Now that I've got your attention with the provocative title...
i) Unbelievers typically assert that extraordinary events demand extraordinary evidence. That's a catchy phrase, but is it true?
I've discussed this in many occasions, but I'd like to take another whack at it.
ii) There's a sense in which the 9/11 attack was an extraordinary event. What's the evidence for the 9/11 attack? Mainly, eyewitness testimony and photography. Yet there's nothing extraordinary about cameras or eyewitnesses. That's extremely commonplace.
Moreover, if you determined to be skeptical, you could question both. The witnesses could be bribed. Or they could be CIA agents posing as civilians. The news footage could be CGI.
Although the 9/11 attack was the most widely viewed event in human history, that's deceptive. Except for observers on site, most of us only saw what a few cameras saw. The actual source of information is quite narrow. Millions of viewers using the same conduit.
iii) Now, an unbeliever might object that 9/11 isn't extraordinary in the relevant sense. That's not how unbelievers define "extraordinary" in reference to miracles. Perhaps not. But that raises the issue of a hoc definitions, where their definition of an extraordinary event is custom-made to pick out miracles, and their definition of extraordinary evidence is custom-made to pick on miracles. They begin with what they disbelieve, then they invent stimulative definitions and tendentious criteria to exclude it or disprove it.
iv) But here's another issue. What's more likely: that 9/11 would go unreported if it did happen, or that reporters would concoct 9/11 if it didn't happen?
Put another way, what kinds of events are most likely to be reported? Extraordinary events. The vast majority of events go unreported because they are so mundane. They happen every day. No one gives them a second thought. It's the extraordinary events that make people stand up and take notice. The more out of the ordinary, the more newsworthy.
If 9/11 happened, what are the odds that no one would report it? Aren't the odds of that practically nil?
Conversely, if 9/11 never happened, what are the odds that this nonevent would be reported? Now, that's not quite nil. Sometimes people make up stories. Mind you, that depends in part on how public it would be. The scale of the event. The number of observers in a position to deny the yarn.
Nevertheless, if 9/11 happened, there's an overwhelming presumption that it would be reported–whereas, if it didn't, there's an overwhelming presumption that there'd be no public record–since there'd be nothing to report in the first place.
Yet unbelievers routinely claim that there's a standing presumption against reported miracles. And it takes massive evidence to overcome that presumption.
But the more unlikely the event, the more likely it will be reported.
If, say, the Resurrection happened, we'd expect it to be reported. If, however, it never happened, there's no expectation that it would be reported.
Nonevents are rarely reported. How many people who visit cemeteries report seeing people rise from the grave? And this is despite the pop cultural zombie fad.
v) In addition, even when a nonevent is reported, that often has a basis in fact. Maybe it didn't happen the way it was reported. The event was misidentified or misinterpreted.
Take Marian apparitions. Suppose a pious Catholic says she saw the Virgin Mary appear in a window on a sunny day. She's not lying. And it's not purely a figment of her imagination.
It's an optical illusion. Lighting conditions generate an image that corresponds to traditional Marian iconography.
Is it really the Virgin Mary? No. But it's not a nonevent. There's an objective phenomenon that gave rise to this impression. Although she's projecting something that isn't there, there is something there that forms the basis of her projection.
Whether or not a reported miracle can be explained away depends on the concrete details. There's a naturalistic explanation for this particular example. That doesn't mean other cases invite the same reductive explanation.
9/11 Had many thousands of eye witnesses. The resurrection had zero. It seems much more likely to me that people that supposedly saw Jesus after the resurrection were either deluded or made up (being that most are not named) than it does that someone was dead for three days and woke up perfectly healthy with no brain damage and walked away. Heck 10 minutes without oxygen can cause sever brain damage. Imagine what 3 days would cause.
ReplyDeletei) No, 9/11 didn't have "many thousands of witnesses." Rather, it had tons of TV viewers watching instant replay of the planes hitting the towers. (At least the second plane). Other than eyewitnesses on the street, the rest of us were dependent on footage from a handful of cameras that happened to be running at the time. The actual ratio was few sources to many viewers.
DeleteFrom street level, skyscrapers obstruct the view of other skyscrapers, so visibility is actually quite limited. And I doubt most spectators were standing under or near the burning buildings. You only have to be, like, two blocks away to have your view walled off by other buildings in right front of you.
The sightlines are up and down streets, at right angles. You can't see over or around skyscrapers.
Survivors inside the towers at the time knew something awful had happened, but they didn't see the planes hit.
ii) Your objection to Jesus recovering without brain damage is inept. It was a miracle. You at least need to learn how to attack the actual position.
@TheRealJnani
Delete"either deluded or made up (being that most are not named)"
How does not being named mean they're either "deluded" or "made up" what they saw?
"Heck 10 minutes without oxygen can cause sever brain damage"
As Steve alerady pointed out, it was a miracle.
As far as this goes, however, Google Anna Bågenholm for starters.
"Imagine what 3 days would cause."
Again, this sidetracks us so I won't overly focus on it, but as far as this objection goes, you assume there was no oxygen in the tomb, or at least none available to his brain.
@steve, I'm sorry but you are just wrong on this. You are trying to only count people that saw the planes hit the building unaided. Do you deny that many thousands of people heard the collisions live? Hearing an even also counts as eyewitness. I know you want to take the eye in eyewitness literally but you can look it up.
DeleteAlso, the second plane was on live TV so it's quite reasonable to count the viewers of the live broadcast as an eyewitness.
Anyway, the point was I was making was that there are zero eyewitness accounts of the resurrection and there are at least many eyewitness accounts of 9/11.
@rockingwithhawking, "How does not being named mean they're either "deluded" or "made up" what they saw?"
DeleteMy note was for the "made up" part. The point is that the supposed eyewitnesses could just have easily been made up by the person claiming there were eyewitnesses.
"you assume there was no oxygen in the tomb, or at least none available to his brain"
No, the story is that Jesus was dead so that would mean he was not breathing as well and so it's reasonable to conclude that oxygen was not being supplied to his brain for the three days he was dead. You are correct that this is off topic so I will leave it alone for now. Thanks
@TheRealJnani
Delete"My note was for the 'made up' part. The point is that the supposed eyewitnesses could just have easily been made up by the person claiming there were eyewitnesses."
"No, the story is that Jesus was dead so that would mean he was not breathing as well and so it's reasonable to conclude that oxygen was not being supplied to his brain for the three days he was dead."
This is interesting.
On the one hand, it's possible the NT eyewitnesses could have "made up" their claims.
On the other hand, it's possible the NT eyewitnesses could have been correct in their claims.
So you pick and choose what NT eyewitnesses' claims to accept or reject without proffering any reason(s) for why you do so. At this point, it might as well be arbitrary.
"You are trying to only count people that saw the planes hit the building unaided. Do you deny that many thousands of people heard the collisions live? Hearing an even also counts as eyewitness. I know you want to take the eye in eyewitness literally but you can look it up."
Steve already covered this ground. He mentioned the survivors in the towers knew something awful had happened even though they didn't literally "see" the planes hit. So it's possible they "heard" the crash or loud noise or somesuch. Point being, simply "hearing" the planes doesn't help your case, for "hearing" is also subject to the sorts of skepticism Steve talks about.
"Also, the second plane was on live TV so it's quite reasonable to count the viewers of the live broadcast as an eyewitness."
Again, Steve already covered this ground (e.g. CGI, optical illusions). Re-read his post.
"Anyway, the point was I was making was that there are zero eyewitness accounts of the resurrection and there are at least many eyewitness accounts of 9/11."
You're clearly missing Steve's point.
Besides, given your atheism and related beliefs, it seems hard for you to escape some form of solipsism in terms of basic epistemology. How do you know external reality actually exists? How do you know you're not a brain in a vat? Stuck in a Matrix-like virtual reality simulation?
TheRealJnani
Delete"@steve, I'm sorry but you are just wrong on this. You are trying to only count people that saw the planes hit the building unaided. Do you deny that many thousands of people heard the collisions live? Hearing an even also counts as eyewitness. I know you want to take the eye in eyewitness literally but you can look it up."
Many different things can account for an explosive noise. That's quite unspecific.
"Also, the second plane was on live TV so it's quite reasonable to count the viewers of the live broadcast as an eyewitness."
No, that's special pleading. If a million people see the same TV feed, the TV feed is their only source of information. One source. That's totally different than a million independent observers. I'm counting actual sources. If a million people see an event recorded by a security camera, the camera is the actual witness to the incident. If you want to be accurate, you need to count the number of primary sources, not secondary sources. Pretty elementary distinction.
"Anyway, the point was I was making was that there are zero eyewitness accounts of the resurrection…"
i) Are you denying that the NT contains any firsthand testimony of the event? If so, that begs the question.
ii) Or do you mean no one saw Jesus coming back to life (i.e. the process)? But if he was dead, and he was seen alive 3 days later, then he was restored to life.
"…and there are at least many eyewitness accounts of 9/11."
Even if that's true, it's a red herring. My argument wasn't about the number of eyewitnesses. Rather, my argument was:
"What's more likely: that 9/11 would go unreported if it did happen, or that reporters would concoct 9/11 if it didn't happen?"
Is there some reason you're unable to follow the actual argument?
TheRealJnani
Delete"The point is that the supposed eyewitnesses could just have easily been made up by the person claiming there were eyewitnesses."
9/11 Truthers have similar explanations. For instance, TV feeds can be faked.
"What's more likely: that 9/11 would go unreported if it did happen, or that reporters would concoct 9/11 if it didn't happen?"
DeleteNeither one is more likely than the other. 9/11 is really a bad analogy because there is to much physical evidence for it to go 1) unreported or 2) concocted.
I think a better analogy may be alien abductions. Thousands of people have reported being abducted by aliens making them eyewitnesses.
So what is more likely: 1) that alien abductions actually have happened as reported or 2) that the reporters of the abductions were either lying, deluded, or misinterpreting some other experience?
I think 2 is much more likely.
In the case of the resurrection, whats is more likely: 1) that Jesus was dead for three days and then came alive again and visited some people or 2) the people reporting seeing Jesus alive three days after his death and burial were lying, deluded, or misinterpreting some other experience?
I would say 2 is more likely.
Of course there is a third option. 3) that Jesus was not dead in the first place. Medical knowledge back then was not the best so it's quite possible that he wasn't dead and may have just been in some kind of coma. I still think 2 is more likely but just wanted to show there is a third option.
Thanks
Alien abductions are a bad example; many witnesses reported the exact same event in Jesus' resurrection, not many similar events, as in the case of alien abductions. On the basis of the evidence, the resurrection seems much more likely than not.
DeleteYour 3) seems a bizarre claim. You don't have to have a great amount of medical knowledge to know someone is dead, and people in the ancient world spent a long time confronting death. The blood and water flowing from his side and the fact that Jesus had slumped down are sufficient to show he was dead. In any case, he's hardly going to end up worshipped as the risen Messiah if he was staggering around half-dead.
TheRealJnani
Delete"Do you deny that many thousands of people heard the collisions live?"
I assume what they heard, or didn't, would depend on which floor they were on. If a plane flies into the 90th floor, and your office is on the 20th floor, you have 70 stories worth of sound-proofing between you and the point of impact.
@TheRealJnani
Delete"Neither one is more likely than the other. 9/11 is really a bad analogy because there is to much physical evidence for it to go 1) unreported or 2) concocted."
1. I'll just note in passing TheRealJnani keeps moving the goalposts. Once one of his objections is dealt with, he shifts to another one without retracting his original objection.
2. Steve's use of 9/11 as an example is sufficient to deal with the point he raised in his post, which was about how unbelievers routinely claim "extraordinary events demand extraordinary evidence." Well, 9/11 was an extraordinary event. Why isn't there a presumption against 9/11's occurrence if the claim is true?
3. Physical evidence can likewise supposedly be explained away. There are plenty of U.S. government conspiracy theories.
"I think a better analogy may be alien abductions. Thousands of people have reported being abducted by aliens making them eyewitnesses. So what is more likely: 1) that alien abductions actually have happened as reported or 2) that the reporters of the abductions were either lying, deluded, or misinterpreting some other experience? I think 2 is much more likely."
1. We don't have good reasons to doubt it's possible for a plane to be hijacked and flown into a building. However, we do have good reasons to doubt it's possible aliens exist or are intelligent sentient beings like we are or have built spaceships that have reached our planet or would be interested in abducting humans, etc. It may not be completely defeasible, but there's enough reasonable doubt to render the matter speculative. Google for responses to the Fermi paradox for instance. Anyway, it's enough to conclude your aliens analogy is in fact disanalogous to the 9/11 example.
2. But let's say it's reasonable to believe intelligent lifeforms exist and have visited our planet and "abducted" people. If this is reasonable to believe, then how is it "more likely" people are "lying, deluded, or misinterpreting some other experience"?
"Of course there is a third option. 3) that Jesus was not dead in the first place. Medical knowledge back then was not the best so it's quite possible that he wasn't dead and may have just been in some kind of coma."
1. What Thomas said.
2. Also, this reflects a naive understanding of medical history. Google Greco-Roman medical knowledge or history or the like. See Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity by Gary Ferngren for a start.
3. Articles like these contain some relevant info too:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=403315
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22390994
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420788/
4. Plenty of good works dealing with the swoon theory.
TheRealJnani
Delete"I think a better analogy may be alien abductions."
Gee, how original. Richard Carrier has been using that analogy for years, and I've been debunking his analogy for years. Try an argument I haven't responded to before.
Speaking of 9/11 (which was carried out by dedicated Muslims), David Wood and Sam Shamoun did some videos arguing why Muhammad wasn't a Prophet. They started with a Top 10. But ended up giving even more reasons (so far 50 reasons in five 1 hour shows). I've collected them here.
ReplyDeleteTop Ten Reasons Muhammad Is Not a Prophet (really 50 REASONS)
TheRealJnani
ReplyDeleteI said: "What's more likely: that 9/11 would go unreported if it did happen, or that reporters would concoct 9/11 if it didn't happen?"
To which you respond: "Neither one is more likely than the other."
So you think the position of the 9/11 Truthers is just as reasonable as the opposing position.