Damage control

Matthew Green has posted a surrejoinder to my rejoinder.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/09/dr-steve-freud.html

Most of it is devoted to defending the tone of his original piece. There’s really nothing for me to reply to here.

I was commenting on what he said, and the way he said it, in the original piece. I was judging him by his own words—by what he said at the time.

His present exercise damage control is irrelevant to my rejoinder, for what he says now is not interchangeable with what he said then. My comments were inevitably directed at what he said then, and not his ex post factor attempts here and now to put a positive spin on what he originally said. I judge a writer by what he said at the time, and not by his polemical reinterpretation.

Moving on to the residual substance of MG’s surrejoinder:

MG: How am I comparing the incomparable here? What difference does it make that Herodotus is writing about many events from the distant past? My point is one of critical intent. And I do believe that if some authors are claiming to narrate the greatest event in human history in terms of soiterology, then they should be very critical in what they intend to write. Does Steve believe that if authors are writing events that are contemporaneous with their lives, they need not be critical-minded? Even about extraordinary claims?

SH: MG is now changing the subject.

1.The question at issue was the sources of information available to the gospel writers.

Whether you’re writing about the distance past, or about contemporaries and/or the recent past, makes quite a difference in the sort of information available to you.

2.I accept the traditional authorship and early dating of the gospels. The arguments for that position are readily available in standard commentaries, NT introductions, and the like.

In that event, Matthew and John are writing as eyewitnesses.

It is also likely, considering the fact that Mark was a resident of Jerusalem (Acts 12:12), that Mark was also an eyewitness to the Jerusalem ministry of Christ.

For the same reason, Mark also had access to the testimony of the Apostles. After all, his home was one of the founding house-churches in Jerusalem. Indeed, it was probably the location of the “upper room,” in the Passion narratives.

Finally, we have the author of Luke-Acts. He is not an eyewitness, but he is very well-connected, with a wide circle of contacts in the Jerusalem church and elsewhere.

In addition, his patron, Theophilus, was likely a high-ranking Roman official (given the conventional meaning of the honorific title “most excellent), who has his own circle of contacts, which put him in a position to confirm or disconfirm the Lucan account.

There is also an extensive and rapidly growing body of scholarship on the historical veracity of Acts. And this, in turn, is directly germane to the historical veracity of the prequel (the Gospel of Luke), given common authorship.

We also have a set of letters from men who were either members of the Twelve (Peter, John) or siblings of Jesus (James, Jude).

While this correspondence doesn’t say much about the life of Christ, it takes for granted the historicity of Christ, his Messianic claims, and his postmortem existence.

As his half-brothers (James, Jude) or members of his inner circle (Peter, John), these men were in a position of know where the truth lay. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose by dying for a lie.

Likewise, they don’t read like hysterical, conspiratorial cult-leaders.

Once again, I accept traditional authorship, for which the supporting arguments are readily available.

Then there’s St. Paul. In terms of chronology, he would have been a rabbinical student in Jerusalem at the same time Jesus came to town for the holidays. Paul would have been a regular attendant at the Temple, where Jesus used to preach.

Even if Paul were no longer a resident, he, too, as a devout Jew, would have been in Jerusalem for the holidays.

So it’s quite likely that he saw Jesus and heard him preach.

In addition, as a confidant of the religious establishment and persecutor of the church, he knew all sides of the argument.

3.I deny that the NT writers were “uncritical.” But even if they were uncritical, even someone who’s very gullible about things he’s in no position to know are true is still a reliable witness to things that he is in a position to know are true.

Suppose a mother is very credulous. She’s into astrology and the psychic channel. She’s a sucker for conspiracy theories.

Still, when she takes her kid to the doctor, and the doctor asks her some questions about her kid’s medical history, she can be completely reliable on that score.

MG: Well, in the case of Lawford writing a biography of Sinatra, we would have enough background information to determine whether or not Lawford was in a position to narrate Sinatra's life events with great accuracy.

SH: And the same case can be made for the Gospels.

MG: Let's also bear in mind that we are talking about two different cultures here. We are talking about a pride-guilt culture…

SH: Actually, we’re not talking about two different cultures. MG is merely regurgitating sociological clichés rather than thinking for himself.

We moderns are every bit as sensitive about our public reputation as people living 2000 years ago. We’re just as susceptible to peer pressure.

Parents feel embarrassed and defensive when their kids are involved in a public scandal, and vice versa.

We don’t like to lose face anymore than people living long ago.

There are some differences. Ancient society was structured along lines of patronage and kinship to a degree that ours is not. But that’s irrelevant to the question at hand.

And even in that regard, getting ahead is just is dependent on who you know as it ever was.

MG: in which the comparsion is futile because of our high-technology, information mediums, means of recording history, and journalism standards, that was simply unavailable to people back then.

SH: This is problematic on several grounds:

1.Are journalistic standards higher today than ancient historiography? How many counterexamples do I need to give?

2.By MG’s standard, we can’t rely on anything written before the 19C.

Among other things, this would mean that Carrier’s arguments regarding the gullibility of people living in the ancient can be dismissed out of hand since Carrier can only document his claim by reliance on ancient records of gullibility. But if, ex hypothesi, the records were written by gullible men…

3.Speaking of credulity, don’t you just love MG’s appeal to modern information technology?

The obvious problem with his appeal is that modern technology simply furnishes an opportunity for technological fraud.

Just as you can use modern technology to accurately record information, you can just as easily use m modern technology to doctor the record.

So it still comes down to human psychology. The motives of the reporter.

MG: Most people in the time of Christian origins, lived in a time where this was not the case, not to mention that there was a general lack of concern for precision in honor-shame cultures, especially in the 1st century Mediterranean. I have tried to document this in an essay I have written by which I plan to post on Loftus' blog in the near future. I invite you and Jason to take a look.

SH: Why would someone living in a shame culture be any less concerned with accuracy?

If he made an inaccurate claim, and his claim was exposed to public ridicule, he would lose face.

So even if we accept the premise of MG’s argument, we can draw a contrary conclusion.

MG: Oh, I see, so anything goes with you, Steve? So do you accept the sightings of the Virgin Mary at Fatima, the various sightings of Bigfoot, all the alleged stories of UFO/alien abudction, of various psychics who claim to predict future events? The resurrection is not only extraordinary given my "naturalistic presumption". I could be a Deist and believe that a supernatural Creator exists and still not believe that the resurrection happened due to a lack of extraordinary evidence, any other reasons or criticisms (like bibical inerrancy aside). I was even willing to qualify my remarks to: supernatural claims require supernatural forms of evidence. So, Steve, I guess you believe all the claims made about UFOs, Virgin Mary sightings, psychics, the lost civilization of Atlantis, astral projections, and all of that? I guess if you watch Most Haunted on the Travel Channel, then you really do believe that Derek Acorah really gets possessed by the "spirits" that supposedly haunt a given place?

Steve, my sarcasm aside here, how do you go about differentiating between any claims you're willing to accept and those you reject?

SH: Several more confusions:

1.I’ve addressed some of these examples in my review of The Empty Tomb.

2.Beyond that, there’s an elementary difference between the general case for the paranormal or supernatural, and the specific evidence for any particular claim thereof.

Evidence for the general framework is one thing, evidence of any particular claim within that general framework is another.

The fact that a particular report may be fraudulent does not, of itself, have any bearing on the general possibility that an event of that kind could or could not happen.

That’s a separate question with a separate set of arguments and counterarguments.

3.In addition, the paranormal and the supernatural are not conterminous.

If Bigfoot were real, it would be an animal. A product of nature. Not the same thing as Marian apparitions.

According to ufology, aliens would be the products of biological evolution. They would be using advanced technology.

That’s not the same type of claim as a haunted house.

4.Why do supernatural claims require supernatural evidence? What’s that supposed to mean?

You are confusing the nature of the evidence with the nature of the effect, and you are also confusing the nature of the effect with the nature of the cause.

When God struck Ananias and Sapphira dead, their demise was due to supernatural causes rather than natural causes—at least as far as the timing of the event is concerned.

Even so, God might have employed natural mechanisms. Made them die of a stroke or heart attack.

However, the effect was a natural effect, not a supernatural effect. It’s not as if Sapphira had a supernatural corpse. Dead is dead.

Likewise, there’s nothing necessarily supernatural about the evidence of a supernatural event.

What would be the evidence that Jesus brought Lazarus back from the dead? The evidence that Lazarus used to be alive, then he was dead, then he was alive again.

What sort of evidence do you need to prove that someone is alive? Ordinary evidence or extraordinary evidence? Natural evidence or supernatural evidence?

What sort of evidence to you need to prove tht someone is dead? Ordinary evidence or extraordinary evidence? Natural evidence or supernatural evidence?

What makes the case of Lazarus extraordinary is an extraordinary relation between ordinary states of being. Each state of being (life>death>life) is an ordinary state of affairs, subject to ordinary evidence.


MG: Natural explanations require naturalistic forms of evidence. Supernaturalist explanations require supernaturalist forms of evidence. That's the epistemological axiom I work with. Naturalism need not be presupposed or assumed from the get-go.

I have? I wasn't even defending naturalism. Being committed to philosophical naturalism isn't the same thing as defending it and even Steve knows that. I have just told Jason that I am committed to philosophical naturalism and naturalism is my conclusion thus far. I am willing to believe that the resurrection happened if supernatural forms of evidence were given to me, such as the risen Jesus appearing to me like he allegedly did to Paul on the road to Damascus or to doubting Thomas. That would be a step in the right direction. Of course, such a Being would have to help me confirm that I am not hallucinating the whole thing.

Oh, good grief! Where did I say I was giving one? I was only defending my hypothesis of visions, which a Deist, a pantheist, or other religionists can accept. Heck, even Muslims can accept my hypothesis. No naturalistic presuppositions are necessary here. Steve, I'm sorry, did I burn your straw man there? (I'm teasing Steve; just teasing you there)

SH: On the one hand, “No naturalistic presuppositions are necessary here.”

On the other hand: “Natural explanations require naturalistic forms of evidence. Supernaturalist explanations require supernaturalist forms of evidence. That's the epistemological axiom I work with.”

Needless to say, his epistemological axiom does, indeed, presuppose naturalism. It’s naturalism which distinguishes between naturalism and supernaturalism. It’s naturalism which classifies certain events as supernaturalistic relative to its naturalistic framework.

So where’s the supporting argument?


MG: Oh, really? And what would a modern paradigm of inerrancy look like? (I have read books on biblical inerrancy you know, Steve. I have, for instance, read a lot of Norman Geisler's book Inerrancy)

SH: Examples would include V.P. Philip’s on The Art of Biblical History; Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, as well as his commentaries on Matthew and John; John Walton’s commentary on Genesis; John Currid’s commentaries on Genesis and Exodus; Douglas Stuart’s commentary on Exodus; Bock’s two-volume commentary on Luke, &c.