Cory,
As far as I'm concerned, we've hashed out the arguments for and against calling atheism a religion. I don't think we'll really come to a definition of "Religion" that we will both agree on. And that's where we're falling short.
Admittedly, this post is more in reference to your comments on Richard Dawkins then to the rest of the post.
The belief of Dawkins that you are referring to is called: Panspermia. It is the idea that life has traveled through space, probably carried on something like a comet, which found it's way to Earth, and started multiplying here. Versions of this theory has been around at least since the 5th century B.C. and is not something Dawkins made up.
Not that I necessarily believe this is how life began on Earth, but I think it is a valid theory worth exploring. For one, we have recorded the existence of extremophiles, some of which could actually survive a trip through space. For two, humans may have inadvertently done this ourselves. We know that certain strains of extremophiles that can survive a trip through space happened to be around during the Cambrian Explosion.
Of course this theory doesn't explain how life began, but it could explain how life began on our planet. We know that collisions with extra-solar objects and planets can launch pieces of the planet into space. We know that Earth has been bombarded with meteorites.
Given that we know there is life that can survive a trip through space, and that we humans have actually done it with our own space-equipment, I don't see how this idea is assinine whatsoever. And I certainly don't see how it is self-contradicting. It has nothing to do with intelligent design whatsoever, and has everything to do with known natural processes.
Well, that's all I have to say about that for now. Take care Cory!
-Mike
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Dawkins' aliens gave all of us scabies!
Mike,
You keep coming back to this "faith is a belief that finds supporting evidence" thing, and I have to take issue with that. I feel that I have searched for what I consider to be the most logical conclusion to my questions, and that search for truth has led me to believe in God. I didn't start out believing in God and then ran around looking for supporting evidence. I think our methodologies have been very similar; it is simply our conclusions that have differed.
Regarding "lessor Gods", certainly a point will come when accepting more than your own god will cause a conflict, and you'll have to decide which god you believe in more accurately (Zues may exist, for instance, just not as the ancient mythologies describe). This is a tangent that I don't wish to get sidetracked with, except to say that I agree with you to a point, but that explanations can be made.
Dawkins has made the case that intelligent design is not possible, but that life on this planet may have originated by alien life "seeding" the blocks of life to this world. This claim is not only self-contradicting, it is outright assinine. This is one example.
As for disagreeing with Jesus, certainly one couldn't hope to contradict God and still call themselves a follower of Him. But I could disagree with His apostles, or certain doctrines or events recorded in the Bible - even ones that i thought were true. This is a distinction, admittedly, that atheists don't have to make.
I always heard the quote as "atheism is a religion like bald is a hair style" in which case all I have to do is shave my otherwise full head of hair and reveal the fallacy of this idea. I suppose the same would hold true for calling it a hair color. "None" could arguably be called a color. But this is always going to come down to definition, and your slice of my argument refering to religion as a system of beliefs only portrays part of my argument. It is a system of beliefs regarding the supernatural that results in a call to action - that call may be to do nothing, but choosing not to believe is an active decision by a sentient being. This is the action to which I refer, not specifically a call to "preach the word" or some such thing. In this case, the NRA isn't quite a religion (although they do have some borderline dogmatic doctrines).
Your beliefs may not get tax exempt status, but your not-for-profit organizations do, same as mine. I'm not tax exempt just because I believe a certain way, but the institution I support is a registered 501(c), just like, oh, say, the HRC. Tax status has nothing to do with this debate.
I'm not offended that you think I'm wrong regarding atheism, and I'm not out to offend you, so I am glad you don't take offense. I just think you're defining the term too narrowly to purposely exclude your beliefs from the title of religion, simply because of the implications it would have to admit that you believe in something without proof. Likewise, you think I am defining the term too broadly and including too many groups. I'm not convinced that you are right, and clearly you don't agree with me. This is probably a reasonable place to put this element of the debate to rest. Almost.
I'll end by reminding you that abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. Hence, your evidence-based approach still leaves you with a gap that must be filled before you can make the claim that God does not exist (your claim is that nothing you have found shows evidence of God, therefore He must not exist. But since this evidence does not prove absence, you are making a leap of faith to conclude that it does). I am glad to see your intellectual honesty in admitting that you may be wrong. I would argue that the most honest thing to do would be to conclude that God may or may not exist, and that there simply isn't enough evidence one way or the other to make a valid conclusion. But that would likewise require me to do the same thing, since my belief in God is based largely on the same evidence that you have been citing, simply with different conclusions (I am assuming that God exists until shown otherwise, while you are assuming the God doesn't exist until shown otherwise). But this is exactly the point. In abscence of absolute proof, we each have to assume that our beliefs are true, how did you say it? oh yeah, "with our without proof." Neither of us has sufficient evidence to bridge the last bit of the gap into fact, so we must rely on faith alone to validate our beliefs. Hence, we are both religious.
On to bigger and more important things. Until next time.
Cory
PS- I have been working on an approach that will put you a little more on the defensive, since I agree that up to now we have really been defending God's existence more than you defending His abscence, but I want to be careful because I'm not interested in attacking or offending you or your beliefs. Dan made most of my recent argument in his last post, so I have scraped that one and am researching another approach. Before Christmas, I promise. Hopefully it's worth the wait.
You keep coming back to this "faith is a belief that finds supporting evidence" thing, and I have to take issue with that. I feel that I have searched for what I consider to be the most logical conclusion to my questions, and that search for truth has led me to believe in God. I didn't start out believing in God and then ran around looking for supporting evidence. I think our methodologies have been very similar; it is simply our conclusions that have differed.
Regarding "lessor Gods", certainly a point will come when accepting more than your own god will cause a conflict, and you'll have to decide which god you believe in more accurately (Zues may exist, for instance, just not as the ancient mythologies describe). This is a tangent that I don't wish to get sidetracked with, except to say that I agree with you to a point, but that explanations can be made.
Dawkins has made the case that intelligent design is not possible, but that life on this planet may have originated by alien life "seeding" the blocks of life to this world. This claim is not only self-contradicting, it is outright assinine. This is one example.
As for disagreeing with Jesus, certainly one couldn't hope to contradict God and still call themselves a follower of Him. But I could disagree with His apostles, or certain doctrines or events recorded in the Bible - even ones that i thought were true. This is a distinction, admittedly, that atheists don't have to make.
I always heard the quote as "atheism is a religion like bald is a hair style" in which case all I have to do is shave my otherwise full head of hair and reveal the fallacy of this idea. I suppose the same would hold true for calling it a hair color. "None" could arguably be called a color. But this is always going to come down to definition, and your slice of my argument refering to religion as a system of beliefs only portrays part of my argument. It is a system of beliefs regarding the supernatural that results in a call to action - that call may be to do nothing, but choosing not to believe is an active decision by a sentient being. This is the action to which I refer, not specifically a call to "preach the word" or some such thing. In this case, the NRA isn't quite a religion (although they do have some borderline dogmatic doctrines).
Your beliefs may not get tax exempt status, but your not-for-profit organizations do, same as mine. I'm not tax exempt just because I believe a certain way, but the institution I support is a registered 501(c), just like, oh, say, the HRC. Tax status has nothing to do with this debate.
I'm not offended that you think I'm wrong regarding atheism, and I'm not out to offend you, so I am glad you don't take offense. I just think you're defining the term too narrowly to purposely exclude your beliefs from the title of religion, simply because of the implications it would have to admit that you believe in something without proof. Likewise, you think I am defining the term too broadly and including too many groups. I'm not convinced that you are right, and clearly you don't agree with me. This is probably a reasonable place to put this element of the debate to rest. Almost.
I'll end by reminding you that abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. Hence, your evidence-based approach still leaves you with a gap that must be filled before you can make the claim that God does not exist (your claim is that nothing you have found shows evidence of God, therefore He must not exist. But since this evidence does not prove absence, you are making a leap of faith to conclude that it does). I am glad to see your intellectual honesty in admitting that you may be wrong. I would argue that the most honest thing to do would be to conclude that God may or may not exist, and that there simply isn't enough evidence one way or the other to make a valid conclusion. But that would likewise require me to do the same thing, since my belief in God is based largely on the same evidence that you have been citing, simply with different conclusions (I am assuming that God exists until shown otherwise, while you are assuming the God doesn't exist until shown otherwise). But this is exactly the point. In abscence of absolute proof, we each have to assume that our beliefs are true, how did you say it? oh yeah, "with our without proof." Neither of us has sufficient evidence to bridge the last bit of the gap into fact, so we must rely on faith alone to validate our beliefs. Hence, we are both religious.
On to bigger and more important things. Until next time.
Cory
PS- I have been working on an approach that will put you a little more on the defensive, since I agree that up to now we have really been defending God's existence more than you defending His abscence, but I want to be careful because I'm not interested in attacking or offending you or your beliefs. Dan made most of my recent argument in his last post, so I have scraped that one and am researching another approach. Before Christmas, I promise. Hopefully it's worth the wait.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Richard Dawkins cured my scabies!
Ok, I've never had scabies, and I certainly don't believe that Richard Dawkins could do very much to cure them. But I think it's funny to think of him as a "Patron Saint" of Atheism.
Cory, I really have a hard time with you saying I have a certain amount of, "faith" and that drives my beliefs. In fact, it is absolutely the contrary. As I talked about in my very first post, it is my lack of faith that drives my atheism. My beliefs are based on evidence, not faith. I believe in the Big Bang origins of the universe not because it sounds good, but because of the evidence we have that caused us to come to those conclusions.
My personal philosophy is not to come up with an idea and then find evidence to prove it. My personal philosophy is to look at the evidence and then use it to understand what is happening. This is the polar opposite of having faith.
"Faith" and "Belief" do not mean the same thing.
"Belief" is something you think is true. and "Faith" is trusting what you think is true to be true, with our without proof.
I don't believe in God not because I have faith he doesn't exist, but because I don't see any proof of his existence. I acknowledge that I may be wrong. I can't disprove god's existence. But to take an idea and then search for proof to validate those claims is a flawed process. It causes people to filter out what information doesn't fit their idea. I don't disbelieve in god because I want him to not exist, but because I don't see the evidence that leads me to make the conclusion that he does.
I understand that god could exist and works in ways that show no evidence. But I can't take lack of evidence as proof of his existence. That is just illogical. That is why I can't say that I have "faith".
Cory, I really have a hard time with you saying I have a certain amount of, "faith" and that drives my beliefs. In fact, it is absolutely the contrary. As I talked about in my very first post, it is my lack of faith that drives my atheism. My beliefs are based on evidence, not faith. I believe in the Big Bang origins of the universe not because it sounds good, but because of the evidence we have that caused us to come to those conclusions.
My personal philosophy is not to come up with an idea and then find evidence to prove it. My personal philosophy is to look at the evidence and then use it to understand what is happening. This is the polar opposite of having faith.
"Faith" and "Belief" do not mean the same thing.
"Belief" is something you think is true. and "Faith" is trusting what you think is true to be true, with our without proof.
I don't believe in God not because I have faith he doesn't exist, but because I don't see any proof of his existence. I acknowledge that I may be wrong. I can't disprove god's existence. But to take an idea and then search for proof to validate those claims is a flawed process. It causes people to filter out what information doesn't fit their idea. I don't disbelieve in god because I want him to not exist, but because I don't see the evidence that leads me to make the conclusion that he does.
I understand that god could exist and works in ways that show no evidence. But I can't take lack of evidence as proof of his existence. That is just illogical. That is why I can't say that I have "faith".
"Bottom line - a religion is a system of beliefs that result in a call to action." You can use that definition if you would like, but I think this is far too broad. For one, my Atheism doesn't necessarily call me to action. I may choose to act upon my dis-belief, but I know far more atheists that prefer not to say or do anything to others about it. For another, there are far more systems of beliefs that don't have anything to do with a belief in god that result in a call for action. For example: I would not consider "Pro-Gun Rights" to be a religion.
For the record, I don't take offense to calling Atheism a religion. I just don't agree that it is. But like you said, it comes down to what our definition of "religion" is. This reminds me of the Don Hirschberg quote that goes something like, "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling 'bald' a hair color."
You may believe in other "lesser gods" but if they are the gods of other religions than your own, you have to acknowledge that in most cases, there will be a conflict of interest in terms of which mythology is correct. If you believe in Yahweh AND Zeus, then you have extremely conflicting origin stories of the universe. If one is correct then the other isn't. You can't get around it without skewing the very understanding of who that god is.
Although I'm curious as to what logic of Richard Dawkins you think is assinine, I don't think it's relevant to this debate. The same goes for the other famous Atheists. Although as far as Bill Maher is concerned: Anyone who makes a movie where they are belittling people of other beliefs for two hours is just a deuchebag.
"However, just as disliking Mahar or Hitchens doesn't make you less atheist, disagreeing with, say, Brigham Young on certain things doesn't make me less Christian." I agree with you here. Although, I wonder how you would feel if instead of you disagreeing with Mr. Young, you disagreed with Jesus. But that's a whole different subject.
We can go back and forth about the subject of what does and doesn't constitute a religion. Like I said, I'm not offended by it. I just don't agree that my atheism is a religion.
You're right. I have first amendment rights on the issue. But my beliefs don't get tax-exempt status.
Thanks for (although not deliberately) bringing up this subject. I feel as though I've been playing offense this entire blog and you and Dan have been playing defense. I would love for you two to bring up debates where I have to defend my stance a little more.
Take care, and happy (belated) Thanksgiving!
-Mike
Re: It's Gettin' Silly Up In Here
Dan,
You're right, things really are getting silly at this point. We've hit a point where we are stuck in an endless loop.
I'll argue that you're using circular reasoning. You'll argue that you're not.
I'll argue that I don't accept testimony as accurate evidence. You'll argue that it is.
I'll ask for more evidence. You'll give me something from the bible, and we'll play a game of "who knows the bible better than who." Then I'll argue that using the bible as proof of itself is using circular reasoning. Then we're back to square one.
I can (and did the research) to argue against the extra Biblical writings and why they aren't evidence for the New Testament claims. But that will get us back into the, "Who knows the bible better than who" game. And I think you misunderstand what I would consider as evidence to back up the claims of the gospels.
I feel as though I've explained that human testimony can be invalid, and have shown proof. As I said before, I will hold steadfast in this regard. I understand that in history, sometimes this is the only way we know what has happened. But I also argue that in the history we know, especially that which we know solely from human testimony, it is subject to be invalid. This doesn't mean that it's ALL wrong. In most cases, I would bet that what we know is fairly accurate. But in terms of arguing for the existence of the supernatural, which is what we are doing, we can NOT settle for anything less than 100% accuracy. Human fallibility is an unfortunate trait that will never allow for human testimony, however earnest, to be capable of being considered as 100% accurate evidence.
I feel as though I've given enough evidence to make a case for why I BELIEVE the gospels have been embellished/changed/corrupted. I could go into it, but I don't feel like getting into another game of, "who knows the bible more than who".
I am at a loss for words about your arguments for the Gospels as not being biased stories for Jesus.
At this point, I'm willing to declare that I agree to disagree. We aren't making any more headway on this subject, and our energy can be saved for new debate. I really don't want to go another round of rehashing the same arguments.
Thanks for keeping me on my toes! I expect nothing less during our future debates!
-Mike
You're right, things really are getting silly at this point. We've hit a point where we are stuck in an endless loop.
I'll argue that you're using circular reasoning. You'll argue that you're not.
I'll argue that I don't accept testimony as accurate evidence. You'll argue that it is.
I'll ask for more evidence. You'll give me something from the bible, and we'll play a game of "who knows the bible better than who." Then I'll argue that using the bible as proof of itself is using circular reasoning. Then we're back to square one.
I can (and did the research) to argue against the extra Biblical writings and why they aren't evidence for the New Testament claims. But that will get us back into the, "Who knows the bible better than who" game. And I think you misunderstand what I would consider as evidence to back up the claims of the gospels.
I feel as though I've explained that human testimony can be invalid, and have shown proof. As I said before, I will hold steadfast in this regard. I understand that in history, sometimes this is the only way we know what has happened. But I also argue that in the history we know, especially that which we know solely from human testimony, it is subject to be invalid. This doesn't mean that it's ALL wrong. In most cases, I would bet that what we know is fairly accurate. But in terms of arguing for the existence of the supernatural, which is what we are doing, we can NOT settle for anything less than 100% accuracy. Human fallibility is an unfortunate trait that will never allow for human testimony, however earnest, to be capable of being considered as 100% accurate evidence.
I feel as though I've given enough evidence to make a case for why I BELIEVE the gospels have been embellished/changed/corrupted. I could go into it, but I don't feel like getting into another game of, "who knows the bible more than who".
I am at a loss for words about your arguments for the Gospels as not being biased stories for Jesus.
At this point, I'm willing to declare that I agree to disagree. We aren't making any more headway on this subject, and our energy can be saved for new debate. I really don't want to go another round of rehashing the same arguments.
Thanks for keeping me on my toes! I expect nothing less during our future debates!
-Mike
My holiday season remarks
Thank you Cory and Dan for the kind words.
Now is a fantastic time to sit back and remember we have much more in common with each other than the differences this blog focuses on.
Of course this is a blog who's nature is the spirit of debate, but none of us would be participating if we weren't hoping to share who we are with those that differ from us.
In that, our purpose here is to bring us together, not push us apart.
In the few months we've been doing this, I feel as though you guys are much more my friends then just strangers across the digital divide. In that, I would certainly like to express my deepest, "Thank you" to everyone who has participated, even if all you've done is read the blog.
I hope you have all had a fantastic Holiday and have taken the chance to appreciate all the opportunities we are lucky to have.
Best Wishes,
-Mike
Now is a fantastic time to sit back and remember we have much more in common with each other than the differences this blog focuses on.
Of course this is a blog who's nature is the spirit of debate, but none of us would be participating if we weren't hoping to share who we are with those that differ from us.
In that, our purpose here is to bring us together, not push us apart.
In the few months we've been doing this, I feel as though you guys are much more my friends then just strangers across the digital divide. In that, I would certainly like to express my deepest, "Thank you" to everyone who has participated, even if all you've done is read the blog.
I hope you have all had a fantastic Holiday and have taken the chance to appreciate all the opportunities we are lucky to have.
Best Wishes,
-Mike
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Beyond silly, this is just smarmy!
Friends,
We don't have to believe in a deity this time of year to give thanks for the great freedoms we enjoy, our faculties that allow us to work and be prosperous, and for good friends with which to share ideas and expand our understandings of the world and universe. No matter what else is said here, I want you all to know that I am thankful for this great opportunity to share these ideas with you guys and I am thankful for our cyber-friendship.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Best,
~Cory
We don't have to believe in a deity this time of year to give thanks for the great freedoms we enjoy, our faculties that allow us to work and be prosperous, and for good friends with which to share ideas and expand our understandings of the world and universe. No matter what else is said here, I want you all to know that I am thankful for this great opportunity to share these ideas with you guys and I am thankful for our cyber-friendship.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Best,
~Cory
Monday, November 22, 2010
It's Gettin' Silly Up In Here
Getting back to my circular reasoning argument: Why are the only stories of Jesus from the Christian point of view? Where is the public record which takes into account the miracles he performed? Where are the non-Christian stories of Jesus from that time? Where is the archaeological evidence to back up the claims? There simply are none.
This isn't strictly true, as a quick Google search for extra biblical writings Jesus can easily demonstrate. It's true that there are no detailed accounts of his life from non-Christian sources, but that's not to say that there's no information about Jesus from extrabiblical writings.
I have to confess a certain amount of amusement here, Mike. Right in the middle of an argument against the reliability of eyewitness testimony, you ask for more (albeit extrabiblical) eyewitness testimony! You then say you want archaeological evidence of said miracles, but then you completely discard without careful consideration the extant archaeological evidence (i.e. historical documents). This is starting to get silly.
There aren't any relics to back up your claims. Like I said before, the gospels were made decades after, and the oldest fragment of the gospels we have is dated to 117-138 AD which is almost 100 years after the life of Jesus.
I think you're missing the point here. The point is not that documents are bad and relics are good; the point is that relics are better than documents. What kind of relic would suffice to demonstrate that lots were cast for Jesus' clothing while he hung on the cross (in fulfillment of Psalm 22:16-18)?
I believe the stories of Jesus HAVE been forged or corrupted.
The key word here is, of course, "believe." You are free to believe what you want, Mike, but that doesn't mean that your belief necessarily correlates with reality, right? Since we're discussing physical attestation (relics) of truth claims, what document evidence do you rely upon to support your belief that the narratives of Jesus' life are corrupted?
You have acknowledged that the writings of Jesus were written decades after the event.
Yep, I sure have. And that beats the pants off of any other ancient document...and I don't see anyone complaining about the hundreds or even thousands of years that separate extant copies of other ancient documents and their authors.
I have already stated that I believe the gospels to be secondary sources at best.
There's that word again...."believe."
I demonstrated that this is just plain untrue in my last post, Mike, but you've not directly interacted with my answer. This feels a lot like evasion.
Considering all of the sources we have for Jesus' life are in the New Testament, NONE of the sources are independent.
Interesting. A few posts ago, you argued that Matthew and Luke "contradicted" one another in their respective geneaologies of Jesus; now you're arguing that they're really not independent writers. You're arguing against yourself here. Either Matthew and Mark wrote indepenently of one another or they colluded with one another and are thus not independent sources. Which is it?
If you are trying to claim your leader is the foretold Messiah, your stories are most absolutely biased and motivated to saying he is who you claim he is.
Again, you're reading too much into the text you quoted. It says there is a tendency towards bias. I'm biased. You're biased. Cory's biased. We all have a bias--only objects are truly objective. But that's not to say that all biases are equal, nor does it necessarily follow that all biases are bad.
The rest of that point talks about "opposite motivations." Does the following sound like a good reason to write a bunch of lies...and to continue to teach them in the midst of such treatment?
I honestly don't see what bias you're seeing. My experience has shown that skeptics typically point an accusatory finger at the horrible shortcomings of its characters, but you seem to be implying here that the writers were biased to "pump up" the characters to make them look larger than life--superhuman, even. I wonder...have you read about Noah getting drunk? David's murder and adulterous affair with Bathsheba? Elijah running scared from Jezebel? Peter continually sticking his foot in his mouth and denying his relationship with Jesus three times? Paul's stubborn insistence to go to Jerusalem in Acts 20-21 and his appeal to Caesar that got him thrown in jail? The Bible paints pictures of its "heroes" with warts and all...which is hardly the type of literature one would see from a biased source. We certainly don't see these kinds of accounts from ancient Egyptian records, for example--when the pharaohs lost battles, they had those records expunged. Not so in the Bible--every time the Israelites got their butts handed to them or their leaders fell (e.g. Samson), it was all written down.
Again... the gospels were written by the followers of Jesus. They are absolutely biased sources in terms of making claims of him being the Messiah.
This really hearkens back to the first point I made about asking for evidence that you won't accept, but I'll bite anyway. In your opinion, who would be a credible source for demonstrating that Jesus really did fulfill the prophesies of the promised Messiah?
-dan
This isn't strictly true, as a quick Google search for extra biblical writings Jesus can easily demonstrate. It's true that there are no detailed accounts of his life from non-Christian sources, but that's not to say that there's no information about Jesus from extrabiblical writings.
I have to confess a certain amount of amusement here, Mike. Right in the middle of an argument against the reliability of eyewitness testimony, you ask for more (albeit extrabiblical) eyewitness testimony! You then say you want archaeological evidence of said miracles, but then you completely discard without careful consideration the extant archaeological evidence (i.e. historical documents). This is starting to get silly.
There aren't any relics to back up your claims. Like I said before, the gospels were made decades after, and the oldest fragment of the gospels we have is dated to 117-138 AD which is almost 100 years after the life of Jesus.
I think you're missing the point here. The point is not that documents are bad and relics are good; the point is that relics are better than documents. What kind of relic would suffice to demonstrate that lots were cast for Jesus' clothing while he hung on the cross (in fulfillment of Psalm 22:16-18)?
I believe the stories of Jesus HAVE been forged or corrupted.
The key word here is, of course, "believe." You are free to believe what you want, Mike, but that doesn't mean that your belief necessarily correlates with reality, right? Since we're discussing physical attestation (relics) of truth claims, what document evidence do you rely upon to support your belief that the narratives of Jesus' life are corrupted?
You have acknowledged that the writings of Jesus were written decades after the event.
Yep, I sure have. And that beats the pants off of any other ancient document...and I don't see anyone complaining about the hundreds or even thousands of years that separate extant copies of other ancient documents and their authors.
I have already stated that I believe the gospels to be secondary sources at best.
There's that word again...."believe."
I demonstrated that this is just plain untrue in my last post, Mike, but you've not directly interacted with my answer. This feels a lot like evasion.
Considering all of the sources we have for Jesus' life are in the New Testament, NONE of the sources are independent.
Interesting. A few posts ago, you argued that Matthew and Luke "contradicted" one another in their respective geneaologies of Jesus; now you're arguing that they're really not independent writers. You're arguing against yourself here. Either Matthew and Mark wrote indepenently of one another or they colluded with one another and are thus not independent sources. Which is it?
If you are trying to claim your leader is the foretold Messiah, your stories are most absolutely biased and motivated to saying he is who you claim he is.
Again, you're reading too much into the text you quoted. It says there is a tendency towards bias. I'm biased. You're biased. Cory's biased. We all have a bias--only objects are truly objective. But that's not to say that all biases are equal, nor does it necessarily follow that all biases are bad.
The rest of that point talks about "opposite motivations." Does the following sound like a good reason to write a bunch of lies...and to continue to teach them in the midst of such treatment?
Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?
1 Corinthians 11:24-29
I honestly don't see what bias you're seeing. My experience has shown that skeptics typically point an accusatory finger at the horrible shortcomings of its characters, but you seem to be implying here that the writers were biased to "pump up" the characters to make them look larger than life--superhuman, even. I wonder...have you read about Noah getting drunk? David's murder and adulterous affair with Bathsheba? Elijah running scared from Jezebel? Peter continually sticking his foot in his mouth and denying his relationship with Jesus three times? Paul's stubborn insistence to go to Jerusalem in Acts 20-21 and his appeal to Caesar that got him thrown in jail? The Bible paints pictures of its "heroes" with warts and all...which is hardly the type of literature one would see from a biased source. We certainly don't see these kinds of accounts from ancient Egyptian records, for example--when the pharaohs lost battles, they had those records expunged. Not so in the Bible--every time the Israelites got their butts handed to them or their leaders fell (e.g. Samson), it was all written down.
Again... the gospels were written by the followers of Jesus. They are absolutely biased sources in terms of making claims of him being the Messiah.
This really hearkens back to the first point I made about asking for evidence that you won't accept, but I'll bite anyway. In your opinion, who would be a credible source for demonstrating that Jesus really did fulfill the prophesies of the promised Messiah?
-dan
and yet, still a spade . . .
Mike,
I will return to my regularly scheduled rebuttal shortly, but I was passing by and saw this post and I couldn't resist offering a response. I should be working on, well, a dozen other things, yet here I am. This started as a comment on your post, but it's too long, so now it has a life of it's own.
Your post should be called, "why atheism isn't an organized religion," and that would make the response more fitting. True, atheists don't necessarily have holidays or organization, although it's tough to say that there are no dogmas or doctrines, or that there are no holy men. 'Holy' is the wrong term, although I find it terribly funny to refer to men like Hitchens and Dawkins as "patron saints" of atheism (funny in the tongue-in-cheek sense, not that I am intentionally poking fun at your expense). But all the same, there are some distinct similarities between atheist organization and any other religious organization, even if they are tenuous at best.
In truth, though, this really does come down to definitions, and as usual this is where we start getting into trouble. While you may be a 'hard' atheist and have come by your beliefs honestly, the fact is that you have to incorporate some amount of faith to get to the point where those beliefs become a call to action. Being atheist is just that - the act of not believing, or better yet the act of believing that nothing exists. Having a belief in God one way or the other requires some amount of faith - regardless of whether you are starting from zero belief or full-on Jesus freak.
Bottom line - a religion is a system of beliefs that result in a call to action. However you want to describe the details within this definition is fine - call me an atheist against the Wiccan gods if that helps sort out the specifics. For the record, though, I have no problem believing in other gods, call them 'lesser gods,' for several reasons that I don't need to take up space with here.
All the same, sort the details as you like; atheism is still a religion - a belief regarding the supernatural that results in a call to action. This does not fit the definition of an organzied religion, at least not very well, I will grant. But I never claimed that atheism proper was an organized movement of like-minded individuals led by some specific individual or group who is/are their central authority. I only claim that atheism requires faith (belief) in the supernatural (in this case that it doesn't exist) and as such fits the definition of a religion.
And for the record, I have nothing against Mr. Dawkins - he seems like a bright, polite man. I happen to think his logic is seriously flawed and therefore his conclusions are assinine, and I have, in the past, called him the "stupidest smart person alive." But that says nothing of the character of the man. Bill Mahar, on the other hand, is both fundamentally flawed and a complete ass. I agree with you there. Hitch, I can't speak to him as I have not paid him much attention. I understand he and his brother are quite at odds, though, and that there is supposed to be some big debate between them in the coming months. Ah, sibling rivalry.
I bring this up to point out that I, too, don't agree with everything the Christians get wrapped up in, or all of what they say. Even within my own Church, I have disagreed with certain ideas and actions. The beauty of Chrisitanity, to me, is its focus on agency - I am perfectly free to accept or not to accept as I see fit. The consequences, of course, are another matter. But the physical world is no different. I can disbelieve in gravity all I want, but as soon as I walk off the end of a pier, gravity is going to remind of the consequences of my disbelief.
However, just as disliking Mahar or Hitchens doesn't make you less atheist, disagreeing with, say, Brigham Young on certain things doesn't make me less Christian.
This is a side note I could continue discussing for days, so let's just wrap it up here. I am not convinced that atheism is not a religion, only that it is not an organization. I realize the position it puts you in to accept my point of view on this matter, and I know you will argue with me til the end of days about this point. But I have gone these rounds countless times and I have yet to hear the rational argument to refute my position.
Look on the bright side: you get the protection offered by the 1st amendment this way.
~Cory
I will return to my regularly scheduled rebuttal shortly, but I was passing by and saw this post and I couldn't resist offering a response. I should be working on, well, a dozen other things, yet here I am. This started as a comment on your post, but it's too long, so now it has a life of it's own.
Your post should be called, "why atheism isn't an organized religion," and that would make the response more fitting. True, atheists don't necessarily have holidays or organization, although it's tough to say that there are no dogmas or doctrines, or that there are no holy men. 'Holy' is the wrong term, although I find it terribly funny to refer to men like Hitchens and Dawkins as "patron saints" of atheism (funny in the tongue-in-cheek sense, not that I am intentionally poking fun at your expense). But all the same, there are some distinct similarities between atheist organization and any other religious organization, even if they are tenuous at best.
In truth, though, this really does come down to definitions, and as usual this is where we start getting into trouble. While you may be a 'hard' atheist and have come by your beliefs honestly, the fact is that you have to incorporate some amount of faith to get to the point where those beliefs become a call to action. Being atheist is just that - the act of not believing, or better yet the act of believing that nothing exists. Having a belief in God one way or the other requires some amount of faith - regardless of whether you are starting from zero belief or full-on Jesus freak.
Bottom line - a religion is a system of beliefs that result in a call to action. However you want to describe the details within this definition is fine - call me an atheist against the Wiccan gods if that helps sort out the specifics. For the record, though, I have no problem believing in other gods, call them 'lesser gods,' for several reasons that I don't need to take up space with here.
All the same, sort the details as you like; atheism is still a religion - a belief regarding the supernatural that results in a call to action. This does not fit the definition of an organzied religion, at least not very well, I will grant. But I never claimed that atheism proper was an organized movement of like-minded individuals led by some specific individual or group who is/are their central authority. I only claim that atheism requires faith (belief) in the supernatural (in this case that it doesn't exist) and as such fits the definition of a religion.
And for the record, I have nothing against Mr. Dawkins - he seems like a bright, polite man. I happen to think his logic is seriously flawed and therefore his conclusions are assinine, and I have, in the past, called him the "stupidest smart person alive." But that says nothing of the character of the man. Bill Mahar, on the other hand, is both fundamentally flawed and a complete ass. I agree with you there. Hitch, I can't speak to him as I have not paid him much attention. I understand he and his brother are quite at odds, though, and that there is supposed to be some big debate between them in the coming months. Ah, sibling rivalry.
I bring this up to point out that I, too, don't agree with everything the Christians get wrapped up in, or all of what they say. Even within my own Church, I have disagreed with certain ideas and actions. The beauty of Chrisitanity, to me, is its focus on agency - I am perfectly free to accept or not to accept as I see fit. The consequences, of course, are another matter. But the physical world is no different. I can disbelieve in gravity all I want, but as soon as I walk off the end of a pier, gravity is going to remind of the consequences of my disbelief.
However, just as disliking Mahar or Hitchens doesn't make you less atheist, disagreeing with, say, Brigham Young on certain things doesn't make me less Christian.
This is a side note I could continue discussing for days, so let's just wrap it up here. I am not convinced that atheism is not a religion, only that it is not an organization. I realize the position it puts you in to accept my point of view on this matter, and I know you will argue with me til the end of days about this point. But I have gone these rounds countless times and I have yet to hear the rational argument to refute my position.
Look on the bright side: you get the protection offered by the 1st amendment this way.
~Cory
Why Atheism isn't a religion.
This subject has been mentioned a few times to me, so I thought I would weigh in my thoughts on it.
Of course, like many things, the definition of what constitutes a "religion" is different for many people. If your argument is that a religion is solely your beliefs about God, then yes, I could see you arguing that atheism is a religion. In a similar respect, one can be "spiritual" yet not ascribe to a religion (and that would also be a religion). There are many parallels between religion and atheism, but beyond having a stance about your belief in god, the two subjects differ greatly.
Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods. That's it. Although I don't believe in a Christian God, I also don't believe in the Hindu gods, the Greek gods, the Norse gods, Wiccan gods, etc. If my dis-belief is the definition of my religion, then we are all part of that religion. If you believe in a Christian God, then you are an atheist to the Wiccan gods. Does that mean your religion (even though you may be a Christian) is now Atheism?
In the same respect, my lack of belief in a god is no more a religion then my lack of belief in ghosts, bogeymen, alien abductions, and chupacabra are.
Atheism doesn't have any doctrine it follows. There is no dogma. There are no ceremonies. There are no holidays. There are no holy men, and there is no organization.
Of course, Atheism has it's heroes, and it's books. There are guys like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Bill Maher. We have books like, "The God Delusion" and "Why I am not a Christian". But none of these things are pre-requisites to being an atheist. I can choose to dis-agree with Hitchens, or Maher, or Dawkins (and I do sometimes), and I can still be an atheist. I don't agree with everything written in "The God Delusion", I think Bill Maher is an ass, and I think Christopher Hitchens is a crass jerk. I am allowed to think critically about the things these people say. I'm allowed to disagree with them about their opinions, and sometimes I do. This doesn't make me any less atheist.
The major difference I see between Religion and Atheism isn't necessarily even what our beliefs are, but how we come about believing them. In a nutshell: Religions take a belief and try to find evidence to support it. Atheists takes evidence and build their belief from the information they have. Of course this is an over-generalization. No one fits neatly into one or the other category. But I think it is an overall fairly accurate description.
That being said, there are different organized groups that have core atheist beliefs. I think it would be safe to argue that these border on being religions. Humanism is a perfect example. But one doesn't have to be a humanist if they are an atheist.
One other thing that I wanted to address in this post, but am unsure where to put it is: I consider there to be at least two different classes of Atheists. For lack of a better term, let's call them Hard and Soft Atheists.
A "Soft" atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god, but doesn't necessarily have strong reasoning why. They haven't really studied the arguments, or possibly haven't even thought much about god at all. They just know they don't believe. They do not have strong convictions on the subject. I would consider them to be just a small step to the "no god" side of agnosticism.
A "Hard" atheist is someone who has thought about the subject, and has studied the arguments for and against belief in god. These people generally have very strong convictions.
The reason I make this distinction is because I've been describing overall generalizations of atheists. My descriptions will most likely fit "hard" atheists much better than they will, "soft" atheists.
Well, thanks for reading.
Until next time,
-Mike
Of course, like many things, the definition of what constitutes a "religion" is different for many people. If your argument is that a religion is solely your beliefs about God, then yes, I could see you arguing that atheism is a religion. In a similar respect, one can be "spiritual" yet not ascribe to a religion (and that would also be a religion). There are many parallels between religion and atheism, but beyond having a stance about your belief in god, the two subjects differ greatly.
Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods. That's it. Although I don't believe in a Christian God, I also don't believe in the Hindu gods, the Greek gods, the Norse gods, Wiccan gods, etc. If my dis-belief is the definition of my religion, then we are all part of that religion. If you believe in a Christian God, then you are an atheist to the Wiccan gods. Does that mean your religion (even though you may be a Christian) is now Atheism?
In the same respect, my lack of belief in a god is no more a religion then my lack of belief in ghosts, bogeymen, alien abductions, and chupacabra are.
Atheism doesn't have any doctrine it follows. There is no dogma. There are no ceremonies. There are no holidays. There are no holy men, and there is no organization.
Of course, Atheism has it's heroes, and it's books. There are guys like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Bill Maher. We have books like, "The God Delusion" and "Why I am not a Christian". But none of these things are pre-requisites to being an atheist. I can choose to dis-agree with Hitchens, or Maher, or Dawkins (and I do sometimes), and I can still be an atheist. I don't agree with everything written in "The God Delusion", I think Bill Maher is an ass, and I think Christopher Hitchens is a crass jerk. I am allowed to think critically about the things these people say. I'm allowed to disagree with them about their opinions, and sometimes I do. This doesn't make me any less atheist.
The major difference I see between Religion and Atheism isn't necessarily even what our beliefs are, but how we come about believing them. In a nutshell: Religions take a belief and try to find evidence to support it. Atheists takes evidence and build their belief from the information they have. Of course this is an over-generalization. No one fits neatly into one or the other category. But I think it is an overall fairly accurate description.
That being said, there are different organized groups that have core atheist beliefs. I think it would be safe to argue that these border on being religions. Humanism is a perfect example. But one doesn't have to be a humanist if they are an atheist.
One other thing that I wanted to address in this post, but am unsure where to put it is: I consider there to be at least two different classes of Atheists. For lack of a better term, let's call them Hard and Soft Atheists.
A "Soft" atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god, but doesn't necessarily have strong reasoning why. They haven't really studied the arguments, or possibly haven't even thought much about god at all. They just know they don't believe. They do not have strong convictions on the subject. I would consider them to be just a small step to the "no god" side of agnosticism.
A "Hard" atheist is someone who has thought about the subject, and has studied the arguments for and against belief in god. These people generally have very strong convictions.
The reason I make this distinction is because I've been describing overall generalizations of atheists. My descriptions will most likely fit "hard" atheists much better than they will, "soft" atheists.
Well, thanks for reading.
Until next time,
-Mike
yes, I suck.
Hi again,
If any of you read my most recent post, I apologize. I removed it for the simple fact that I wrote it in haste between other projects and I didn't really give it the thought that this blog deserves. There has been some great discussion going on, and for me to just throw together a few random ideas late at night doesn't seem to do the rest of you any justice. So I took it down and I will rework it to make it more up to par. If you were preparing a response or comment, just hold on to it.
In the meantime, sorry again for my absence; school is kicking my butt and I just don't have the free time that I need to keep up with you guys. I'll try better in the coming weeks.
Cory
If any of you read my most recent post, I apologize. I removed it for the simple fact that I wrote it in haste between other projects and I didn't really give it the thought that this blog deserves. There has been some great discussion going on, and for me to just throw together a few random ideas late at night doesn't seem to do the rest of you any justice. So I took it down and I will rework it to make it more up to par. If you were preparing a response or comment, just hold on to it.
In the meantime, sorry again for my absence; school is kicking my butt and I just don't have the free time that I need to keep up with you guys. I'll try better in the coming weeks.
Cory
Friday, November 19, 2010
History is written by the winners.
All the ancient histories, as one of our wits say, are just fables that have been agreed upon. ~Voltaire, Jeannot et Colin
A history in which every particular incident may be true may on the whole be false. ~Thomas Babington Macaulay
Dan,
I'm sorry, but I will not take reliance on word of mouth alone to be 100% accurate proof of anything. I'm not going to budge on this. Understand that I'm not asserting that this means word of mouth is 100% innacurate. What I am saying is that if all you have is word of mouth to go by, then you don't have 100% verifiable evidence. Sure, many parts could be accurate, but there are many parts that could be wildly inaccurate.
For example: Let's talk about the Trojan War and the stories that came from it. It's stories have been told for thousands of years. We have, in recent years, found evidence to support that the war actually happened and that Troy actually existed. Does this mean I have to believe the stories are 100% accurate? No. I don't believe there was a man named Achilles who was actually immortal all over his body except for his heel. I don't believe that general Odysseus actually fought off a cyclops. Are we to say that Homer was a liar? No, but I'm going to say he wasn't 100% accurate.
How is this any different from the stories of the Bible? Sure there are many historical accuracies, but there are also many inaccuracies.
Getting back to my circular reasoning argument: Why are the only stories of Jesus from the Christian point of view? Where is the public record which takes into account the miracles he performed? Where are the non-Christian stories of Jesus from that time? Where is the archaeological evidence to back up the claims? There simply are none.
I still assert that the "scientific" method is the best tool we have to properly derive the truth out of any given claim. But let's go ahead and use the "historical" method you brought up and put the four gospels to the test.
Here is a copy/paste of the core principals of the Historical Method of which you linked to in your post with my notes in green intersected in between:
- Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
There aren't any relics to back up your claims. Like I said before, the gospels were made decades after, and the oldest fragment of the gospels we have is dated to 117-138 AD which is almost 100 years after the life of Jesus.
- Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
This is a significant part of my argument. I believe the stories of Jesus HAVE been forged or corrupted.
- The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened.
You have acknowledged that the writings of Jesus were written decades after the event.
- A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source which is more reliable than a tertiary source, and so on.
I have already stated that I believe the gospels to be secondary sources at best.
- If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
Considering all of the sources we have for Jesus' life are in the New Testament, NONE of the sources are independent.
- The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
If you are trying to claim your leader is the foretold Messiah, your stories are most absolutely biased and motivated to saying he is who you claim he is.
- If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.
Again... the gospels were written by the followers of Jesus. They are absolutely biased sources in terms of making claims of him being the Messiah.
I'm sorry, but all of your evidence doesn't even comply with the method you're trying to use. To use the Bible as evidence for Jesus is to use biased testimony from a biased source.
I appreciate your sparring with me Dan. I think it's time that I make note that I hope you understand that even though we have this debate, I respect your beliefs even if they aren't my own. I do think we're getting close to having to agree to disagree on what constitutes valid evidence, which is where I expect the argument to go.
Take care!
-Mike
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Bare Metal
Mike,
I don't think our argument is obscured at all. On the contrary, I think we've actually almost gotten all the way through the paint and primer and are starting to expose the bare metal that underlies your objections.
The video you linked to is certainly interesting, but ultimately it is not terribly helpful in supporting your position. The producers of this clip make a big deal of the divergences between the eye witness testimonies, but they say absolutely nothing of the intersections of their testimonies. I'd bet you a nickel that everybody in that class would agree that "Yes, a man walked into the class and stole the professor's purse"--the historicity of that event is without question.
The point is well taken that eye witnesses testimony is subject to human frailties, but this is precisely why we cross-examine eye witnesses--to find the common thread that stitches together the truth. This video leads one to believe that we can never discern the truth from eye witness testimonies, but even popular televisiion programs such as "America's Most Wanted" clearly demonstrate that corroborated eye witness testimony is absolutely invaluable and indeed necessary to come to the truth (this is, after all, why police departments employ sketch artists).
The video also fails to prove your point because of the drastic differences in the very nature of the events being compared. The purse snatcher was in that classroom for about 10 seconds and in that short time frame he created a mild emotional "trauma" (for want of a better word) in the students as evidenced by their cry of outrage that went out when the 'perp' grabbed the purse. This is hardly equivalent to events that transpired over the three year earthly ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.
History comes to us reliably through, among other things, reliable eye witness accounts (which is not an oxymoron as you seem to be asserting). If eye witness accounts were always unreliable (which really is what you are arguing when you discount such testimony out of hand), we'd have no hope of ever knowing anything about the past apart from what our shovels might unearth. Using your standard of historical "proof," I defy you to prove to me that Washington crossed the Delaware River on December 25, 1776; that Abraham Lincoln really signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863; that Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes booth in Ford Theater or any other event that took place in the days before photography and that itself did not leave physcial scars or remnants behind. You are attempting to (in)validate history using the scientific method (or more precisely, by empirical means), which is utterly fallacious--historical events are not directly observable, measurable or repeatable--they're also not always tangible. To properly analyze historical events, one must use the aptly named "historical method." Relying upon the scientific method on historical events is like trying to overhaul an engine using only a pair of pliers and a screwdriver.
Now, regarding the authorship of the four Gospels. That Mark penned his Gospel first is fairly well understood, but your assertion that none of them were eyewitnesses is completely without merit.
Matthew (a.k.a. Levi the tax collector) was one of the original 12 disciples called by Jesus (Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27) and he is also enumerated among the 11 in Acts 1:13.
Mark, it seems, was indeed heavily influenced by Peter, who was an excellent primary source for his writings. Primary sources are crucial in the construction of an accurate historical record. But to presume that he was not an eyewitness to the accounts himself assumes too much. Jesus had more than 12 disciples (Luke 6:17), so just because Mark was not one of the 12 doesn't mean he wasn't there. Additionally, it is commonly held that Mark was referring to himself in Mark 14:51,52 as the young man who was with Jesus when the latter was arrested in Gethsemane.
Luke, the gentile "beloved physicician" was perhaps not an eyewitness to all events, but Luke tells us up front in the first few verses of his Gospel that he set out to write an orderly account of Jesus' life using primary sources. He was also Paul's traveling companion, so he got to see and experience first-hand what Paul was up to during his ministry. Luke's acumen as an historian is widely attested, so I see no reason to belabor this point.
Your assertion that the Gospel of John is not penned by him also appears to be without any real basis in reality. There are very good reasons to believe that the author John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" but I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find those reasons and interact with them on his own.
So I suppose if I wanted to be ultra precise, I would have to say that "The Bible was written by eye witnesses or by companions of eye witnesses..." but even with the insertion of of this new clause, the weight of the statement still stands--we still have these records written during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses which is also why your argument about the accounts being penned "decades after the events took place" doesn't really hold any water. Are you willing to admit that you cannot accurately recall events that took place when you were a boy? If your parents are still alive, ask them if they have lived through anything that they can "remember like it happened yesterday."
The New Testament is the single most well attested work of ancient literature extant, period. It has more document support (in terms of the number of MSS and MS fragments--well over 5,000) and some of these fragments date, as you noted, to within a couple of decades from the originals. Compare this with any other work of antiquity, where a dozen copies that date to within several hundred years is considered "really good." Again, this is a very well documented fact, so I see no reason to drone on about it here.
That's all I have time for right now...gotta get ready for work.
Until next time...
-dan
I don't think our argument is obscured at all. On the contrary, I think we've actually almost gotten all the way through the paint and primer and are starting to expose the bare metal that underlies your objections.
The video you linked to is certainly interesting, but ultimately it is not terribly helpful in supporting your position. The producers of this clip make a big deal of the divergences between the eye witness testimonies, but they say absolutely nothing of the intersections of their testimonies. I'd bet you a nickel that everybody in that class would agree that "Yes, a man walked into the class and stole the professor's purse"--the historicity of that event is without question.
The point is well taken that eye witnesses testimony is subject to human frailties, but this is precisely why we cross-examine eye witnesses--to find the common thread that stitches together the truth. This video leads one to believe that we can never discern the truth from eye witness testimonies, but even popular televisiion programs such as "America's Most Wanted" clearly demonstrate that corroborated eye witness testimony is absolutely invaluable and indeed necessary to come to the truth (this is, after all, why police departments employ sketch artists).
The video also fails to prove your point because of the drastic differences in the very nature of the events being compared. The purse snatcher was in that classroom for about 10 seconds and in that short time frame he created a mild emotional "trauma" (for want of a better word) in the students as evidenced by their cry of outrage that went out when the 'perp' grabbed the purse. This is hardly equivalent to events that transpired over the three year earthly ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.
History comes to us reliably through, among other things, reliable eye witness accounts (which is not an oxymoron as you seem to be asserting). If eye witness accounts were always unreliable (which really is what you are arguing when you discount such testimony out of hand), we'd have no hope of ever knowing anything about the past apart from what our shovels might unearth. Using your standard of historical "proof," I defy you to prove to me that Washington crossed the Delaware River on December 25, 1776; that Abraham Lincoln really signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863; that Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes booth in Ford Theater or any other event that took place in the days before photography and that itself did not leave physcial scars or remnants behind. You are attempting to (in)validate history using the scientific method (or more precisely, by empirical means), which is utterly fallacious--historical events are not directly observable, measurable or repeatable--they're also not always tangible. To properly analyze historical events, one must use the aptly named "historical method." Relying upon the scientific method on historical events is like trying to overhaul an engine using only a pair of pliers and a screwdriver.
Now, regarding the authorship of the four Gospels. That Mark penned his Gospel first is fairly well understood, but your assertion that none of them were eyewitnesses is completely without merit.
Matthew (a.k.a. Levi the tax collector) was one of the original 12 disciples called by Jesus (Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27) and he is also enumerated among the 11 in Acts 1:13.
Mark, it seems, was indeed heavily influenced by Peter, who was an excellent primary source for his writings. Primary sources are crucial in the construction of an accurate historical record. But to presume that he was not an eyewitness to the accounts himself assumes too much. Jesus had more than 12 disciples (Luke 6:17), so just because Mark was not one of the 12 doesn't mean he wasn't there. Additionally, it is commonly held that Mark was referring to himself in Mark 14:51,52 as the young man who was with Jesus when the latter was arrested in Gethsemane.
Luke, the gentile "beloved physicician" was perhaps not an eyewitness to all events, but Luke tells us up front in the first few verses of his Gospel that he set out to write an orderly account of Jesus' life using primary sources. He was also Paul's traveling companion, so he got to see and experience first-hand what Paul was up to during his ministry. Luke's acumen as an historian is widely attested, so I see no reason to belabor this point.
Your assertion that the Gospel of John is not penned by him also appears to be without any real basis in reality. There are very good reasons to believe that the author John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" but I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find those reasons and interact with them on his own.
So I suppose if I wanted to be ultra precise, I would have to say that "The Bible was written by eye witnesses or by companions of eye witnesses..." but even with the insertion of of this new clause, the weight of the statement still stands--we still have these records written during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses which is also why your argument about the accounts being penned "decades after the events took place" doesn't really hold any water. Are you willing to admit that you cannot accurately recall events that took place when you were a boy? If your parents are still alive, ask them if they have lived through anything that they can "remember like it happened yesterday."
The New Testament is the single most well attested work of ancient literature extant, period. It has more document support (in terms of the number of MSS and MS fragments--well over 5,000) and some of these fragments date, as you noted, to within a couple of decades from the originals. Compare this with any other work of antiquity, where a dozen copies that date to within several hundred years is considered "really good." Again, this is a very well documented fact, so I see no reason to drone on about it here.
That's all I have time for right now...gotta get ready for work.
Until next time...
-dan
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Why Eyewitness Testimony is not good proof.
Dan, our argument is getting very obscured, so I'm going to try and narrow it down.
It seems to me that our major argument is about if there is or isn't fallibility in the testimonies in the Bible.
To make it clear, the human memory is not only fallible but more importantly, it is malleable.
Watch this short video as evidence of this. Please make special note as to how the witnesses can be lead to believe something they didn't see, even without realizing it. This happens every day. I'm not calling anyone an "ignorant ignoramus" as you have put it. We are all susceptible to it, even scientists.
THIS fallability is exactly why I won't accept eyewitness accounts as evidence. You MUST have better evidence for the truth of your claims then eyewitness accounts. This should be true not only as proving the existence of god, but also in the courtroom.
I acknowledge that the Bible has many accuracies as proven through actual archaeological evidence. But please, show me the actual archeological evidence that proves Jesus actually fulfilled the prophecies you have indicated. If all you have is the writings of the Bible, I'm sorry, but that's just not good enough.
Just as I acknowledge the Bible does contain accuracies as well as inaccuracies, I can put that argument to other texts like that of Socrates or Homer are probably not 100% accurate as well. I will full on acknowledge that what we know of Julius Caesar may not be completely true.
Also, as a role reversal for you Dan (and a side argument), if you're so sure that eyewitness testimony is proof, then please read the first few parts of the Book of Mormon, which has the testimony of 11 eyewitnesses to the truth of it's claims. Tell me why you would discount the eleven of them, and yet you accept the testimony of the four Apostles.
In defense of the "Eyewitnesses writing in the time of other eyewitnesses" argument:
The gospels of Matthew and Luke are based on and used the Gospel of Mark to make their writings. The Gospel of Mark was based on the DISCOURSES of the Apostle Peter.
The Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by Luke, who was most likely NOT an eyewitness to Jesus.
The Gospel of John is actually written based on the TESTIMONY of the Apostle John, and not by John himself.
NONE of the four gospels of Jesus' life were written by eyewitnesses. The stories of Jesus that we account as true are based off of stories told by others. The earliest estimation of the first of these writings was 70 years after the life of Christ.
I'm not talking about how many times the Bible has been translated. When I say the New Testament is like a game of telephone, I mean, the original works are a game of telephone. They are written by people who heard stories decades after the events took place. This is not an intellectually dishonest claim.
I acknowledge your "Two Fathers" argument, but like I said before, I think it's a band-aid response. This is the same for the Census argument. You are side-stepping the error by coming up with a way it "could" be true, thus keeping your argument valid. In the same vein, I could side step the stories of Jesus as the being metaphorical, and that's how they "could" be invalid. This is not proving you are wrong, but I ask you, if the gospels are true, why aren't they blatantly accurate? Why do we have to find a way to make them work, when it's much easier to explain that they are probably just sometimes wrong? Again, this argument is getting off topic, and I acknowledge it for later debate.
It seems to me that our major argument is about if there is or isn't fallibility in the testimonies in the Bible.
To make it clear, the human memory is not only fallible but more importantly, it is malleable.
Watch this short video as evidence of this. Please make special note as to how the witnesses can be lead to believe something they didn't see, even without realizing it. This happens every day. I'm not calling anyone an "ignorant ignoramus" as you have put it. We are all susceptible to it, even scientists.
THIS fallability is exactly why I won't accept eyewitness accounts as evidence. You MUST have better evidence for the truth of your claims then eyewitness accounts. This should be true not only as proving the existence of god, but also in the courtroom.
I acknowledge that the Bible has many accuracies as proven through actual archaeological evidence. But please, show me the actual archeological evidence that proves Jesus actually fulfilled the prophecies you have indicated. If all you have is the writings of the Bible, I'm sorry, but that's just not good enough.
Just as I acknowledge the Bible does contain accuracies as well as inaccuracies, I can put that argument to other texts like that of Socrates or Homer are probably not 100% accurate as well. I will full on acknowledge that what we know of Julius Caesar may not be completely true.
Also, as a role reversal for you Dan (and a side argument), if you're so sure that eyewitness testimony is proof, then please read the first few parts of the Book of Mormon, which has the testimony of 11 eyewitnesses to the truth of it's claims. Tell me why you would discount the eleven of them, and yet you accept the testimony of the four Apostles.
In defense of the "Eyewitnesses writing in the time of other eyewitnesses" argument:
The gospels of Matthew and Luke are based on and used the Gospel of Mark to make their writings. The Gospel of Mark was based on the DISCOURSES of the Apostle Peter.
The Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by Luke, who was most likely NOT an eyewitness to Jesus.
The Gospel of John is actually written based on the TESTIMONY of the Apostle John, and not by John himself.
NONE of the four gospels of Jesus' life were written by eyewitnesses. The stories of Jesus that we account as true are based off of stories told by others. The earliest estimation of the first of these writings was 70 years after the life of Christ.
I'm not talking about how many times the Bible has been translated. When I say the New Testament is like a game of telephone, I mean, the original works are a game of telephone. They are written by people who heard stories decades after the events took place. This is not an intellectually dishonest claim.
I acknowledge your "Two Fathers" argument, but like I said before, I think it's a band-aid response. This is the same for the Census argument. You are side-stepping the error by coming up with a way it "could" be true, thus keeping your argument valid. In the same vein, I could side step the stories of Jesus as the being metaphorical, and that's how they "could" be invalid. This is not proving you are wrong, but I ask you, if the gospels are true, why aren't they blatantly accurate? Why do we have to find a way to make them work, when it's much easier to explain that they are probably just sometimes wrong? Again, this argument is getting off topic, and I acknowledge it for later debate.
"So you really don't believe that eyewitness testimony is completely unreliable. Belief is not belief unless you're willing to live it out when even when it is inconvenient for you; otherwise what you have is pragmatism--whatever works at the time'll do. You are applying one standard for yourself and another for those who walked the roads and fields of Israel during the 1st century A.D.--eyewitness testimony is okay if it agrees with your position, but unreliable when it grates against your belief system."
No, I wouldn't tell someone, "Believe me, because I'm infallable." I never said that eyewitness testimony was completely unreliable. There's a difference between "completely unreliable" and "possibly innacurate". If you're talking about a court of law, of course I would use eyewitness testimony to prove my innocence. That's a matter of self preservation. But if I were on the other side, and I was trying to prosecute someone who had eyewitness testimony to prove their innocence, I just may use the argument against testimony to prosecute them. IS that pragmatism? Absolutely: YES. But does it actually PROVE innocence or guilt? Nope. That's the difference between "courtroom truth" and "actual truth" that I'm so desperately trying to define for you. We are not in a court of law trying to convince 12 people that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. We are actually trying to prove if Jesus fulfilled the prophecies.
I think Cory better argues about Joseph Smith than I can, so I'll leave that argument alone from here.
"I think Cory mentioned this in one of his earlier posts--you have set up an impossible criteria for believability, Mike. You cry "bullocks" because something sounds ridiculous without really trying to understand it. You ask for proof of historical events, but then reject a priori eyewitness testimony as recorded in the Bible…because it's in the Bible. Then you turn around and ask for corroborating accounts from outside of Scripture for every miracle recorded--but this would require more eyewitness testimony from superstitious folks who simply cannot tell fact from fiction. When a plausible explanation is given for reconciling the discrepancy, you call it a "Band-Aid answer" and dismiss it a priori as so much "poo-poo."
No, I don't want more eyewitness testimony at all. I want real evidence. I'm not dismissing it a priori because I don't want to believe. I'm dismissing it I don't accept testimony to be infallable evidence. I will accept eyewitness testimony when there is actual infallable evidence to back up what the testimony says. To go back to my cake in the box argument: I can question you if you say you have a cake in the box, but you can prove it by actually showing me the cake.
Using your example:You CAN prove to me that you had a smoothie for every morning last week. One piece of evidence would be to show me the receipts from the smoothie bar. Another, better piece of evidence would be to show me (forgive me for being disgusting) analysis of your stool samples which were collected throughout the week which show smoothie pieces. At least these pieces of evidence are based on proof that is much less fallible than human testimony.
I don't have an infinitely scalable wall. I will accept actual evidence. But human testimony is NOT that evidence.
Please excuse my "terseness" as well. My arguments may come off as attacks, but they are meant as a matter of discourse and not as personal attacks.
-Mike
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Scaling the Infinitely High Wall
1. You are arguing, "My belief is true, because what I believe in tells me it's true." It's a circular argument.
That does look fairly circular, doesn't it? Fortunately, though, that's not my argument. My argument is that
If I tell you I am God, you can't logically argue that I am because I say I am regardless of how many people believed me.
You seem to be hinting that I've pulled an appeal to the majority, but to the best of my recollection, I have never made the argument that "X billiion Christians can't be wrong." If I'm reading too much into this statement, please forgive me, but it just seems like you're teetering on the edge of a straw man argument there.
I can argue that you're not God because you fail to meet your own standards of God's attributes that you outlined in your very first post (i.e. omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.). Now, if you were to start pullin' off some miracles like raising folks from the dead, then I'd have to take another look. :-)
It sounds ridiculous to me, and that is why I discount it's testimony.
"If, at first, an idea does not sound absurd, then there's no hope for it." -- Albert Einstein
It is NOT historically reliable (as I eluded to in my last post about getting the dates wrong about the census).
The message I'm getting here, Mike, is that if something sounds absurd to you then no amount of evidence or rational explanation is going to sway you. This is just being arbitrary. I've offered you reasonable explanations for the dating and mode of the census in question, yet I have not seen you acknowledge them. I don't know if you saw it, but I posted a follow up comment on an earlier post that offers a reasonable explanation for the "Joseph has two fathers" objection as well.
And I can write a whole post with examples on how it isn't internally consistent. If Jesus is the son of God, there needs to be proof other than the hearsay of people who couldn't explain the world without the use of superstition. Of course parts of the Bible are true. We have archaeological evidence to back up that there were cities, people, and even some events talked about in the books. But we have no evidence of the supernatural tales which were written. The inaccuracies alone in the Bible show that we need outside evidence to prove any sort of validity in the tales.
Now this is very interesting indeed. You say in this post that "The miracle must have actually happened, and be verifiable that it happened." You ask for evidence for an historical event, yet you reject out of hand any testimony from the people that saw them happen in the presence of other eyewitnesses based upon a presupposition that the witnesses were superstitious ignoramuses simply by virtue of epoch in which they lived--guilt by association. Does this not seem rather arrogant to you?
Special pleading is a tactic I could use in a court of law, but not in the field of science and logic. That's exactly my point when I say there's a difference between, "Courtroom proof" and "actual proof". I elaborated more on this in my recent response to Cory here.
So you really don't believe that eyewitness testimony is completely unreliable. Belief is not belief unless you're willing to live it out when even when it is inconvenient for you; otherwise what you have is pragmatism--whatever works at the time'll do. You are applying one standard for yourself and another for those who walked the roads and fields of Israel during the 1st century A.D.--eyewitness testimony is okay if it agrees with your position, but unreliable when it grates against your belief system.
6. "I wonder…when you last played "telephone," were you allowed to verify the message you received with the person who originated the message?" Even if I did, sometimes it still turns out wrong, especially if it's a game of telephone that has gone on for decades.
This is the mother of all false analogies. In the game of Telephone, the message has its origins in the mind of one person who tells one other person, all the way around the circle. However, this is absolutely not what happened with the accounts we read in the Bible--remember when I said that the Bible was written by eyewitnesses who lived during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses? Most events took place in full view of the public--only a handful were done in private. Thus, there's not even a passing resemblance to the game, and any attempt to draw such an analogy is patently absurd, if not just plain intellectually dishonest.
I can try and come up with a list of inaccuracies of the New Testament if you want, but that's for another time. I already gave a few examples, which I think is more than enough to make my point.
I look forward to addressing a list of alleged inaccuracies.
8. Joseph Smith was MURDERED for his claims... why does him having to be physically tortured make a statement any more valid? From my understanding, I'm not an LDS Historian, but Joseph Smith had a chance to get away, but when confronted about it, decided to go face the ensuing mob. That sounds like martyrdom to me. All he had to do was leave, or change his claims, and he did neither.
The context of this question was my statement that the disciples would not go from cowards to dying for their message if they knew it to be a lie. This says nothing about someone who sincerely believes what he believes he is telling the truth. Your assertion is that the biblical authors "fabricated/adjusted/stretched from the truth in order to fit the tales of him to the predetermined indicators of the messiah"--i.e. that they lied. If they lied, then they knew they were liars. If they knew they were liars, then they would not have gone from cowards to turning the Roman Empire upside down. Can you imagine the apostles getting together over some matzohs and wine and writing up these stories just so a "dead guy" would look like the messiah the nation had waited for for centuries and then being faced with stonings, beatings and crucifixion and not a one of them would recant? I don't know about you, but my imagination isn't that good.
BTW, Smith went to face the mob because he thought they were out to rescue him (wikipedia). But then again, this is all just heresy based upon unreliable eyewitness testimony, so it's probably all bunk anyway.
9. It sounds to me like having to come up with a band-aid answer to reason why it's not wrong.
I think Cory mentioned this in one of his earlier posts--you have set up an impossible criteria for believability, Mike. You cry "bullocks" because something sounds ridiculous without really trying to understand it. You ask for proof of historical events, but then reject a priori eyewitness testimony as recorded in the Bible…because it's in the Bible. Then you turn around and ask for corroborating accounts from outside of Scripture for every miracle recorded--but this would require more eyewitness testimony from superstitious folks who simply cannot tell fact from fiction. When a plausible explanation is given for reconciling the discrepancy, you call it a "Band-Aid answer" and dismiss it a priori as so much "poo-poo."
Physical, tangible, put-it-in-a-test-tube evidence is not how historical accounts of events are verified, Mike. If this is the kind of evidence you require for a transient event in history that left no physical trace of its passing--then to be consistent you're going to have to throw out a good portion of all of recorded history. Using this criteria for historical proof, I can't even "prove" to you that I had a smoothie for breakfast every day last week, so how is anyone supposed to be able to scale this infinitely high wall you've erected between yourself and the truth claims of the Bible?
Please forgive my terseness…I'm not irritated or angry (though I am a bit perplexed)--I'm just trying to keep the length of my replies under control so as not to scare away those in our audience with short attention spans. :-) I continue to appreciate your willingness to allow me to discuss these issues with you.
Until next time,
-dan
That does look fairly circular, doesn't it? Fortunately, though, that's not my argument. My argument is that
My belief is true because it is based upon the Bible which is a "reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They record events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophesies, and they claim their writings are divine rather than human in origin." (see Why I Choose To Believe the Bible) This is demonstrable via manuscript evidence, archaeology, prophesies and the statistical probability against these prophesies being fulfilled by chance.
If I tell you I am God, you can't logically argue that I am because I say I am regardless of how many people believed me.
You seem to be hinting that I've pulled an appeal to the majority, but to the best of my recollection, I have never made the argument that "X billiion Christians can't be wrong." If I'm reading too much into this statement, please forgive me, but it just seems like you're teetering on the edge of a straw man argument there.
I can argue that you're not God because you fail to meet your own standards of God's attributes that you outlined in your very first post (i.e. omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.). Now, if you were to start pullin' off some miracles like raising folks from the dead, then I'd have to take another look. :-)
It sounds ridiculous to me, and that is why I discount it's testimony.
"If, at first, an idea does not sound absurd, then there's no hope for it." -- Albert Einstein
It is NOT historically reliable (as I eluded to in my last post about getting the dates wrong about the census).
The message I'm getting here, Mike, is that if something sounds absurd to you then no amount of evidence or rational explanation is going to sway you. This is just being arbitrary. I've offered you reasonable explanations for the dating and mode of the census in question, yet I have not seen you acknowledge them. I don't know if you saw it, but I posted a follow up comment on an earlier post that offers a reasonable explanation for the "Joseph has two fathers" objection as well.
And I can write a whole post with examples on how it isn't internally consistent. If Jesus is the son of God, there needs to be proof other than the hearsay of people who couldn't explain the world without the use of superstition. Of course parts of the Bible are true. We have archaeological evidence to back up that there were cities, people, and even some events talked about in the books. But we have no evidence of the supernatural tales which were written. The inaccuracies alone in the Bible show that we need outside evidence to prove any sort of validity in the tales.
Now this is very interesting indeed. You say in this post that "The miracle must have actually happened, and be verifiable that it happened." You ask for evidence for an historical event, yet you reject out of hand any testimony from the people that saw them happen in the presence of other eyewitnesses based upon a presupposition that the witnesses were superstitious ignoramuses simply by virtue of epoch in which they lived--guilt by association. Does this not seem rather arrogant to you?
Special pleading is a tactic I could use in a court of law, but not in the field of science and logic. That's exactly my point when I say there's a difference between, "Courtroom proof" and "actual proof". I elaborated more on this in my recent response to Cory here.
So you really don't believe that eyewitness testimony is completely unreliable. Belief is not belief unless you're willing to live it out when even when it is inconvenient for you; otherwise what you have is pragmatism--whatever works at the time'll do. You are applying one standard for yourself and another for those who walked the roads and fields of Israel during the 1st century A.D.--eyewitness testimony is okay if it agrees with your position, but unreliable when it grates against your belief system.
6. "I wonder…when you last played "telephone," were you allowed to verify the message you received with the person who originated the message?" Even if I did, sometimes it still turns out wrong, especially if it's a game of telephone that has gone on for decades.
This is the mother of all false analogies. In the game of Telephone, the message has its origins in the mind of one person who tells one other person, all the way around the circle. However, this is absolutely not what happened with the accounts we read in the Bible--remember when I said that the Bible was written by eyewitnesses who lived during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses? Most events took place in full view of the public--only a handful were done in private. Thus, there's not even a passing resemblance to the game, and any attempt to draw such an analogy is patently absurd, if not just plain intellectually dishonest.
I can try and come up with a list of inaccuracies of the New Testament if you want, but that's for another time. I already gave a few examples, which I think is more than enough to make my point.
I look forward to addressing a list of alleged inaccuracies.
8. Joseph Smith was MURDERED for his claims... why does him having to be physically tortured make a statement any more valid? From my understanding, I'm not an LDS Historian, but Joseph Smith had a chance to get away, but when confronted about it, decided to go face the ensuing mob. That sounds like martyrdom to me. All he had to do was leave, or change his claims, and he did neither.
The context of this question was my statement that the disciples would not go from cowards to dying for their message if they knew it to be a lie. This says nothing about someone who sincerely believes what he believes he is telling the truth. Your assertion is that the biblical authors "fabricated/adjusted/stretched from the truth in order to fit the tales of him to the predetermined indicators of the messiah"--i.e. that they lied. If they lied, then they knew they were liars. If they knew they were liars, then they would not have gone from cowards to turning the Roman Empire upside down. Can you imagine the apostles getting together over some matzohs and wine and writing up these stories just so a "dead guy" would look like the messiah the nation had waited for for centuries and then being faced with stonings, beatings and crucifixion and not a one of them would recant? I don't know about you, but my imagination isn't that good.
BTW, Smith went to face the mob because he thought they were out to rescue him (wikipedia). But then again, this is all just heresy based upon unreliable eyewitness testimony, so it's probably all bunk anyway.
9. It sounds to me like having to come up with a band-aid answer to reason why it's not wrong.
I think Cory mentioned this in one of his earlier posts--you have set up an impossible criteria for believability, Mike. You cry "bullocks" because something sounds ridiculous without really trying to understand it. You ask for proof of historical events, but then reject a priori eyewitness testimony as recorded in the Bible…because it's in the Bible. Then you turn around and ask for corroborating accounts from outside of Scripture for every miracle recorded--but this would require more eyewitness testimony from superstitious folks who simply cannot tell fact from fiction. When a plausible explanation is given for reconciling the discrepancy, you call it a "Band-Aid answer" and dismiss it a priori as so much "poo-poo."
Physical, tangible, put-it-in-a-test-tube evidence is not how historical accounts of events are verified, Mike. If this is the kind of evidence you require for a transient event in history that left no physical trace of its passing--then to be consistent you're going to have to throw out a good portion of all of recorded history. Using this criteria for historical proof, I can't even "prove" to you that I had a smoothie for breakfast every day last week, so how is anyone supposed to be able to scale this infinitely high wall you've erected between yourself and the truth claims of the Bible?
Please forgive my terseness…I'm not irritated or angry (though I am a bit perplexed)--I'm just trying to keep the length of my replies under control so as not to scare away those in our audience with short attention spans. :-) I continue to appreciate your willingness to allow me to discuss these issues with you.
Until next time,
-dan
Friday, November 5, 2010
Evidence: In argument.
Thank you Dan for your very well thought out post. I'm glad to see you're out in full force!
Before I get into my retort, I want to address that we are starting to get into a game of "Who can do more research than who." Which I think is going to get us into a downward spiral of endless debate, and not at all my intent of this blog. That's exactly why I try to keep specific religions out of it. At some point, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
That being said, I'll try to address your arguments.
1. "I'm having a hard time with this, Mike. On one hand you concede that the 66 books of the Bible were penned by ~40 different authors over the course of ~1,500 years, yet your assertions belie your concession of these facts because they either presume collusion between the authors or some sort of conspiracy to edit all 39 books of the Old Testament and 27 of the NT into harmony with one another. The former is quite literally impossible given the time frame we're talking bout and the latter is rather preposterous in the light of the manuscript evidence against that argument. So really, it's actually quite arbitrary to discount the validity of 66 books just because they are bound under one cover."
I'm not arguing anything about conspiracies or some formal setting where people over hundreds of years sat down to put a book together. You are missing my whole point, which I'll try to make a little clearer. Instead of saying, "The Bible is true because it says it is." maybe I should say you are making the argument, "Christianity is true because it says it is." or "Jesus is the son of God, because he says he is." It's all referring to the same belief system. You are arguing, "My belief is true, because what I believe in tells me it's true." It's a circular argument. If I tell you I am God, you can't logically argue that I am because I say I am regardless of how many people believed me. I've explained this several times, and I'm not sure how else to tell you.
"If it claims to be true and it demonstrates itself to be historically reliable and internally consistent, what rational reason would we have to discount its testimony of itself? " We are talking about an invisible man in the sky, who we've never seen. He sent his son, who is also himself, to perform miracles, tell us how we can also go to the sky instead of burning underground. This son not only raised the dead, but came back from the dead himself. This all happened 2000 years ago or more, in a time when people had no other reasoning to explain the unknown world then to attribute it to supernatural forces. I'm calling shenanigans. It sounds ridiculous to me, and that is why I discount it's testimony. It is NOT historically reliable (as I eluded to in my last post about getting the dates wrong about the census). And I can write a whole post with examples on how it isn't internally consistent. If Jesus is the son of God, there needs to be proof other than the hearsay of people who couldn't explain the world without the use of superstition.
Of course parts of the Bible are true. We have archaeological evidence to back up that there were cities, people, and even some events talked about in the books. But we have no evidence of the supernatural tales which were written. The inaccuracies alone in the Bible show that we need outside evidence to prove any sort of validity in the tales.
"Claiming invalidity of this kind of testimony is just plain invalid unless it can be demonstrated that the writers colluded with one another or that the documents have been altered over time to make the books cohere" Argument from Ignorance fallacy aside, No, I'm not claiming anything like that. I am however claiming that the stories of Jesus were fabricated/adjusted/stretched from the truth in order to fit the tales of him to the predetermined indicators of the messiah. I'm sure we'll get into an argument over this, but I think that argument is best left for another thread.
"If I'm reading you correctly, you don't seem to have a problem with the prophesies that were made so much as the record of their fulfillment. Would that be an accurate assessment? If so, perhaps it would be more productive if you could pick out a specific prophesy and demonstrate why it is a lie or otherwise invalid?" I'm not willing to concede that the prophecies' provide accurate wording for there to be indisputable proof of their fulfillment.
2. "Okay, fair enough. But what do you do when you have no newspaper articles from the time that talk about his speeches? Do you discount what we know about Julius Caesar because his Commentaries on the Gallic War is the only source we have? From what I understand, though I'm certainly not an expert on Socrates, all we know about him is what was written by Plato. Do we then have to throw out Plato's writings as unreliable and "without proof"? We don't have to discount anything, but we also don't have to consider it to be 100% accurate, and it's certainly NOT proof. For all we know, Plato did make up Socrates. He also made up Atlantis. I assume that Socrates is real, but if given good enough reason to doubt his authenticity, then I'm willing to doubt. In fact, you have me doubting now.... thanks.
"Please correct me if I'm misreading this, but it sounds like you are saying that if the witnesses were testifying in your favor, you would accept their testimony but if they were testifying against you, you would claim that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Assuming I'm reading you correctly, isn't this special pleading?" Yep. Special pleading is a tactic I could use in a court of law, but not in the field of science and logic. That's exactly my point when I say there's a difference between, "Courtroom proof" and "actual proof". I elaborated more on this in my recent response to Cory here.
3. I'm not quite sure why you re-listed your arguments for the prophecies of the messiah. I know what you posted earlier, and why you believe they fulfill my requirements. That is what we are in the middle of debating.
4. "I think you have a false dichotomy here, Mike. You are presuming that those in the first century church recognized the canon based on a purely arbitrary basis. Why do you suppose none of the apocrypha enjoyed anything more than temporary or local recognition? Why did none of the apocryphal writings have anything more than a semi-canonical status? Why did no major canon or church council recognize them as canonical?"
We are getting WAAAY off topic here. So this is the last I'm going to discuss this in this thread. The early Christian Church was a hodgepodge of ideas and beliefs that were very much a result of where they being taught, and who was teaching them. When a system of formality was put into place, they picked things to be considered dogma based on what would show the Church in a light they deemed appropriate. This doesn't mean what was left out was inaccurate, or that what was left in was accurate. On the occasion of the first Council of Nicaea, leading members of the church were FORCED to concede or be exiled. This is what happened to Arian (who's followers did not recognize the Council's results as canonical).
5. "Again, similarity means nothing especially in light of the differences between the works you cite and the account of Christ. But really this is just a red herring, Mike. That the ancient mystery religions and other pagan accounts bear some passing resemblance to the life and work of Christ is completely irrelevant. The question on the table is "Is the Bible trustworthy?" Let's stick to that question and not get distracted with the periphery." The statement I made was first started to show how invalid the story of Jesus (and therefore the New Testament) most likely is. My statements are the proof I am showing to back up my claims. At the time when I first stated them, it was poignant to my argument, but I also agree it has become non-sequitur and we can address these issues at a later date.
6. "I wonder…when you last played "telephone," were you allowed to verify the message you received with the person who originated the message?" Even if I did, sometimes it still turns out wrong, especially if it's a game of telephone that has gone on for decades.
7. "About what story are you unsure? That the disciples were a bunch of cowards? Or that all but one were murdered for their testimony? Aristotle is credited as saying that "the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself." What about these accounts of the disciple's actions before and after Christ's resurrection do you find that discredits them?" I can try and come up with a list of inaccuracies of the New Testament if you want, but that's for another time. I already gave a few examples, which I think is more than enough to make my point.
8. "Joseph Smith, Jr. was murdered by an angry mob while trying to defend himself from within the confines of a jail cell. I don't really think he had time to go about making statements before he passed. Secondly, Joseph Smith, Jr. was never (to the best of my knowledge) stoned, beaten or flogged for for his doctrine (2 Corinthians 11:16ff), and he never suffered physical torture, much less death, at the hands of someone seeking a retraction of his teachings. " Joseph Smith was MURDERED for his claims... why does him having to be physically tortured make a statement any more valid? From my understanding, I'm not an LDS Historian, but Joseph Smith had a chance to get away, but when confronted about it, decided to go face the ensuing mob. That sounds like martyrdom to me. All he had to do was leave, or change his claims, and he did neither.
"So I ask you, is your comparison of Joseph Smith, Jr. to the biblical writers fair?" I don't see why not. He is just as much a prophet to the Mormons as the Apostles are to all of Christianity.
Of course, this topic is also getting WAY off subject, and I'd rather leave it alone at this point.
9. "A discrepancy is not the same as an error, Mike. A discrepancy is simply a difference. Just because there is a difference reported by two people concerning the same event doesn't mean that they are not both telling the truth--it just means you have to do more than scratch the surface to discover the truth." It sounds to me like having to come up with a band-aid answer to reason why it's not wrong. There may also be a DISCREPANCY to weather or not Jesus was actually the Son of God (which there is). The Bible, and more narrowly, the New Testament is full of them.
This is getting to be another non-sequitur argument, much like the "Jesus is based of old god stories" argument.
Well, these are getting to be amazingly long posts. I think we'll need to take it down a notch, lest we start running off would-be readers.
Thanks Dan!
-Mike
Before I get into my retort, I want to address that we are starting to get into a game of "Who can do more research than who." Which I think is going to get us into a downward spiral of endless debate, and not at all my intent of this blog. That's exactly why I try to keep specific religions out of it. At some point, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
That being said, I'll try to address your arguments.
1. "I'm having a hard time with this, Mike. On one hand you concede that the 66 books of the Bible were penned by ~40 different authors over the course of ~1,500 years, yet your assertions belie your concession of these facts because they either presume collusion between the authors or some sort of conspiracy to edit all 39 books of the Old Testament and 27 of the NT into harmony with one another. The former is quite literally impossible given the time frame we're talking bout and the latter is rather preposterous in the light of the manuscript evidence against that argument. So really, it's actually quite arbitrary to discount the validity of 66 books just because they are bound under one cover."
I'm not arguing anything about conspiracies or some formal setting where people over hundreds of years sat down to put a book together. You are missing my whole point, which I'll try to make a little clearer. Instead of saying, "The Bible is true because it says it is." maybe I should say you are making the argument, "Christianity is true because it says it is." or "Jesus is the son of God, because he says he is." It's all referring to the same belief system. You are arguing, "My belief is true, because what I believe in tells me it's true." It's a circular argument. If I tell you I am God, you can't logically argue that I am because I say I am regardless of how many people believed me. I've explained this several times, and I'm not sure how else to tell you.
"If it claims to be true and it demonstrates itself to be historically reliable and internally consistent, what rational reason would we have to discount its testimony of itself? " We are talking about an invisible man in the sky, who we've never seen. He sent his son, who is also himself, to perform miracles, tell us how we can also go to the sky instead of burning underground. This son not only raised the dead, but came back from the dead himself. This all happened 2000 years ago or more, in a time when people had no other reasoning to explain the unknown world then to attribute it to supernatural forces. I'm calling shenanigans. It sounds ridiculous to me, and that is why I discount it's testimony. It is NOT historically reliable (as I eluded to in my last post about getting the dates wrong about the census). And I can write a whole post with examples on how it isn't internally consistent. If Jesus is the son of God, there needs to be proof other than the hearsay of people who couldn't explain the world without the use of superstition.
Of course parts of the Bible are true. We have archaeological evidence to back up that there were cities, people, and even some events talked about in the books. But we have no evidence of the supernatural tales which were written. The inaccuracies alone in the Bible show that we need outside evidence to prove any sort of validity in the tales.
"Claiming invalidity of this kind of testimony is just plain invalid unless it can be demonstrated that the writers colluded with one another or that the documents have been altered over time to make the books cohere" Argument from Ignorance fallacy aside, No, I'm not claiming anything like that. I am however claiming that the stories of Jesus were fabricated/adjusted/stretched from the truth in order to fit the tales of him to the predetermined indicators of the messiah. I'm sure we'll get into an argument over this, but I think that argument is best left for another thread.
"If I'm reading you correctly, you don't seem to have a problem with the prophesies that were made so much as the record of their fulfillment. Would that be an accurate assessment? If so, perhaps it would be more productive if you could pick out a specific prophesy and demonstrate why it is a lie or otherwise invalid?" I'm not willing to concede that the prophecies' provide accurate wording for there to be indisputable proof of their fulfillment.
2. "Okay, fair enough. But what do you do when you have no newspaper articles from the time that talk about his speeches? Do you discount what we know about Julius Caesar because his Commentaries on the Gallic War is the only source we have? From what I understand, though I'm certainly not an expert on Socrates, all we know about him is what was written by Plato. Do we then have to throw out Plato's writings as unreliable and "without proof"? We don't have to discount anything, but we also don't have to consider it to be 100% accurate, and it's certainly NOT proof. For all we know, Plato did make up Socrates. He also made up Atlantis. I assume that Socrates is real, but if given good enough reason to doubt his authenticity, then I'm willing to doubt. In fact, you have me doubting now.... thanks.
"Please correct me if I'm misreading this, but it sounds like you are saying that if the witnesses were testifying in your favor, you would accept their testimony but if they were testifying against you, you would claim that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Assuming I'm reading you correctly, isn't this special pleading?" Yep. Special pleading is a tactic I could use in a court of law, but not in the field of science and logic. That's exactly my point when I say there's a difference between, "Courtroom proof" and "actual proof". I elaborated more on this in my recent response to Cory here.
3. I'm not quite sure why you re-listed your arguments for the prophecies of the messiah. I know what you posted earlier, and why you believe they fulfill my requirements. That is what we are in the middle of debating.
4. "I think you have a false dichotomy here, Mike. You are presuming that those in the first century church recognized the canon based on a purely arbitrary basis. Why do you suppose none of the apocrypha enjoyed anything more than temporary or local recognition? Why did none of the apocryphal writings have anything more than a semi-canonical status? Why did no major canon or church council recognize them as canonical?"
We are getting WAAAY off topic here. So this is the last I'm going to discuss this in this thread. The early Christian Church was a hodgepodge of ideas and beliefs that were very much a result of where they being taught, and who was teaching them. When a system of formality was put into place, they picked things to be considered dogma based on what would show the Church in a light they deemed appropriate. This doesn't mean what was left out was inaccurate, or that what was left in was accurate. On the occasion of the first Council of Nicaea, leading members of the church were FORCED to concede or be exiled. This is what happened to Arian (who's followers did not recognize the Council's results as canonical).
5. "Again, similarity means nothing especially in light of the differences between the works you cite and the account of Christ. But really this is just a red herring, Mike. That the ancient mystery religions and other pagan accounts bear some passing resemblance to the life and work of Christ is completely irrelevant. The question on the table is "Is the Bible trustworthy?" Let's stick to that question and not get distracted with the periphery." The statement I made was first started to show how invalid the story of Jesus (and therefore the New Testament) most likely is. My statements are the proof I am showing to back up my claims. At the time when I first stated them, it was poignant to my argument, but I also agree it has become non-sequitur and we can address these issues at a later date.
6. "I wonder…when you last played "telephone," were you allowed to verify the message you received with the person who originated the message?" Even if I did, sometimes it still turns out wrong, especially if it's a game of telephone that has gone on for decades.
7. "About what story are you unsure? That the disciples were a bunch of cowards? Or that all but one were murdered for their testimony? Aristotle is credited as saying that "the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself." What about these accounts of the disciple's actions before and after Christ's resurrection do you find that discredits them?" I can try and come up with a list of inaccuracies of the New Testament if you want, but that's for another time. I already gave a few examples, which I think is more than enough to make my point.
8. "Joseph Smith, Jr. was murdered by an angry mob while trying to defend himself from within the confines of a jail cell. I don't really think he had time to go about making statements before he passed. Secondly, Joseph Smith, Jr. was never (to the best of my knowledge) stoned, beaten or flogged for for his doctrine (2 Corinthians 11:16ff), and he never suffered physical torture, much less death, at the hands of someone seeking a retraction of his teachings. " Joseph Smith was MURDERED for his claims... why does him having to be physically tortured make a statement any more valid? From my understanding, I'm not an LDS Historian, but Joseph Smith had a chance to get away, but when confronted about it, decided to go face the ensuing mob. That sounds like martyrdom to me. All he had to do was leave, or change his claims, and he did neither.
"So I ask you, is your comparison of Joseph Smith, Jr. to the biblical writers fair?" I don't see why not. He is just as much a prophet to the Mormons as the Apostles are to all of Christianity.
Of course, this topic is also getting WAY off subject, and I'd rather leave it alone at this point.
9. "A discrepancy is not the same as an error, Mike. A discrepancy is simply a difference. Just because there is a difference reported by two people concerning the same event doesn't mean that they are not both telling the truth--it just means you have to do more than scratch the surface to discover the truth." It sounds to me like having to come up with a band-aid answer to reason why it's not wrong. There may also be a DISCREPANCY to weather or not Jesus was actually the Son of God (which there is). The Bible, and more narrowly, the New Testament is full of them.
This is getting to be another non-sequitur argument, much like the "Jesus is based of old god stories" argument.
Well, these are getting to be amazingly long posts. I think we'll need to take it down a notch, lest we start running off would-be readers.
Thanks Dan!
-Mike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)