JON CURRY SAID:
I think Steve's [Steven Carr] point, Jason, is that it is quite absurd to think that Jesus' relatives could still doubt after all of the miracles they witnessed, and yet you're so confident and you've seen nothing. Imagine if you had seen miracles? The point is these stories are just not believable. They aren't realistic. These people aren't real.
You could point to many such things in the gospels. Take the event of the resurrection. Jesus tells his disciples he's going to be betrayed, tried, scourged, killed, and then on the third day he will rise. So what happens? The disciples watch as he's betrayed, tried, scourged, and then killed. Even the Jews think to post guards because they know he has predicted he will rise. But the disciples don't think to watch the tomb and see if something happens. They've seen the miracles and the predictions are fulfilled to a tee. But when the disciples hear reports that the tomb is empty they're confused. The women's words seem like "idle tales." The women leave "wondering what had happened." Peter sees the empty tomb but has no concept that perhaps Jesus has risen from the dead.
These people are caricatures. They aren't real. The disciples make for a good foil, showing Jesus to be calm and in control despite these moron buffoons around him. But they reveal this as just a story.
**************************************
This sounds like a very reasonable objection. But it suffers from one intransigent fact—people can be very unreasonable.
And, ironically enough, the very people who raise this sort of objection are the very people who will go to any length to dismiss any miracle. From Hume to Lewontin and Dawkins, as well as numberless wannabes, every conceivable effort is expended to either deny that miracles are even possible or ever verifiable.
When it comes to the subject of the miraculous, the militant unbeliever is beyond parody.
If we didn't know such people existed, we would assume that they were caricatures. Surely they couldn't be real.
Hume, Lewontin, and, Dawkins—to name a few—are storybook characters, right? A pious fiction or literary device to provide a foil for Christian writers.
Don't let your imagination run away with you and think for even a moment that such fanatical unbelievers exist in the real world. That strains credulity to the breaking point.
Sorry, but I just don't have enough faith to believe that John Loftus is a real person. He's clearly the work of a pious hack-writer who needed a straw man to burn.
I saw Steve's reply to Jon just before I finished mine. Those who are interested can read my response in the comments section at:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/12/does-gospel-of-mark-contradict-infancy.html
Steve's entire reply reads like a complaint rather than an argument. Indeed, I saw no argument in his reply to Jon Curry at all. Rather, it is a feeble attempt to turn the tables on Jon, one which does not come close to succeeding. When Steve says things like "This sounds like a very reasonable objection. But it suffers from one intransigent fact—people can be very unreasonable," he ignores the fact that the defect he points to is not a defect in the objection that has been raised, it's a defect in those who choose to be unreasonable (such as those who insist on believing the bible's mythology). Instead of validating miracle-belief or empathizing with non-believers by recognizing that miracle-belief requires a leap of faith, Steve prefers to ratchet up his own commitment to absurdity by suggesting that calling the actual a caricature while maintaining that myths are authentic history. In so doing, Steve displays the real caliber behind Triablogue's "firepower." Peashooters anyone?
ReplyDeleteANONYMOUS SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve's entire reply reads like a complaint rather than an argument."
Anon's entire reply reads like a complaint rather than an argument.
"Indeed, I saw no argument in his reply to Jon Curry at all."
Indeed, I saw no argument in Anon's reply to me at all.
"Rather, it is a feeble attempt to turn the tables on Jon, one which does not come close to succeeding."
Rather, it is a feeble attempt to turn the tables on Steve, one which does not come close to succeeding.
"When Steve says things like 'This sounds like a very reasonable objection. But it suffers from one intransigent fact—people can be very unreasonable,' he ignores the fact that the defect he points to is not a defect in the objection that has been raised, it's a defect in those who choose to be unreasonable (such as those who insist on believing the bible's mythology)."
Curry's objection took the form of an ad hominem attack. I simply pointed out that unbelievers emulate the very "caricature" which he attributes to Biblical characterizations of unbelief. So I answered him on his own grounds. Sorry if you can't take it.
"Instead of validating miracle-belief."
I've done this on many other occasions. I was making a different point this time, in relation to Curry's contention.
"Or empathizing with non-believers by recognizing that miracle-belief requires a leap of faith."
Actually, it's naturalism which requires a leap of faith. Animal faith.
"Steve prefers to ratchet up his own commitment to absurdity by suggesting that calling the actual a caricature while maintaining that myths are authentic history.
Anon prefers to ratchet up his own commitment to absurdity by suggesting that calling the actual a caricature while maintaining that secular myths are authentic history.
"In so doing, Steve displays the real caliber behind Triablogue's firepower.' Peashooters anyone?"
In so doing, Anon displays the real caliber behind naturalism's "firepower." Peashooters anyone?
Steve said:
ReplyDelete---
Sorry, but I just don't have enough faith to believe that John Loftus is a real person. He's clearly the work of a pious hack-writer who needed a straw man to burn.
---
The only problem with this as a rebuttal, Steve, is...it could be true!!!
Sean doesn't think Loftus is real...
ReplyDeletehttp://gods4suckers.net/archives/2006/04/26/debunking-christianity-a-hoax-site
Curry's objection took the form of an ad hominem attack.
ReplyDeleteHow is what I said an ad hominem attack?
I simply pointed out that unbelievers emulate the very "caricature" which he attributes to Biblical characterizations of unbelief. So I answered him on his own grounds. Sorry if you can't take it.
Yes, I'm sure anonymous "can't take it."
So you're saying that the evidence for the miraculous is so compelling that it is almost unreal that anybody really thinks we live in a natural universe? These skeptics have never seen a miracle. Neither have you. Neither has anybody I know. And yet it is so obvious that miracles occur that it is almost unreal that people doubt them?
Jon,
ReplyDeleteI was eight when my father was in seminary. Budgets were tight and one night we literally had no food in the house. As a family we prayed for food. Not in general but for specific items; corn- flakes, bread, milk, butter, peanut butter, jam, tinned food. Early the next morning there was a knock at the door. We were all downstairs as my father answered. There was no-one there, only a box on the front step. The box contained every item we prayed for. I bet in just reading that you have come up with at least three possible alternatives to a *miracle*. I don't know how often I've tried to trick my dad into admitting that this was some grand scheme to impress an impressionable mind. Two problems, I was there when we prayed and I was there when there was a knock at the door and my dad opened it. And his recollection has not changed in the slightest over 31 years.
'But it suffers from one intransigent fact—people can be very unreasonable.'
ReplyDeleteDropping everything to follow Jesus at the drop of a hat - is that reasonable?
Being given the power to raise the dead (Matthew 10)
Being given the secret of the Kingdom of God. (Mark 4)
Being given the power to cure all diseases (Matthew
Being convinced that Moses and Elijah had returned to Earth.
And still they were 'unreasonable'.
In fact, according to Matthew 28:17, some of the closest followers of Jesus still doubted, even after being shown proofs supplied by the Son of God Himself.
If only they had had the faith of the Triablogue writers, rather than being literary foils.
Jesus's family spent 30 years observing literally Christ-like behaviour and were still unreasonable.
Of course, they could not read the Triablogue in those days.