in my previous post, the stories of Jesus are very similar to many Messiah-gods of older religions. The stories of Jesus are most likely amalgamations of the stories of the older gods as a series of "one-upmanship" stories told as if to say, "My God is better than your god" to those of differing beliefs. [...snip...]
Similarities do not necessarily imply correlation or relationship. Scientific history is replete with example of men who didn't know each other who made essentially the same discovery completely independent of one another. Just because two men discover the two phenomenon at the same time does not necessarily imply collusion.
The key words in this objection, though, are "most likely". Most likely based upon what? This theory, and that's really all it is, has no compelling evidence to support it that I've ever seen, and it completely ignores the substantial differences between the account of Christ's life and the ancient legends/fables that are claimed to be their antecedents. If you'd like to discuss specific evidence to support this claim, I'd be more than happy to entertain it, but as it stands right now the topic bears no further comment.
5. Considering the amount of time it took for the Christian church to become organized, and the amount of arguing within the early Church about what stories were true and what weren't, I find it far more likely that the stories of Jesus were written to make him sound like the one foretold in the prophecies, and not that he actually fulfilled the prophecies. If that is the case (which I believe it is) then it makes perfect sense that Jesus would fulfill such a staggeringly impossible amount of foretold events. He fulfills the prophecies because the stories we have of him wrote of him to specifically fulfill those prophecies.
There are several reasons why this objection simply doesn't hold any water:
a) The amount of debate over "what stories were true and what weren't" is grossly overstated. There was actually very little debate in the early church about which writings were canonical and which weren't. Please refer back to my response on your objection #3.
b) As I've already stated, the Bible was written by eye witnesses during the lifetime of other eye witnesses, and the apostles actually encouraged people to check out the story for themselves (1 Corinthians 15:1-11) just as Paul's traveling companion, Luke the physician did in writing his Gospel (John 1:1-4).
c) Of the 12 apostles (Judas was replaced by Paul), all but one of them (John) were murdered for their testimony (see http://poptop.hypermart.net/howdied.html). If what you are saying is true, then 11 men went from utter cowards, running when Jesus was arrested (Matthew 26:56) and cowering in a locked room "for fear of the Jews" after his crucifixion (John 20:19,20) to dying for their testimony that Christ has risen from the dead even though, as you say, they knew they were lying the whole time.
Does it really seem likely to you that a dozen men would have their lives so radically transformed (remember, Paul was busily persecuting and executing Christians before he met Jesus on the road to Damascus--he wound up authoring about 2/3rds of the New Testament!) and die for what they know to be untrue?
Case in point #10 from your list: The messiah is born in Bethlehem. Jesus was from Nazareth. It seems terribly convenient to me that Joseph and Mary traveled many days to go to Bethlehem at the time Jesus was born. The reasoning behind this is because there was to be a census. We have enough documentation from the Roman records at that time to know that they would not have required people to go to the town of their ancestors for a census. In fact, that doesn't even make any sense. Sending people elsewhere to take a census ruins the results of the census and is in direct opposition to the whole reason the census is used. This is clearly a band-aid answer to cover up the fact that Jesus is a Nazarene and yet still supposedly the foretold Messiah.
Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean there aren't good reasons for it--kinda like the way out of Chinese finger cuffs seems totally counter-intuitive to those who first encounter them. But once you understand how they work, there's no problem getting out of 'em. If you would like to present some specific documentation from the Roman records that support your claim, I'd be more than happy to look 'em over.
I'm not sure what the problem is here. Micah 5:2 says the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem and that's what happened: Matt. 2:1,4,5; Luke 2:4-7; John 7:42. Joseph is warned in a dream that Herod was on the rampage and that he should take his family to Egypt (Matthew 2:13,14). After Herod died, they returned from Egypt (Matthew 2:15) in fulfillment of another prophesy made hundreds of years before (Hosea 11:1). But he couldn't go back to Judea because Herod's son Archelaus was in power, so the family settled in a little town in the region of Galilee known as Nazareth (Matthew 2:19ff). I have a friend who was born in Okinawa, Japan because his dad was in the military; but not long after his birth, his family came back to the State of Washington. Is my friend a liar for saying that he's from Washington when he was clearly born in Japan? Or is he a liar for saying that he was born in Japan when he clearly has spent nearly all of his life in Washington?
Case in point #9 from your list: Jesus is from the house of David: Is Jesus the son of God? If so, he's not descended from Joseph. Is he descended from Joseph? If so.... Is Joseph from the house of David? He apparently has two fathers: Jacob (Matthew 1:16) and Heli (Luke 3:23). This two-fathers example alone shows the fallibility of the claims by the New Testament. Now that we've established that the New Testament could be wrong... we have no way of knowing what ELSE could be wrong. Yet again, another reason that I can't accept the Bible as accurate proof of anything.
"Though the phrase 'son of' can mean 'offspring of,' it also carries the meaning, 'of the order of.' Thus in the Old Testament 'sons of the prophets' meant of the order of prophets (1 Kings 20:35), and 'sons of the singers' meant of the order of the singers (Nehemiah 12:28). The designation 'Son of God' when used of our Lord means of the order of God and is a strong and clear claim to full Deity." (Charles Ryrie, quoted by McDowell, p. 152).
The discrepancy between Matthew's and Luke's genealogies comes from their starting/ending points. Matthew, writing to demonstrate that Jesus is the promised Messiah, demonstrates Christ's right to be called the King of the Jews (as a descendant of David)--it's his legal ancestry as the adopted son of Joseph. Luke's genealogy in chapter 3 of his gospel likely traces Jesus' lineage back through Mary all the way back to Adam, but there are other possibilities as well. I've only just now skimmed it, but an article on Wikipedia discusses a half-dozen or so explanations for the discrepancy.
Again, you've got to remember that when reading about events in the Bible we're reading literature that comes from and documents events that occurred in a culture very different than our own. Just because we don't immediately "grok" what's said or it seems foreign to us, remember that there's a good reason it seems foreign--it is foreign. This is why when we go to the text (any text, really) we employ a historical-grammatical hermeneutic. If we don't consider both the cultural context as well as the grammatical context of passages under examination, we're almost surely going to butcher the text and get out of it what was never intended.
I could go on and on.
Cool! So can I. Bring 'em! I love this stuff. :-)
-dan
Christ and prophecy
Dan,
Thank you for your post. Considering it's your first one, welcome to joining our forum.
I generally try to keep my arguments as religion neutral as possible. Not because it's not valid, but because none of us is an expert in every religion, especially when it is not our own religion. I couldn't tell you anything about the prophecies of the Hindus, Muslims, Raeilians, Scientologists, etc.. and someone could argue a point of theirs that I just don't know enough about to make an informed rebuttal.
Of course, there are times when staying neutral just isn't going to happen, especially when talking about prophecies. I'm hoping in the future to make some posts directly questioning Christianity and some more specifically questioning the LDS religion. In turn, I hope you guys will question my beliefs as well.
Luckily, I probably know most about Christianity, so I'll try to address your post here.
I agree, your statistics are staggering. If Jesus fulfilled all of those prophecies, it would be very compelling evidence. Unfortunately, I have a few problems with your arguments.
1. You are using the Bible to prove the validity of itself. This is circular reasoning. You are basically saying, "Jesus of the Bible is true, because the Bible says so." It's not proving anything. Your entire argument gets thrown out the window if it turns out that the Bible happens to be inaccurate.
2. As I posted in a previous post, the fallibility of human recollection dictates that human testimony, however earnest, is not a valid form of proof that something happened the way that they said it did. This being said, and considering the Gospels of Jesus weren't written until decades after his death, I have a hard time believing the accuracies of their claims.
3. The Gnostic Text, Apocrypha, and the convening of the Council of Nicaea, are just a few pieces of evidence that we have that in the first few hundred years after Jesus' death, early Christians were still debating what was true, what wasn't, what was going to be considered dogma, what was going to be in the Bible, and what was going to be left out and forgotten. This is obvious evidence that what is in the New Testament is not necessarily accurate to what actually happened.
4. As in my previous post, the stories of Jesus are very similar to many Messiah-gods of older religions. The stories of Jesus are most likely amalgamations of the stories of the older gods as a series of "one-upmanship" stories told as if to say, "My God is better than your god" to those of differing beliefs. Case in point is the story of Jesus' "Harrowing of Hell" to release all of the old dead spirits. (Eluded to in Ephesians 4:9 but also in the Apocryphal: Gospel of Nicodemus) Originally, this was Jesus' descent into Hades (the afterlife of Greek mythology). This story isn't literal so much as it was a way for the early Christian's to claim their God has dominion over even the Gods of other religions.
5. Considering the amount of time it took for the Christian church to become organized, and the amount of arguing within the early Church about what stories were true and what weren't, I find it far more likely that the stories of Jesus were written to make him sound like the one foretold in the prophecies, and not that he actually fulfilled the prophecies. If that is the case (which I believe it is) then it makes perfect sense that Jesus would fulfill such a staggeringly impossible amount of foretold events. He fulfills the prophecies because the stories we have of him wrote of him to specifically fulfill those prophecies.
Case in point #10 from your list: The messiah is born in Bethlehem. Jesus was from Nazareth. It seems terribly convenient to me that Joseph and Mary traveled many days to go to Bethlehem at the time Jesus was born. The reasoning behind this is because there was to be a census. We have enough documentation from the Roman records at that time to know that they would not have required people to go to the town of their ancestors for a census. In fact, that doesn't even make any sense. Sending people elsewhere to take a census ruins the results of the census and is in direct opposition to the whole reason the census is used. This is clearly a band-aid answer to cover up the fact that Jesus is a Nazarene and yet still supposedly the foretold Messiah.
Case in point #9 from your list: Jesus is from the house of David: Is Jesus the son of God? If so, he's not descended from Joseph. Is he descended from Joseph? If so.... Is Joseph from the house of David? He apparently has two fathers: Jacob (Matthew 1:16) and Heli (Luke 3:23). This two-fathers example alone shows the fallibility of the claims by the New Testament. Now that we've established that the New Testament could be wrong... we have no way of knowing what ELSE could be wrong. Yet again, another reason that I can't accept the Bible as accurate proof of anything.
I could go on and on.
I'm sure that you will definitely disagree, and I'm looking forward to your arguments. Thanks for your post Dan!
-Mike
Thank you for your post. Considering it's your first one, welcome to joining our forum.
I generally try to keep my arguments as religion neutral as possible. Not because it's not valid, but because none of us is an expert in every religion, especially when it is not our own religion. I couldn't tell you anything about the prophecies of the Hindus, Muslims, Raeilians, Scientologists, etc.. and someone could argue a point of theirs that I just don't know enough about to make an informed rebuttal.
Of course, there are times when staying neutral just isn't going to happen, especially when talking about prophecies. I'm hoping in the future to make some posts directly questioning Christianity and some more specifically questioning the LDS religion. In turn, I hope you guys will question my beliefs as well.
Luckily, I probably know most about Christianity, so I'll try to address your post here.
I agree, your statistics are staggering. If Jesus fulfilled all of those prophecies, it would be very compelling evidence. Unfortunately, I have a few problems with your arguments.
1. You are using the Bible to prove the validity of itself. This is circular reasoning. You are basically saying, "Jesus of the Bible is true, because the Bible says so." It's not proving anything. Your entire argument gets thrown out the window if it turns out that the Bible happens to be inaccurate.
2. As I posted in a previous post, the fallibility of human recollection dictates that human testimony, however earnest, is not a valid form of proof that something happened the way that they said it did. This being said, and considering the Gospels of Jesus weren't written until decades after his death, I have a hard time believing the accuracies of their claims.
3. The Gnostic Text, Apocrypha, and the convening of the Council of Nicaea, are just a few pieces of evidence that we have that in the first few hundred years after Jesus' death, early Christians were still debating what was true, what wasn't, what was going to be considered dogma, what was going to be in the Bible, and what was going to be left out and forgotten. This is obvious evidence that what is in the New Testament is not necessarily accurate to what actually happened.
4. As in my previous post, the stories of Jesus are very similar to many Messiah-gods of older religions. The stories of Jesus are most likely amalgamations of the stories of the older gods as a series of "one-upmanship" stories told as if to say, "My God is better than your god" to those of differing beliefs. Case in point is the story of Jesus' "Harrowing of Hell" to release all of the old dead spirits. (Eluded to in Ephesians 4:9 but also in the Apocryphal: Gospel of Nicodemus) Originally, this was Jesus' descent into Hades (the afterlife of Greek mythology). This story isn't literal so much as it was a way for the early Christian's to claim their God has dominion over even the Gods of other religions.
5. Considering the amount of time it took for the Christian church to become organized, and the amount of arguing within the early Church about what stories were true and what weren't, I find it far more likely that the stories of Jesus were written to make him sound like the one foretold in the prophecies, and not that he actually fulfilled the prophecies. If that is the case (which I believe it is) then it makes perfect sense that Jesus would fulfill such a staggeringly impossible amount of foretold events. He fulfills the prophecies because the stories we have of him wrote of him to specifically fulfill those prophecies.
Case in point #10 from your list: The messiah is born in Bethlehem. Jesus was from Nazareth. It seems terribly convenient to me that Joseph and Mary traveled many days to go to Bethlehem at the time Jesus was born. The reasoning behind this is because there was to be a census. We have enough documentation from the Roman records at that time to know that they would not have required people to go to the town of their ancestors for a census. In fact, that doesn't even make any sense. Sending people elsewhere to take a census ruins the results of the census and is in direct opposition to the whole reason the census is used. This is clearly a band-aid answer to cover up the fact that Jesus is a Nazarene and yet still supposedly the foretold Messiah.
Case in point #9 from your list: Jesus is from the house of David: Is Jesus the son of God? If so, he's not descended from Joseph. Is he descended from Joseph? If so.... Is Joseph from the house of David? He apparently has two fathers: Jacob (Matthew 1:16) and Heli (Luke 3:23). This two-fathers example alone shows the fallibility of the claims by the New Testament. Now that we've established that the New Testament could be wrong... we have no way of knowing what ELSE could be wrong. Yet again, another reason that I can't accept the Bible as accurate proof of anything.
I could go on and on.
I'm sure that you will definitely disagree, and I'm looking forward to your arguments. Thanks for your post Dan!
-Mike
Prophesies Concerning the Promised Messiah as Evidence for God's Revelation
Since we're on the topic of prophecy as evidence for God's existence, I'd like to throw my $0.02 into the ring. The Old Testament is rife with specific prophesies concerning the birth, life, death and resurrection of the Messiah promised to the world. I'll enumerate some of the big ones below and follow up with a statistical analysis of their coming to fruition in one person.
I'm pulling this information from chapter 8 of Christian apologist Josh McDowell's tome The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (1999).
To keep the list of prophesies manageable, I'm going to skip a whole bunch of them. I apologize in advance for not linking these verses to an online Bible (e.g. biblegateway.com), but just doing the markup for this list was quite a task in and of itself!
According to the OT, the Messiah must be…
- Seed of Abraham
- Prophesied: Genesis 22:18, 12:2,3
- Fulfilled: Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16
- Son of Isaac
- Prophesied: Genesis 21:12
- Fulfilled: Luke 3:23,34; Matthew 1:2
- Son of Jacob
- P: Genesis 35:10-12; Numbers 24:17
- F: Matthew 1:2; Luke 1:33
- From the Tribe of Judah
- P: Genesis 49:10; Micah 5:2
- F: Luke 3:23,33; Matt. 1:2; Hebrews 7:14
- From the Family Line of Jesse
- P: Isaiah 11:1
- F: Luke 3:23,32; Matt. 1:6
- Of the House of David
- P: Jeremiah 23:5
- F: Luke 3:23,31; Matt. 1:1, 9:27, 15:22; 20:30, etc.
- Born at Bethlehem
- P: Micah 5:2
- F: Matt. 2:1, 4; Luke 2:4-7; John 7:42
- Presented with Gifts
- P: Psalm 72:10; Isaiah 60:6
- F: Matt. 2:1,11
- Herod Kills Children
- P: Jeremiah 31:15
- F: Matt. 2:16
- Preceded by a Messenger
- P: Isaiah 40:3; Malachi 3:1
- F: Matt. 3:1,2, 3:3, 11:10; John 1:23; Luke 1:17
- He Was to Enter Jerusalem on a Donkey
- P: Zechariah 9:9
- F: Luke j19:35-37; Matt. 21:6-11
- Betrayed by a Friend
- P: Psalm 41:9, 55:12-14
- F: Matt. 10:4, 26:49,50; John 13:21
- Sold for 30 Pieces of Silver
- P: Zechariah 11:12
- F: Matthew 26:15, 27:3
- Money to be Thrown Into God's House
- P: Zechariah 11:13
- F: Matthew 27:5
- Price Given for Potter's Field
- P: Zechariah 11:13
- F: Matthew 27:7
- Silent before Accusers
- P: Isaiah 53:7
- F: Matthew 27:12
- Hands and Feet Pierced
- P: Psalm 22:16 (Psalm 22 is a vivid portrayal of crucifixion c. 1,000 years before it was invented)
- F: Luke 23:33; John 20:25
- Crucified with Thieves
- P: Isaiah 53:12
- F: Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27,28
- Bones Not Broken
- P: Psalm 34:20
- F: John 19:33
- His Side Pierced
- P: Zechariah 12:10
- F: John 19:34
- Darkness over the Land (at Noon)
- P: Amos 8:9
- F: Matthew 27:45
- Buried in a Rich Man's Tomb
- P: Isaiah 53:9
- F: Matthew 27:57-60
Now for the fun part.
In his book Science Speaks, Peter Stoner takes just eight of these prophesies (the ones I've highlighted in yellow. There are ten, actually, but a couple of prophesies were combined for reasons not explained in McDowell's book; #33 + #44 are treated as one, as are #44 + #45) and calculates the statistical probability that one man fulfilled them all (again...this is just eight of them). I now quote McDowell who quotes from Stoner's book:
We find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophesies is 1 in 10^17...[In order to help us comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that we take 10^17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas.] They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, form their day to the present time, providing they wrote them according to their own wisdom.
Now these prophesies were either given by inspiration of God or the prophets just wrote them as they thought they should be. In such a case the prophets had just one chance in 10^17 of having them come true in any man, but they all came true in Christ. This means that the fulfillment of these eight prophecies alone proves that God inspired the writing of those prophesies to a definiteness which lacks only one chance in 10^17 of being absolute. (Stoner, Science Speaks, 100-107)
Perhaps 1:10^17 isn't good enough. Stoner then goes on to consider forty-eight prophesies...
We find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10^157. this is really a large number and it represents an extremely small chance. Let us try to visualize it. The silver dollar, which we have been using, is entirely too large. We must select a smaller object. The electron is about as small an object as we know of. It is so small that it will take 2.5 x 10^15 of them laid side by side to make a line, single file, one inch long. If we were going to count the electrons in this line one inch long, and counted 250 each minute, and if we counted day and night, it would take us 19,000,000 years to count just the one-inch line of electrons. If we had a cubic inch of these electrons and we tried to count them it would take us, counting steadily 250 each minute, 19,000,000 times 19,000,000 times 19,000,000 years or 6.9 x 10^21 years.
With this introduction, let us go back to our chance of 1 in 10^157. Let us suppose that we are taking this number of electrons, marking one, and thoroughly stirring it into the whole mass, then blindfolding a man and letting him try to find the right one. What chance has he of finding the right one? What kind of a pile will this number of electrons make? They make an inconceivably large volume. (Stoner, Science Speaks, 109, 110)
There are many other attestations of the divine origin of the Bible both in terms of the things it reports and the specific prophesies it makes that we can go into if need be, but the convergence of 60+ prophesies made by multiple authors over the course of a couple of thousand years in the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth cannot be easily ignored.
-dan
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
The cake is a lie.
Cory,
1. My series of articles is about what I would qualify as proof of god's existence. We are obviously having a difference of opinion on what constitutes a miracle.
I think you missed that what my article was saying is that IF miracles occur, only the ones following those conditions would qualify as proof of god's existence. Otherwise... they just don't. That doesn't mean they don't happen. But they also aren't proof of the existence of god. I'm not going to argue weather or not you think someone surviving cancer is a miracle. But I will argue if it is any indication that God exists.
2. I personally don't believe that eyewitness testimony SHOULD be enough to condemn a person to death (or life in prison). Frankly, the fact that there ARE people on death row that are actually innocent makes my point exactly why eyewitness accounts are not 100% accurate.
There is a difference between a group of people thinking something is true and something actually being true. I'm not arguing what the popular consensus thinks is true. I'm arguing about what IS true regardless of how many people think it is.
If I have a box, and I say that there is a cake in the box, it doesn't matter if everyone in the universe THINKS there is a cake in the box. Even if people thought they saw me put a cake in the box and testify that they did: If there's no cake in the box... there's just no cake in the box.
We cannot take eyewitness testimony as proof of miracles. If we do, we may believe events like the Virgin of Guadalupe, but we also have to believe events like the testimonies during the Salem Witch Trials. Every religion has eyewitness testimony to their own particular miracles. It's impossible to believe them all.
3. This is going to get into a religion specific area. Since we've alluded to it, I don't know how to not address it without bringing up Christianity.
I'm not arguing that the Bible is not an historical text. It's a great way to learn about the politics and culture of those times. But it's not exactly the most accurate of texts either. It doesn't take long to read it and realize that it contradicts itself in many areas. It cannot be taken as absolute infallible truth. If you're going to believe the Bible is true, you have to assume parts of it are inaccurate and/or metaphorical.
As a parallel comparison: I can argue that the Greek mythology is true, because the stories have historical accuracy. That doesn't mean that Zeus existed or that Dionysus (the son of Zeus and a mortal woman) actually turned water into wine, died as a martyr, and then was resurrected. It also doesn't prove that eating bread and wine transubstantiated into his flesh and blood.
Thanks for the quick response! I'm looking forward to what else you have to say this weekend!
-Mike
1. My series of articles is about what I would qualify as proof of god's existence. We are obviously having a difference of opinion on what constitutes a miracle.
I think you missed that what my article was saying is that IF miracles occur, only the ones following those conditions would qualify as proof of god's existence. Otherwise... they just don't. That doesn't mean they don't happen. But they also aren't proof of the existence of god. I'm not going to argue weather or not you think someone surviving cancer is a miracle. But I will argue if it is any indication that God exists.
2. I personally don't believe that eyewitness testimony SHOULD be enough to condemn a person to death (or life in prison). Frankly, the fact that there ARE people on death row that are actually innocent makes my point exactly why eyewitness accounts are not 100% accurate.
There is a difference between a group of people thinking something is true and something actually being true. I'm not arguing what the popular consensus thinks is true. I'm arguing about what IS true regardless of how many people think it is.
If I have a box, and I say that there is a cake in the box, it doesn't matter if everyone in the universe THINKS there is a cake in the box. Even if people thought they saw me put a cake in the box and testify that they did: If there's no cake in the box... there's just no cake in the box.
We cannot take eyewitness testimony as proof of miracles. If we do, we may believe events like the Virgin of Guadalupe, but we also have to believe events like the testimonies during the Salem Witch Trials. Every religion has eyewitness testimony to their own particular miracles. It's impossible to believe them all.
3. This is going to get into a religion specific area. Since we've alluded to it, I don't know how to not address it without bringing up Christianity.
I'm not arguing that the Bible is not an historical text. It's a great way to learn about the politics and culture of those times. But it's not exactly the most accurate of texts either. It doesn't take long to read it and realize that it contradicts itself in many areas. It cannot be taken as absolute infallible truth. If you're going to believe the Bible is true, you have to assume parts of it are inaccurate and/or metaphorical.
As a parallel comparison: I can argue that the Greek mythology is true, because the stories have historical accuracy. That doesn't mean that Zeus existed or that Dionysus (the son of Zeus and a mortal woman) actually turned water into wine, died as a martyr, and then was resurrected. It also doesn't prove that eating bread and wine transubstantiated into his flesh and blood.
Thanks for the quick response! I'm looking forward to what else you have to say this weekend!
-Mike
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Scotsmen to right of me, necessity to the left
Mike,
You have several problems right from the start. I'm going to write a longer response to you because this was the next direction I was going anyway, but I'll point out a couple right off.
1) You are constantly assuming that God as the designer/creator of the universe defies some rules of logic or nature. You may not believe that nature requires some sentient being to control it, but look it at openmindedly and logically: IF a higher intelligence was behind the laws of nature, what purpose would there be in that higher intelligence violating his own rules? Why would he write them just to break them? For this reason, requirement A in your list bears no meaning. There is no reason to assume that a miracle will violate some law of nature, nor to make it a requirement to a miraculous event. Likewise, and as you point out, much of what we think violates nature may simply be something we can't explain yet. 100 years ago, IVF would have been considered a miracle (a virgin can have a baby!). Today it is common practice. That list can go on ad nauseum. But for these reasons, a miracle can't exclusively violate some law of nature. It also follows, then, that your point B is invalid because it relies on point A being valid.
2) If eye witness testimony is invalid, why is it adequate today to condemn a person to life in prison or even death? We rely on eye witness testimony all the time; in some cases all we have is eyewitnesses. Even the Constitution considers eyewitness testimony as valid in cases as serious as treason (2 eyewitnesses required to convict someone of treason, a crime punishable by death - article 3 section 3). Therefore, eyewitness testimony MUST be considered as valid evidence for a miracle. I'll grant that there can be some amount of condition upon which the testimony be considered, and perhaps there needs to be cooberating evidence from multiple sources or times, but we can't throw out eyewitnesses entirely. Therefore your point C is likewise moot.
In that vein, my next post was going to be regarding the bible as a historical text. There is ample evidence for the validity of the bible from a purely historical perspective, and this can be used to make certain ascertations regarding the divinity of Christ (this is the information we will get into in my upcoming post). But for purposes of this response, the 2000 year old text of the bible is not only perfectly valid eyewitness testimony of certain events, it is historically sound from a purely academic perspective. We can put the text of the bible through the same scientific, academic rigors as any other ancient text and it stands on its own as a verifiable piece of world history. Even if you reject its precepts and teachings, you can't reject it as a work of antiquity. That is unless you are allowing bias to color your arguments. But if we are being fair and openminded, there are certain conclusions we can reach from the bible that are academically sound since it is a verifiable work of history. I will expand on this idea more this weekend.
Point D I can accept as you have outlined. I should think that any miracle of divine nature would have a purpose; as we discussed during our debate over prophesy, God will not be mocked, and a miracle that has no meaning (like the underdog winning the superbowl) would fall under this category. So I can't think of any rational argument for this point and I will accept it as you have written.
That should suffice for the time being. I'll write more hopefully Saturday night, maybe Sunday, but in the meantime if you want to rebuke my arguments with your points or alter the definitions you outlined please feel free. I'll address your current argument as it sits at the time I sit down to write a response.
Cory
You have several problems right from the start. I'm going to write a longer response to you because this was the next direction I was going anyway, but I'll point out a couple right off.
1) You are constantly assuming that God as the designer/creator of the universe defies some rules of logic or nature. You may not believe that nature requires some sentient being to control it, but look it at openmindedly and logically: IF a higher intelligence was behind the laws of nature, what purpose would there be in that higher intelligence violating his own rules? Why would he write them just to break them? For this reason, requirement A in your list bears no meaning. There is no reason to assume that a miracle will violate some law of nature, nor to make it a requirement to a miraculous event. Likewise, and as you point out, much of what we think violates nature may simply be something we can't explain yet. 100 years ago, IVF would have been considered a miracle (a virgin can have a baby!). Today it is common practice. That list can go on ad nauseum. But for these reasons, a miracle can't exclusively violate some law of nature. It also follows, then, that your point B is invalid because it relies on point A being valid.
2) If eye witness testimony is invalid, why is it adequate today to condemn a person to life in prison or even death? We rely on eye witness testimony all the time; in some cases all we have is eyewitnesses. Even the Constitution considers eyewitness testimony as valid in cases as serious as treason (2 eyewitnesses required to convict someone of treason, a crime punishable by death - article 3 section 3). Therefore, eyewitness testimony MUST be considered as valid evidence for a miracle. I'll grant that there can be some amount of condition upon which the testimony be considered, and perhaps there needs to be cooberating evidence from multiple sources or times, but we can't throw out eyewitnesses entirely. Therefore your point C is likewise moot.
In that vein, my next post was going to be regarding the bible as a historical text. There is ample evidence for the validity of the bible from a purely historical perspective, and this can be used to make certain ascertations regarding the divinity of Christ (this is the information we will get into in my upcoming post). But for purposes of this response, the 2000 year old text of the bible is not only perfectly valid eyewitness testimony of certain events, it is historically sound from a purely academic perspective. We can put the text of the bible through the same scientific, academic rigors as any other ancient text and it stands on its own as a verifiable piece of world history. Even if you reject its precepts and teachings, you can't reject it as a work of antiquity. That is unless you are allowing bias to color your arguments. But if we are being fair and openminded, there are certain conclusions we can reach from the bible that are academically sound since it is a verifiable work of history. I will expand on this idea more this weekend.
Point D I can accept as you have outlined. I should think that any miracle of divine nature would have a purpose; as we discussed during our debate over prophesy, God will not be mocked, and a miracle that has no meaning (like the underdog winning the superbowl) would fall under this category. So I can't think of any rational argument for this point and I will accept it as you have written.
That should suffice for the time being. I'll write more hopefully Saturday night, maybe Sunday, but in the meantime if you want to rebuke my arguments with your points or alter the definitions you outlined please feel free. I'll address your current argument as it sits at the time I sit down to write a response.
Cory
Atheist: What I would accept as proof Part 2: Miracles
I admit, the title of this article should probably be, "Why I don't believe in miracles." But it is meant to be the second part of my series on what I would accept as proof of god's existence.
The word, "miracle" means a lot of different things to different people. Everyone has heard of stories of amazing things happening to people, or they have experienced amazing things themselves. People attribute miracles to events such as escaping a car accident, healing from cancer, winning a game, or even being rescued from a mine.
If I'm going to argue about the existence of miracles, I need to first define what I am considering to be a "miracle". The definition is broad, and vague. It's almost as hard to define the term "miracle" as it is to define what "god" is.
Meriam-Webster defines a miracle as:
Just like I can only accept prophecies that fall within certain parameters as proof, I must put certain parameters on a miracle if I consider it to be proof. This doesn't mean that things that don't fall into these parameters aren't necessarily miracles, but it does mean they can't be taken as proof of the supernatural.
A: As my definition states: It must be an event where the act of occurring, or the occurrence itself must defy the laws of nature. Water doesn't randomly turn into wine, people don't come back from the dead, seas don't part on command.
This section specifically is problematic, because it butts heads with the, "God of the Gaps" fallacy. Just because we don't understand how something happens, it is not proof of god's existence. To me, this really dooms just about every miracle from the get-go. If someone showed me an example of something defying the laws of nature, I would take it that we don't understand the laws of nature as well as we should. I would not see the event itself as being a miracle. As science is, the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know. This doesn't mean that there are more and more miracles happening. It means we don't have answers to all of the questions. I talked about this in Section 8 of my very first post on this blog.
B: Given that the miracle defies the laws of nature, it must be verifiable to be truly defying the laws of nature. Arthur C. Clarke put it well: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." A thousand years ago, a person would have considered a metal box with wheels moving on it's own as a miracle. Yet today, we see cars everywhere, and there is a rational explanation for them.
It should go without saying that the miracle should occur legitimately and not through the use of deception. Stage magicians and con-artists do the seemingly impossible every day, but "trickery" is not a miracle. Again, this area becomes problematic, because even scientists are susceptible to deception. Just because something appears to be defying the laws of nature, it doesn't mean it is, even if it can't be proven.
C. The miracle must have actually happened, and be verifiable that it happened. Two thousand year old texts are not proof of any miracles. The hearsay of people written thousands of years ago is only proof that people had these stories back then. People have a quirky ability to distort what they see as reality. We turn common house squeaks into ghosts and lucky guesses into psychic premonitions. We tell "fish tales" and create urban legends. Our memory gets distorted and we are susceptible to suggestion. There are things such as mass hysteria and mass hypnosis. People's testimony, however earnest, is simply unreliable as proof. For a miracle to be considered, there must be actual tangible proof that it happened, and that it happened the way that it is said to have happened.
D. To give credit to my friend Aaron, he made a good point in that the miracle should have some meaning behind it. I don't necessarily think this is an important precursor to establishing the existence of the supernatural, but I do think it's an important precursor to establishing the link between the miracle and god. Supernatural miracles could possibly exist and there still be no god behind it. I think once an unnatural event occurs, that defies the laws of nature, and is verified to happen, the message behind such an event is the compelling evidence that would tie it to being god's will.
As it stands right now, I have yet to come up with any examples of miracles that I think fulfill this category as proof of god's existence. Given my arguments, I see it being highly unlikely that I would consider any given event as being miraculous, but I'm open to discussions about it. I'm sure that this will stir up some debate, and I'm looking forward to hearing what you all have to say!
-Mike
The word, "miracle" means a lot of different things to different people. Everyone has heard of stories of amazing things happening to people, or they have experienced amazing things themselves. People attribute miracles to events such as escaping a car accident, healing from cancer, winning a game, or even being rescued from a mine.
If I'm going to argue about the existence of miracles, I need to first define what I am considering to be a "miracle". The definition is broad, and vague. It's almost as hard to define the term "miracle" as it is to define what "god" is.
Meriam-Webster defines a miracle as:
1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
3Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law
I don't find any of these definitions particularly useful for means of argument, especially number 2. If these are your definitions, I would concede that extremely unusual events and accomplishments occur all the time (particularly during NFL games). Yet, I would not accept a Hail Mary play as proof of god's existence.
For my purposes I would have to define a miracle as: An event or occurrence that either the act of and/or end result defies the laws of nature and is presumably a deliberate act of god's will. Admittedly this definition has some flaws, but it allows for your partings of Red Seas and Waters into Wines, and discounts lottery winners and Lake Placid hockey games.
Why am I excluding statistical anomalies such as extremely unlikely scenarios that happen? The universe is constantly playing "games" of chance. Let's take the example of someone winning the lottery: Statistically speaking, your chances are very very VERY low that you'll win the lottery. Yet out of thousands of people playing every day, someone will win. Given that it will happen to someone, it's not a miracle that someone does. Looking at a lottery winner as being a miracle is discounting all the people who played and didn't win. Surviving a car crash, or a terrible disease is very similar in that it happens to thousands of people every day, even though chances may be slim that someone would survive, people will. Looking at one person surviving as being a miracle is discounting all of the times people in that situation don't survive.
Just like I can only accept prophecies that fall within certain parameters as proof, I must put certain parameters on a miracle if I consider it to be proof. This doesn't mean that things that don't fall into these parameters aren't necessarily miracles, but it does mean they can't be taken as proof of the supernatural.
A: As my definition states: It must be an event where the act of occurring, or the occurrence itself must defy the laws of nature. Water doesn't randomly turn into wine, people don't come back from the dead, seas don't part on command.
This section specifically is problematic, because it butts heads with the, "God of the Gaps" fallacy. Just because we don't understand how something happens, it is not proof of god's existence. To me, this really dooms just about every miracle from the get-go. If someone showed me an example of something defying the laws of nature, I would take it that we don't understand the laws of nature as well as we should. I would not see the event itself as being a miracle. As science is, the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know. This doesn't mean that there are more and more miracles happening. It means we don't have answers to all of the questions. I talked about this in Section 8 of my very first post on this blog.
B: Given that the miracle defies the laws of nature, it must be verifiable to be truly defying the laws of nature. Arthur C. Clarke put it well: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." A thousand years ago, a person would have considered a metal box with wheels moving on it's own as a miracle. Yet today, we see cars everywhere, and there is a rational explanation for them.
It should go without saying that the miracle should occur legitimately and not through the use of deception. Stage magicians and con-artists do the seemingly impossible every day, but "trickery" is not a miracle. Again, this area becomes problematic, because even scientists are susceptible to deception. Just because something appears to be defying the laws of nature, it doesn't mean it is, even if it can't be proven.
C. The miracle must have actually happened, and be verifiable that it happened. Two thousand year old texts are not proof of any miracles. The hearsay of people written thousands of years ago is only proof that people had these stories back then. People have a quirky ability to distort what they see as reality. We turn common house squeaks into ghosts and lucky guesses into psychic premonitions. We tell "fish tales" and create urban legends. Our memory gets distorted and we are susceptible to suggestion. There are things such as mass hysteria and mass hypnosis. People's testimony, however earnest, is simply unreliable as proof. For a miracle to be considered, there must be actual tangible proof that it happened, and that it happened the way that it is said to have happened.
D. To give credit to my friend Aaron, he made a good point in that the miracle should have some meaning behind it. I don't necessarily think this is an important precursor to establishing the existence of the supernatural, but I do think it's an important precursor to establishing the link between the miracle and god. Supernatural miracles could possibly exist and there still be no god behind it. I think once an unnatural event occurs, that defies the laws of nature, and is verified to happen, the message behind such an event is the compelling evidence that would tie it to being god's will.
As it stands right now, I have yet to come up with any examples of miracles that I think fulfill this category as proof of god's existence. Given my arguments, I see it being highly unlikely that I would consider any given event as being miraculous, but I'm open to discussions about it. I'm sure that this will stir up some debate, and I'm looking forward to hearing what you all have to say!
-Mike
Friday, October 15, 2010
*insert witty title response here*
Cory,
I hope you understand that my aim wasn't to make a set of terms that can't possibly be met by any form of prophecy. My aim is to set a rigorous bar that would hopefully weed out all false prophecies and prophets. Of course this means that "true" prophecies don't make the cut. Unfortunately, I don't know how to lower the standards and keep it from including non-true prophecies.
I hate to just formally discount what you're saying, or who you believe, but 5 men attesting that Joseph Smith made the prophecy when he did is no more proof that he made the prophecy when he did then the book telling me he came up with it when he said he did. I could tell you that ten years ago I predicted who won last years superbowl, and I could probably get 5 people to say they saw me do it. That doesn't mean I did. Modern day "psychics" do this type of scam all the time.
If his prophecy had in fact been published in 1932, then I would believe he made the prediction in 1932. But the fact is: the earliest verifiable proof that I can find puts the prediction at 1851. He may very well have made the prediction earlier. But it can't be proven that he did until 1851. And if you consider D&C 130 as proof of D&C 87, then it's dated to 1842.
I'm not trying to question Joseph Smith's character, or the character of those who verify his claims. I would rather look at the situation objectively. If it was anyone else in this type of situation, you would have to ask yourself which is more likely: Are they actually receiving communication from God, or are they tricking you? I know enough about stage magic, confidence scams, and mentalist tricks to know it's far easier to trick someone than to find out information through psychic powers.
This really falls under section h in my earlier post on this subject. Of course knowing we are discussing this, I would probably amend my list and add another section j: The prophecy must have verification of being given before the event and before the prophet would have any prior knowledge of the event they are predicting about.
But I think you're right. We can probably go back and forth on D&C 87 for a while, but I don't know if we'll make any headway. That's probably true for most prophecies and most prophets.
The end of your last post really hit upon the "intelligent design" argument. It's actually called a "Teleological argument". I tried to cover this argument in my very first post "Atheism: Why I don't believe in the existence of god" section 6. I'll see if I can make things a little more clear.
I understand your analogy of the universe being like a building, and that because a building has a designer, then the universe must. Unfortunately, this is a false analogy. I could just as easily make the analogy that the universe is like the Grand Canyon, which is amazing and complex, and happened to form because of natural means. Because the Grand Canyon doesn't have a designer, then the universe doesn't either.
One glaring flaw I see in the "building" analogy is that there is purpose do why it is built the way it is. A building designer doesn't route the wires from the light switch to the lamp going down the wall, out the door to the garage, back to the wall and then to the lamp. And yet this type of "design" is common in biology. Humans have spines that are much more conductive to animals that walk on 4 limbs. We have knee problems. Our hips are not conductive to child birth. Etc... One would think that if our universe were designed, or even if it was just that humans were modeled after the "perfect" being, our biology would show that. But it's just the opposite. These problems can easily be explained through evolution, which doesn't need any sort of intelligent design to function.
Another common criticism of intelligent design is that it begs the question: If the designer created the universe, then who created the designer? And who created the designer's designer (ad infinitum)?
Well, I look forward to hearing back!
-Mike
I hope you understand that my aim wasn't to make a set of terms that can't possibly be met by any form of prophecy. My aim is to set a rigorous bar that would hopefully weed out all false prophecies and prophets. Of course this means that "true" prophecies don't make the cut. Unfortunately, I don't know how to lower the standards and keep it from including non-true prophecies.
I hate to just formally discount what you're saying, or who you believe, but 5 men attesting that Joseph Smith made the prophecy when he did is no more proof that he made the prophecy when he did then the book telling me he came up with it when he said he did. I could tell you that ten years ago I predicted who won last years superbowl, and I could probably get 5 people to say they saw me do it. That doesn't mean I did. Modern day "psychics" do this type of scam all the time.
If his prophecy had in fact been published in 1932, then I would believe he made the prediction in 1932. But the fact is: the earliest verifiable proof that I can find puts the prediction at 1851. He may very well have made the prediction earlier. But it can't be proven that he did until 1851. And if you consider D&C 130 as proof of D&C 87, then it's dated to 1842.
I'm not trying to question Joseph Smith's character, or the character of those who verify his claims. I would rather look at the situation objectively. If it was anyone else in this type of situation, you would have to ask yourself which is more likely: Are they actually receiving communication from God, or are they tricking you? I know enough about stage magic, confidence scams, and mentalist tricks to know it's far easier to trick someone than to find out information through psychic powers.
This really falls under section h in my earlier post on this subject. Of course knowing we are discussing this, I would probably amend my list and add another section j: The prophecy must have verification of being given before the event and before the prophet would have any prior knowledge of the event they are predicting about.
But I think you're right. We can probably go back and forth on D&C 87 for a while, but I don't know if we'll make any headway. That's probably true for most prophecies and most prophets.
The end of your last post really hit upon the "intelligent design" argument. It's actually called a "Teleological argument". I tried to cover this argument in my very first post "Atheism: Why I don't believe in the existence of god" section 6. I'll see if I can make things a little more clear.
I understand your analogy of the universe being like a building, and that because a building has a designer, then the universe must. Unfortunately, this is a false analogy. I could just as easily make the analogy that the universe is like the Grand Canyon, which is amazing and complex, and happened to form because of natural means. Because the Grand Canyon doesn't have a designer, then the universe doesn't either.
One glaring flaw I see in the "building" analogy is that there is purpose do why it is built the way it is. A building designer doesn't route the wires from the light switch to the lamp going down the wall, out the door to the garage, back to the wall and then to the lamp. And yet this type of "design" is common in biology. Humans have spines that are much more conductive to animals that walk on 4 limbs. We have knee problems. Our hips are not conductive to child birth. Etc... One would think that if our universe were designed, or even if it was just that humans were modeled after the "perfect" being, our biology would show that. But it's just the opposite. These problems can easily be explained through evolution, which doesn't need any sort of intelligent design to function.
Another common criticism of intelligent design is that it begs the question: If the designer created the universe, then who created the designer? And who created the designer's designer (ad infinitum)?
Well, I look forward to hearing back!
-Mike
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
*plugs ears and says loudly, "la-la-la-la-la"*
Mike,
My comment about "mocking God" was meant very narrowly - I meant that using some game of chance, like a lottery, as evidence for prophetic ability would be mocking God. I didn't mean that testing a prophecy for validity was itself mocking God. Sorry for the confusion.
Since there is an amount of debate regarding this prophesy I will concede that, as a whole, it won't qualify as per your guidelines. It is my understanding that the prophesy did not include the Civil War exclusively but referred to "wars" beginning with the Civil War. This would extend the scope of the prophesy to WWI and WWII, in which England did call on other nations for aid, and likewise in which war was poured out upon all nations (or if that won't qualify there is endless example of war and contention the world over, not necessarily connected with the Civil War but that has begun since that time). The point is that part of this prophesy remains vague enough that I must concede those parts to you on your grounds.
My comment about "mocking God" was meant very narrowly - I meant that using some game of chance, like a lottery, as evidence for prophetic ability would be mocking God. I didn't mean that testing a prophecy for validity was itself mocking God. Sorry for the confusion.
Since there is an amount of debate regarding this prophesy I will concede that, as a whole, it won't qualify as per your guidelines. It is my understanding that the prophesy did not include the Civil War exclusively but referred to "wars" beginning with the Civil War. This would extend the scope of the prophesy to WWI and WWII, in which England did call on other nations for aid, and likewise in which war was poured out upon all nations (or if that won't qualify there is endless example of war and contention the world over, not necessarily connected with the Civil War but that has begun since that time). The point is that part of this prophesy remains vague enough that I must concede those parts to you on your grounds.
The prophesy was, however, penned in 1832. At least 5 other men attested to it, like Brigham Young, John Taylor, George Smith, Orsen Pratt and Wilford Woodruff. All of them said they read and taught the prophesy, as later recorded in 1851, when Joseph Smith claimed to have had it (1832). Also, D&C 130 reiterates the prophesy in 1842, and restates the date which it was originally received. Thus any claim that it was written closer to the actual war, when more information would have been obvious, is not correct. 5 men plus Joseph Smith provide evidence of that. In that case, the information contained that relates to the Civil War specifically is still valid. To rephrase, this part is: that a war costing the death and misery of many souls would begin with the rebellion of SC and would be fought between the North and South. The South would call on England for help, and the slaves would be marshalled for war against their former masters. Again, the prophesy is not that the North and South would have conflict; that was obvious even in the 1820's and 30's (TJ claimed that the Mson-Dixon line would be the "death knell" of the country in 1820). The prophesy is the degree of war that would ensue following the rebellion of SC. Likewise, it is prophetic that the South would ask England for help, and that the North would marshall slaves for war against the South. None of these things were readily apparent or likely in 1832. Even Tocqueville commented on the conditions between the North and South, but noted that nobody thought it would come to war. The sentiment in the North was that the South would eventually implode and cease to function, and there was a sense of nervousness about what that would mean, but nobody predicted a full scale war at that time (Tocquville wrote about this in Democracy in America, published 1835).
But there seems little point in continuing to defend this one because as a whole it won't stand your conditions. I understand that. But I won't concede the elements focused narrowly on the Civil War. Your statements don't provide any irrefutable proof that what Joseph Smith said did not happen when he said it happened, and thus his prediction of the event is unique and prophetic in American history. No one else contemporary to him made any such claim with anywhere near the degree of accuracy as he did.
I want to phrase an analogy in a different way that might make my opinion a little more clear regarding lack of evidence not counting as evidence of absence.
Imagine the building in which you work. You know without question that it had to have an architect to design, plan, and organize all the component elements that make the building stand and function. But the building itself offers no outward evidence that it had a designer. When you flip a light switch, there is no proof that (insert firm name here) designed the electrical grid of the building that made that light switch work that light bulb. When you sit at your desk and work, nothing speaks to the people who labored to design the floor, the walls, the windows and the like such that you could later use it for your own purposes. In short, the building is and it exists without so much as single shred of proof, within itself, that it had an original designer. But we know it had to , and that it did. Now I suppose you're going to say that we can go the county recorder's office and get the blueprints, or go to the architect's office that is listed in the county records and ask them about the building. This would be proof that they designed it. Suppose the county recorder lost the records, and the architect was long dead. All we could find was some diary with some passing mention of the event perhaps. Suppose yours was the last building on earth and no records existed of its creation whatsoever. Would you still contend that it had a designer? You couldn't prove that it did. You'd have to begin inspecting the building, system by system, piece by piece, to find evidence of how it all worked and thus prove the nature of its design in reverse. You would quickly find that you knew a great deal about its nature and function, indeed a very intricate and thorough understanding of it. But you would still be no closer to proving that (insert firm name here) designed it. Thus, you would have to conclude that the building just came to be because it did. You can find no evidence that it had an architect from evaluating the building for its own sake, thus (in your estimation) the absence of evidence provides evidence of absence. The fact that we have no evidence for its truth (that the building had an original architect) is conclusive evidence for its falsity. Is that the sum of it?
This is the nature of my belief in God. Just because the physical earth doesn't have some miraculous explantion of some divine creation doesn't by implication mean that it wasn't designed and created all the same. Your statement that natural, logical processes don't require the involvment of God is akin, in my mind, to stating that for the water to flow or the lights to work in your building didn't require an architect. The building just is because that's how it works. To me, this seems so contrary to logic that I have a hard time reconciling the position. Even when I claimed to be atheist, this "where did it come from?" issue plagued me. Just like the logical design of a building and its function provides evidence that someone had a plan and executed it, likewise the logical systems of the natural world evidence to me the same thing. But I can no more "prove" this claim than you could "prove" the post-apocalyptic building from my analogy had an architect. Likewise, niether of us can any more prove, with the abscence of such evidence as proof alone, that neither thing had an architect than we can prove that either thing did have an architect.
I hope this analogy makes my ideas more evident. Thanks for inspiring me to write it.
Cory
Prophesy: Atheist Rebuttal
Cory,
You say that trying to test God's existence through use of Prophecy would be "mocking" him. I don't see why. If our purpose is to have faith in him, then the act of testing his message is the act of verifying his existence. It's nothing more than emphasizing why we should believe.
My article was setting parameters for what a prophesy must fulfill for me to accept it as proof. If it comes true or not is secondary to if it fits within the guidelines required upon it to be considered proof.
In your rebuttal you've outlined yourself how Joseph Smith's prediction doesn't fit the parameters I lined out. The civil war ended, it wasn't a world war, it didn't lead to famine, plague, and earthquake, and there wasn't an end to all nations (there wasn't even an end to the United States), and not even the Mormons have stayed in holy places until Jesus' return (which also hasn't happened). In order for this prophecy to be considered "fulfilled", you have to stretch your considerations of what is considered to be accurate "hits". It's just not specific enough, and it really didn't come true to the letter that it needs to. You may argue that the events in the prophecy are still being fulfilled, but that leads directly in opposition to my statements that the prophecy needs to be be fulfilled, and must be fulfilled accurately and legitimately. The fact that we can argue about whether or not specific events in history can be considered legitimate fulfillment or not, is proof enough that the prophecy was not at all specific enough.
I need to make clear that I am in no means an expert on the LDS religion, and even more specifically on the Doctrine and Covenants. Most of my information, I have gotten from various web sources, and I am privy only to the information they provide. In an attempt to be fair yet critical, I have tried to get my information from non-biased sources. I honestly don't want to attack your religion, and I hope I don't seem like I am. Unfortunately, the subject matter of my response is about the Mormon-specific topic you brought up, so I'm sure to some who may read this...I may come off that way.
That being said, here is my take on Joseph Smith's revelation about the Civil War known as, "Doctrine and Covenants 87".
The first issue that I have was with the timeline at which the "Doctrine and Covenants" was written. Reading about the history of the writings, it's not hidden that the book has gone over several revisions. According to:
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/scripture/editions.html section 87 wasn't added to the book until the 1876 edition. The scripture claims to be written in 1832, but according to the above website, it wasn't published until 44 years later. That would have given plenty of time to have seen the Civil War unfold, write about it, and attribute it to a much earlier time period. Unfortunately, I think the vagueness and inaccuracies of this prophecy are indicative that it wasn't actually written 44 years later. If it were, why wouldn't it be more accurate and specific?
My other findings (and what I believe to be more accurate) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr., state it was first published in 1851. That's still 19 years later, and still plenty of time to see the raising political unrest of the South, and as you pointed out, "My sources concede that the likelihood of all-out war was not readily obvious to most contemporary observers until 1848-50" If this is the case, then it would stand to possibility that Smith's predictions weren't actually made until 1851, which would explain the accuracy of the Civil War prediction and also explain the ambiguity of the final outcome forecast.
Regardless of speculation of when D&C 87 was actually written, the "South Carolina Exposition and Protest" was written in 1828, 4 years before D&C 87 was attributed to be penned. That would give ample time for Joseph Smith to understand the political unrest the southern states, especially South Carolina, were feeling.
It doesn't necessarily take Calhoun's threat of succession in 1932 to see there was a problem.
It stands to reason that if an apocalyptic war was going to happen at that time, South Carolina would be a logical place for it to start. By way of comparison, if I were to presently make a prediction about the apocolypse, I would probably make a statement saying that it was going to start between Israel and Palestine. I would also go so far as to say that Israel would call upon the United States for help, and that it could lead to many nations going to war.
A guess made by educated insight is much more likely to occur than a guess that's randomly made. This is exactly why I stated that it needs to be very specific, beyond probability, and not something we can control or have a way of knowing beyond god's insight.
In terms of repeatability, over the course of his lifetime, Joseph Smith made dozens of prophecies, some of them came true, and most of them did not. Of those that did, most of them are either not terribly remarkable, or vague enough to be open to interpretation.
One notable set of prophecies I look at (D&C 130:14-17 and History of Church, v2, p 182) was the prediction of the second coming of Christ to be when (or before) he was 85 years old, which puts it at or before 1890. As far as I know, not even the LDS Church believes this has happened yet and it's well over 100 years past due.
In your arguments you said,
"What if the divine interaction was to rig the game? God's natural, logical methods are in evidence all around us - the motion of the planets, the conditions for life on earth, etc. - so why would his methods at fulfilling a prophesy be any different?"
If the world follows a natural, logical process, then God doesn't need to be part of the picture. I'm sorry Cory, but as I have said before, I can't take lack of evidence as being proof of God's existence. It just doesn't make any sense.
You are absolutely right, it's possible that IF God exists, his "miracles" may not be subject to being testable. And, in the context of my argument, then God's "miracles" aren't appropriate to be used as evidence of his existence.
You are also absolutely right when you say, "Being able to explain something after the fact does not necessarily prove that God wasn't involved." I am not disproving god at all with any of my arguments. God may very well exist. But my argument is (and always has been) that God or gods sound like mythology to me, which is a man-made concept. Just like any other fantastical story: for me to believe that god is anything more than that, I need some proof.
You also said,
"If a doctor gives some patient with a terminal disease some finite amount of time to live, and that patient - a religious person who prays devoutly - suddenly recovers and the doctor discovers that some extremly rare condition of events occured to cure the illness, is it because God knows the body more intimately than anyone (being that He designed it) or is it just some fluke chance - fluke because the odds of beating such a disease are slim but the doctor can explain how the body healed itself?"
This paragraph is a little off subject, but I want to acknowledge it, because it will be covered in another part of my series, specifically about miracles and prayer.
Nice topic! I'm sure we'll have a lot more back and forth. Thanks for keeping me on my toes!
-Mike
You say that trying to test God's existence through use of Prophecy would be "mocking" him. I don't see why. If our purpose is to have faith in him, then the act of testing his message is the act of verifying his existence. It's nothing more than emphasizing why we should believe.
My article was setting parameters for what a prophesy must fulfill for me to accept it as proof. If it comes true or not is secondary to if it fits within the guidelines required upon it to be considered proof.
In your rebuttal you've outlined yourself how Joseph Smith's prediction doesn't fit the parameters I lined out. The civil war ended, it wasn't a world war, it didn't lead to famine, plague, and earthquake, and there wasn't an end to all nations (there wasn't even an end to the United States), and not even the Mormons have stayed in holy places until Jesus' return (which also hasn't happened). In order for this prophecy to be considered "fulfilled", you have to stretch your considerations of what is considered to be accurate "hits". It's just not specific enough, and it really didn't come true to the letter that it needs to. You may argue that the events in the prophecy are still being fulfilled, but that leads directly in opposition to my statements that the prophecy needs to be be fulfilled, and must be fulfilled accurately and legitimately. The fact that we can argue about whether or not specific events in history can be considered legitimate fulfillment or not, is proof enough that the prophecy was not at all specific enough.
I need to make clear that I am in no means an expert on the LDS religion, and even more specifically on the Doctrine and Covenants. Most of my information, I have gotten from various web sources, and I am privy only to the information they provide. In an attempt to be fair yet critical, I have tried to get my information from non-biased sources. I honestly don't want to attack your religion, and I hope I don't seem like I am. Unfortunately, the subject matter of my response is about the Mormon-specific topic you brought up, so I'm sure to some who may read this...I may come off that way.
That being said, here is my take on Joseph Smith's revelation about the Civil War known as, "Doctrine and Covenants 87".
The first issue that I have was with the timeline at which the "Doctrine and Covenants" was written. Reading about the history of the writings, it's not hidden that the book has gone over several revisions. According to:
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/scripture/editions.html section 87 wasn't added to the book until the 1876 edition. The scripture claims to be written in 1832, but according to the above website, it wasn't published until 44 years later. That would have given plenty of time to have seen the Civil War unfold, write about it, and attribute it to a much earlier time period. Unfortunately, I think the vagueness and inaccuracies of this prophecy are indicative that it wasn't actually written 44 years later. If it were, why wouldn't it be more accurate and specific?
My other findings (and what I believe to be more accurate) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr., state it was first published in 1851. That's still 19 years later, and still plenty of time to see the raising political unrest of the South, and as you pointed out, "My sources concede that the likelihood of all-out war was not readily obvious to most contemporary observers until 1848-50" If this is the case, then it would stand to possibility that Smith's predictions weren't actually made until 1851, which would explain the accuracy of the Civil War prediction and also explain the ambiguity of the final outcome forecast.
Regardless of speculation of when D&C 87 was actually written, the "South Carolina Exposition and Protest" was written in 1828, 4 years before D&C 87 was attributed to be penned. That would give ample time for Joseph Smith to understand the political unrest the southern states, especially South Carolina, were feeling.
It doesn't necessarily take Calhoun's threat of succession in 1932 to see there was a problem.
It stands to reason that if an apocalyptic war was going to happen at that time, South Carolina would be a logical place for it to start. By way of comparison, if I were to presently make a prediction about the apocolypse, I would probably make a statement saying that it was going to start between Israel and Palestine. I would also go so far as to say that Israel would call upon the United States for help, and that it could lead to many nations going to war.
A guess made by educated insight is much more likely to occur than a guess that's randomly made. This is exactly why I stated that it needs to be very specific, beyond probability, and not something we can control or have a way of knowing beyond god's insight.
In terms of repeatability, over the course of his lifetime, Joseph Smith made dozens of prophecies, some of them came true, and most of them did not. Of those that did, most of them are either not terribly remarkable, or vague enough to be open to interpretation.
One notable set of prophecies I look at (D&C 130:14-17 and History of Church, v2, p 182) was the prediction of the second coming of Christ to be when (or before) he was 85 years old, which puts it at or before 1890. As far as I know, not even the LDS Church believes this has happened yet and it's well over 100 years past due.
In your arguments you said,
"What if the divine interaction was to rig the game? God's natural, logical methods are in evidence all around us - the motion of the planets, the conditions for life on earth, etc. - so why would his methods at fulfilling a prophesy be any different?"
If the world follows a natural, logical process, then God doesn't need to be part of the picture. I'm sorry Cory, but as I have said before, I can't take lack of evidence as being proof of God's existence. It just doesn't make any sense.
You are absolutely right, it's possible that IF God exists, his "miracles" may not be subject to being testable. And, in the context of my argument, then God's "miracles" aren't appropriate to be used as evidence of his existence.
You are also absolutely right when you say, "Being able to explain something after the fact does not necessarily prove that God wasn't involved." I am not disproving god at all with any of my arguments. God may very well exist. But my argument is (and always has been) that God or gods sound like mythology to me, which is a man-made concept. Just like any other fantastical story: for me to believe that god is anything more than that, I need some proof.
You also said,
"If a doctor gives some patient with a terminal disease some finite amount of time to live, and that patient - a religious person who prays devoutly - suddenly recovers and the doctor discovers that some extremly rare condition of events occured to cure the illness, is it because God knows the body more intimately than anyone (being that He designed it) or is it just some fluke chance - fluke because the odds of beating such a disease are slim but the doctor can explain how the body healed itself?"
This paragraph is a little off subject, but I want to acknowledge it, because it will be covered in another part of my series, specifically about miracles and prayer.
Nice topic! I'm sure we'll have a lot more back and forth. Thanks for keeping me on my toes!
-Mike
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Joseph Smith and the Civil War
OK, I'll bite for this. Now understand that, as I have made clear before, one of the things that so speaks to me regarding the existence of God is that He left no trace of "magic" or "miracle" in the natural world. Everything natural has an explanation once we develop the toolset to understand it. Prophesy as you confine it, then, becomes contradictory to the natural order of the world. God isn't revealing things to be scientifically tested or repeated. Aside from that, there are plenty of things that are of such minute importance as regards the affairs of God's purpose that prophesy regarding those things would not be possible - who would God tell it's going to rain in Haiti as some sort of evidenciary prophesy? God will not be mocked, and such an undertaking as to use a direct line to God do discuss the weather seems like the sort of thing that would mock Him. So before I offer up something for us to discuss, I need to amend a couple of your conditions.
In "e." you said that if something offered as a prophesy came true, such as someone winning the lottery, you would find it more likely that there was tampering than that there was divine causation. Firstly, this would fall under the heading of God being mocked - someone asking for revelation regarding a game of chance - and secondly you have already discounted any possibilty of godly assistance by saying "there must be some logical explanation, i.e. the game was rigged." What if the divine interaction was to rig the game? God's natural, logical methods are in evidence all around us - the motion of the planets, the conditions for life on earth, etc. - so why would his methods at fulfilling a prophesy be any different? You are presuming that His prophetic fulfillment would be through some sort of "magic," when it is just as likely that it would be through some incredible series of logical events. Consider miraculous healing as an example. If a doctor gives some patient with a terminal disease some finite amount of time to live, and that patient - a religious person who prays devoutly - suddenly recovers and the doctor discovers that some extremly rare condition of events occured to cure the illness, is it because God knows the body more intimately than anyone (being that He designed it) or is it just some fluke chance - fluke because the odds of beating such a disease are slim but the doctor can explain how the body healed itself? My point is that this condition you outline presupposes the methods by which God would accomplish His goals. Being able to explain something after the fact does not necessarily prove that God wasn't involved. Of course this has been the nature of our debate since day one. But I must make that caveat known before I continue.
Point "h." is like "e." so I won't say any further regarding that one. Regarding point "i." there is again some element of relevancy to prophesy. I could list dozens of prophesies from the book of Revelation alone, and just because we can go back in hindsight and explain them logically doesn't make them wrong or incorrect. So to this end I will add another condition: the prophesy must be judged from the perspective of its contemporaries. Would the people in the day have been able to explain the prophesy? We can look at satellite imaging of weather patterns today and compare those images to previous years and notice trends that tell us things like when hurricanes will strike or form, and that allows us to look back at events like Katrina and say, "oh, we should have seen that coming." This is simply for instance, not that such a conversation actually happened. I'm using it as example to say that we need to judge the veracity of prophesy against the information that was available to the people of the time.
All of this said, I will offer up an intriguing event for evaluation as prophesy. I have debated this one specifically with people whose knowledge of history and predictability I greatly respect, and the consensus is that it is extremely unlikely that the author of this passage could have predicted this event with the level of detail or accuracy that he did. In short, that the writing was not yet on the wall, even if the seeds of the event were well-sown. To me, it is evidence, if not proof, of some divine revelation.
From the Doctrine & Covenants, section 87, verses 1-4 regarding the Civil War:
"Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;
And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place;
For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war will be poured out upon all nations.
And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshalled and disciplined for war."
This was recorded in December of 1832. It offers distinct prophesies: that a) South Carolina would rebel first, beginning b) the war between the states (war being part of the prophesy, not that it was between the states); that c) the South would call on other nations, specifically Great Britain, for aide; and that d) slaves would rise up against their masters and be marshalled for war. All 4 predictions came true - SC rebelled in 1860; the South called for the aid of Great Britain and France, among others, in 1861; the slaves who were freed by the Union were marshalled and trained to fight against their former masters, and in fact many slaves even in the Confederate South rebelled of their own volition when they heard that the Union Army was coming.
The question becomes this: what could Joseph Smith have known in December 1832 that would taint the validity of this prophesy? James Calhoun, a senator from SC, had threatened secession in November of 1832 at a joint session of Congress over the issue of freesoiling (non-slave states, not wonton bedwetting) and other issues of concern to the South. News didn't travel fast in those days, but such a thing could have made it from DC and SC into Ohio and Missouri in a month's time. Perhaps Smith could reasonably have predicted that SC would secede first. Really that part of the prophesy is 2 parts: that the South would secede and that SC would be first. Clearly there was no real love between the North and the South, so that part of the prophesy I don't even include since, even in 1832, contention between the North and South was brewing. That it would come to war was not so obvious. My sources concede that the likelihood of all-out war was not readily obvious to most contemporary observers until 1848-50, after the Mexican-American War. Modern historians have attempted to refine that date and provide evidence that the roots of the Civil War were obvious in the 1830's, but the evidence for that claim is circumstantial at best. So on the first count, while Smith could have known the trouble in SC would lead to rebellion, it is unlikely and even moreso that he could have predicted all-out between the North and South.
Smith had no way to know that the South would call for aide from Britain. Such and event may be considered likely because the Continental Army under Washington had sought aide from France against the UK, so perhaps an astute observer could have assumed that one side or the other would ask for help from an overseas ally. The South did do a great deal of business with Britain, and it was concievable that, should things deteriorate into war, the obvious move would be to rally any and all allies to the cause. But this was not evident in 1832. The North did more business with the European nations at the time, and both Britain and France were in the process of abolishing slavery by this time. Clearly the slave South wouldn't be so brazen as to ask for aide from nations that abhored slavery, would they? Well, turns out the South was that bold, but it wasn't for 29 more years that they did so. So on the second count, there is really no way that Smith, or anyone else for that matter, could have first predicted total war, and second predicted that one side (to say nothing of which side) would call for help from an overseas nation.
Given the behavior of the slavers in the South and the pitiful condition of the slaves, it is also unlikely that slaves would be employed as soldiers against their masters. Even the free North was not overly friendly to blacks, and the Union Army was entirely white at the time. Militias employed blacks, and blacks had served in the revolutionary Army, but the Union Army didn't have black regiments until the Civil War - presumably as a psychological weapon against the South. If so, it worked well. So on the third point, there was likewise no indication in 1832 that the North would employ freed slaves against their former masters.
In short, in 1832 Smith could not have known with this level of accuracy or detail that a) the South would secede from the Union beginning in SC, b) that secession would lead to all-out war, c) the South would call for aide from the UK and other nations, and d) that the North would marshall freed slaves to fight against the South. 30 years prior to the event, this information would have been between speculative and non-existant to Smith. As such, I submit it as prophesy.
So, there's exhibit A for consideration as prophesy. I think it meets all of your criteria except repeatability, but even in today's virulent political climate it seems unlikely that the nation will deteriorate into civil war again - thus the chances of repetition are terribly slender at best. There is one part of this prophesy that is still open - regarding the outpouring of war upon all nations preceding the 2nd coming of Christ (D&C 87:5-8) - but that, too, has valid arguments on both sides. Some historians claim that this prophesy is void because the biggest part never came true - the Civil War ended, so obviously Smith was wrong. Other historians have drawn timelines linking the Civil War to almost every other war in every other corner of the world since that time. The roots of the Civil War can be traced back to the Revolution, if you think philosophically enough. The point is that it is still possible for that element of the prophesy to be true, but it has not been fulfilled yet and there is still debate about to this day. For both of those reasons, I have left it out. But I am sure it is something you will come across as you research this so I wanted it out there in the interest of full disclosure.
Let me know your thoughts. This is a great line of discussion; thanks for posting it!
Cory
In "e." you said that if something offered as a prophesy came true, such as someone winning the lottery, you would find it more likely that there was tampering than that there was divine causation. Firstly, this would fall under the heading of God being mocked - someone asking for revelation regarding a game of chance - and secondly you have already discounted any possibilty of godly assistance by saying "there must be some logical explanation, i.e. the game was rigged." What if the divine interaction was to rig the game? God's natural, logical methods are in evidence all around us - the motion of the planets, the conditions for life on earth, etc. - so why would his methods at fulfilling a prophesy be any different? You are presuming that His prophetic fulfillment would be through some sort of "magic," when it is just as likely that it would be through some incredible series of logical events. Consider miraculous healing as an example. If a doctor gives some patient with a terminal disease some finite amount of time to live, and that patient - a religious person who prays devoutly - suddenly recovers and the doctor discovers that some extremly rare condition of events occured to cure the illness, is it because God knows the body more intimately than anyone (being that He designed it) or is it just some fluke chance - fluke because the odds of beating such a disease are slim but the doctor can explain how the body healed itself? My point is that this condition you outline presupposes the methods by which God would accomplish His goals. Being able to explain something after the fact does not necessarily prove that God wasn't involved. Of course this has been the nature of our debate since day one. But I must make that caveat known before I continue.
Point "h." is like "e." so I won't say any further regarding that one. Regarding point "i." there is again some element of relevancy to prophesy. I could list dozens of prophesies from the book of Revelation alone, and just because we can go back in hindsight and explain them logically doesn't make them wrong or incorrect. So to this end I will add another condition: the prophesy must be judged from the perspective of its contemporaries. Would the people in the day have been able to explain the prophesy? We can look at satellite imaging of weather patterns today and compare those images to previous years and notice trends that tell us things like when hurricanes will strike or form, and that allows us to look back at events like Katrina and say, "oh, we should have seen that coming." This is simply for instance, not that such a conversation actually happened. I'm using it as example to say that we need to judge the veracity of prophesy against the information that was available to the people of the time.
All of this said, I will offer up an intriguing event for evaluation as prophesy. I have debated this one specifically with people whose knowledge of history and predictability I greatly respect, and the consensus is that it is extremely unlikely that the author of this passage could have predicted this event with the level of detail or accuracy that he did. In short, that the writing was not yet on the wall, even if the seeds of the event were well-sown. To me, it is evidence, if not proof, of some divine revelation.
From the Doctrine & Covenants, section 87, verses 1-4 regarding the Civil War:
"Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;
And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place;
For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war will be poured out upon all nations.
And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshalled and disciplined for war."
This was recorded in December of 1832. It offers distinct prophesies: that a) South Carolina would rebel first, beginning b) the war between the states (war being part of the prophesy, not that it was between the states); that c) the South would call on other nations, specifically Great Britain, for aide; and that d) slaves would rise up against their masters and be marshalled for war. All 4 predictions came true - SC rebelled in 1860; the South called for the aid of Great Britain and France, among others, in 1861; the slaves who were freed by the Union were marshalled and trained to fight against their former masters, and in fact many slaves even in the Confederate South rebelled of their own volition when they heard that the Union Army was coming.
The question becomes this: what could Joseph Smith have known in December 1832 that would taint the validity of this prophesy? James Calhoun, a senator from SC, had threatened secession in November of 1832 at a joint session of Congress over the issue of freesoiling (non-slave states, not wonton bedwetting) and other issues of concern to the South. News didn't travel fast in those days, but such a thing could have made it from DC and SC into Ohio and Missouri in a month's time. Perhaps Smith could reasonably have predicted that SC would secede first. Really that part of the prophesy is 2 parts: that the South would secede and that SC would be first. Clearly there was no real love between the North and the South, so that part of the prophesy I don't even include since, even in 1832, contention between the North and South was brewing. That it would come to war was not so obvious. My sources concede that the likelihood of all-out war was not readily obvious to most contemporary observers until 1848-50, after the Mexican-American War. Modern historians have attempted to refine that date and provide evidence that the roots of the Civil War were obvious in the 1830's, but the evidence for that claim is circumstantial at best. So on the first count, while Smith could have known the trouble in SC would lead to rebellion, it is unlikely and even moreso that he could have predicted all-out between the North and South.
Smith had no way to know that the South would call for aide from Britain. Such and event may be considered likely because the Continental Army under Washington had sought aide from France against the UK, so perhaps an astute observer could have assumed that one side or the other would ask for help from an overseas ally. The South did do a great deal of business with Britain, and it was concievable that, should things deteriorate into war, the obvious move would be to rally any and all allies to the cause. But this was not evident in 1832. The North did more business with the European nations at the time, and both Britain and France were in the process of abolishing slavery by this time. Clearly the slave South wouldn't be so brazen as to ask for aide from nations that abhored slavery, would they? Well, turns out the South was that bold, but it wasn't for 29 more years that they did so. So on the second count, there is really no way that Smith, or anyone else for that matter, could have first predicted total war, and second predicted that one side (to say nothing of which side) would call for help from an overseas nation.
Given the behavior of the slavers in the South and the pitiful condition of the slaves, it is also unlikely that slaves would be employed as soldiers against their masters. Even the free North was not overly friendly to blacks, and the Union Army was entirely white at the time. Militias employed blacks, and blacks had served in the revolutionary Army, but the Union Army didn't have black regiments until the Civil War - presumably as a psychological weapon against the South. If so, it worked well. So on the third point, there was likewise no indication in 1832 that the North would employ freed slaves against their former masters.
In short, in 1832 Smith could not have known with this level of accuracy or detail that a) the South would secede from the Union beginning in SC, b) that secession would lead to all-out war, c) the South would call for aide from the UK and other nations, and d) that the North would marshall freed slaves to fight against the South. 30 years prior to the event, this information would have been between speculative and non-existant to Smith. As such, I submit it as prophesy.
So, there's exhibit A for consideration as prophesy. I think it meets all of your criteria except repeatability, but even in today's virulent political climate it seems unlikely that the nation will deteriorate into civil war again - thus the chances of repetition are terribly slender at best. There is one part of this prophesy that is still open - regarding the outpouring of war upon all nations preceding the 2nd coming of Christ (D&C 87:5-8) - but that, too, has valid arguments on both sides. Some historians claim that this prophesy is void because the biggest part never came true - the Civil War ended, so obviously Smith was wrong. Other historians have drawn timelines linking the Civil War to almost every other war in every other corner of the world since that time. The roots of the Civil War can be traced back to the Revolution, if you think philosophically enough. The point is that it is still possible for that element of the prophesy to be true, but it has not been fulfilled yet and there is still debate about to this day. For both of those reasons, I have left it out. But I am sure it is something you will come across as you research this so I wanted it out there in the interest of full disclosure.
Let me know your thoughts. This is a great line of discussion; thanks for posting it!
Cory
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)