I think that what we're seeing with John Loftus is what we often see with skeptics who use the argument that ancient people were gullible. As the discussion progresses, they come to more and more of a realization of how flawed their original argument was. They modify the argument along the way, but act as if they've been saying the same thing all along. The more qualifiers they add to their argument, the more reasonable it becomes, the closer they get to agreeing with what the Christians here have been saying all along.
Yes, modern people have some advantages over ancient people. Similarly, people of the forty-first century surely will have some advantages over people of the twenty-first century. Just as forty-first century people can't therefore dismiss the testimony of twenty-first century people based on vague references to gullibility, so twenty-first century people can't dismiss the testimony of first-century people based on vague references to gullibility. Just as the unreasonable behavior of the Ephesians in Acts 19 doesn't prove that the apostle Paul can't be trusted, so the unreasonable behavior of twenty-first century militant Muslims doesn't prove that John Loftus can't be trusted.
Again, John Loftus and the other skeptics posting here ought to either read Glenn Miller's article on this subject or read the summary conclusions at the end of the article. As Miller explains, we have to distinguish between different types of gullibility and differing degrees of gullibility. No reasonable jury would dismiss the testimony of a witness to a murder just because that witness carries a good luck charm with him wherever he goes. People can be unreasonable in one area of their life without their credibility in every area of their life being thereby eliminated. Even if a person is considered highly gullible in general, his testimony can be credible in some circumstances. A child can be a reliable witness in a court of law under some circumstances, even if that child believes in many unreasonable things, is highly ignorant in many areas of life, etc. The fact that some ancient Ephesians behaved irrationally in Acts 19 doesn't lead us to the conclusion that the apostle Paul isn't credible.
A person who accepts a religious belief that's popular in his culture, without making much effort to examine that belief, isn't in the same category as a person who was an enemy of a religion, then converted to it after eyewitnessing a supernatural event that he testified to at the risk of his life. When we compare the behavior of the Ephesians in Acts 19 to the behavior of the apostle Paul, we notice many differences, including some that are of a highly significant nature. Rather than making John Loftus' case, his citation of Acts 19 undermines his case. Acts 19 gives us another illustration of how there was a wide diversity of people in the ancient world, as there is in the world today, and we can see how reasonable somebody like the apostle Paul was by comparing him to truly unreasonable people like those in Ephesus in Acts 19. Vague references to ancient gullibility don't overturn the specific evidence we have for the credibility of a Paul, a James, a Luke, or a Polycarp.
Indeed we are children of our times. Given that for all our technical prowess we live in a low context society I wouldn't harp too much about the gullibility of the ancients. The Heavens Gate cult should be sufficient to dispell such cultural arrogance.
ReplyDeleteJohn Loftus said:
ReplyDelete"One main point from what I wrote is that since these Ephesians were totally convinced in Artemis WITHOUT evidence, then whether they believed Paul or not would not depend on evidence either."
The issue is the alleged gullibility of ancient people, not just one group of Ephesians. Even as far as those Ephesians are concerned, whether they would want evidence would have to be judged case-by-case. Since they were being asked to make a significant change in their beliefs, a change involving many difficulties, and since the people asking them to make the change were advocating a system that involves verifiable evidence, then they may have wanted evidence before accepting the proposed belief system. If they didn't seek evidence prior to becoming a Christian, they would be taught to be concerned about evidence thereafter. The Christian system was based on evidential concepts such as fulfilled prophecy and eyewitness testimony. The concept of a Messiah was a prophetic concept, and eyewitness status was required for apostleship, for example. Christians were also instructed to exercise discernment skills, as we see reflected in many New Testament passages (Acts 17:11, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Revelation 2:2, etc.).
But, again, the Ephesians of Acts 19 are just one group among many people who lived in ancient times. Other people mentioned in the book of Acts behaved differently. What does your citation of Acts 19 prove, aside from facts that nobody was disputing?
You write:
"So the fact that the gospel spread in the Roman world among THE MASSES (or specifically the Ephesian area) doesn't show anything about the evidence there might have been for the gospel."
Who made an appeal to "the masses"? I didn't. Who made an appeal to "the Ephesian area"? I didn't. What does Acts 19 prove about the Roman world in general? It doesn't seem that you're making much of an effort to think through your arguments.
You write:
"On the contrary, since we are all children of our times, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Paul himself was a child of his times and believed a wonderful story based upon a vision he saw."
How does being "a child of his time" explain Paul? It doesn't. Did everybody in the ancient world claim to have seen the leader of an enemy religion risen from the dead? No. Is Paul's experience the sort of thing we would expect to happen in the normal course of life? No. And how does your reference to "a vision" explain what happened? Saying that Paul saw something doesn't explain what he saw.
If you're going to dismiss the experience as something like a hallucination, then you need to explain why you think it was a hallucination. Hallucinations are rare. The information we have on Paul's conversion is inconsistent with what we know about various psychological disorders that have been proposed by critics. Apparently, from what we know of what Paul experienced, it would require more than one psychological disorder to occur at once in order for Paul to have an experience such as what's described in the book of Acts. You'll need to tell us what psychological disorders you think Paul suffered from and why you think it's probable that Paul experienced all of those disorders simultaneously while traveling to Damascus. And you need to explain how Paul's travel companions could share in Paul's "vision". You need to explain why hundreds of other people would have had hallucinations (or other psychological disorders) of the same nature around the same time, including in group settings. You'll also need to explain how a hallucination would bring Ananias to Paul and how a hallucination would give Paul the power to perform miracles, such as the ones Luke eyewitnessed. Make sure you also explain why a first century Pharisee like Paul would believe in a resurrection without any physical evidence. For example, tell us why this first century Pharisee, who lived for a few decades after his "vision", would never make the effort to examine Jesus' tomb or to question other eyewitnesses for indications of other physical evidence. If you want to argue that Paul was too apathetic or careless to do such things, then you'll need to address the evidence we have for Paul's concern for the truth and his carefulness, such as I mentioned earlier with regard to 1 Corinthians 15. When you give us these explanations, John, make sure you tell us why your proposed scenario is probable, not just possible.
Making vague references to "a vision" is easy, just as it's easy to make vague references to the alleged gullibility of ancient people. We could use your easy form of argumentation to dismiss all sorts of historical events we don't like. But reality is more complex than that. That's why historians, as well as better informed skeptics, acknowledge that vague references to gullibility or "a vision" aren't sufficient.
You write:
"Now I know that I can prove none of this, just like you cannot prove the opposite."
If by using the term "prove" you intend to refer to certainty, then I would remind you that probability is sufficient. Certainty isn't necessary. I conclude that the truthfulness of Paul's testimony is probable for reasons such as the ones mentioned above.