Mike Fox said:
"just curious, what is your opinion on the purpose of and reasoning beind apologetics for the resurrection? do you think it is to convince non-believers that the resurrection is a scientifically valid historical fact? like i said, just curious. i've never been able to prove christianity to anyone, but i have seen people come to believe simply by hearing the gospel with no proof given."
God doesn't need to use something like an argument for Jesus' resurrection, but sometimes He does use such means (John 20:27-29). (On some common misunderstandings of John 20:29, see here.) The Bible frequently reasons with us in evidential categories, such as fulfilled prophecy and eyewitness testimony.
Converting people isn't the only relevant objective. Something like the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection can also glorify God in His creation or demonstrate the corrupt nature of the unregenerate, for example.
But concerning conversions, William Craig wrote the following when challenged on this point in a debate:
"Even if few people become Christians as a direct result of an apologetic argument, such defenses do help to shape and preserve an intellectual milieu in which faith in the Jesus of the New Testament is still a rational alternative for most persons in our culture. And even in individual cases, it has not been my experience that so desperately few find apologetic arguments persuasive....Several students during the question-and-answer time [of a previous event] were quite hostile. It seemed that I had persuaded no one. But a letter I later received from Gabriel Ting, a staff member with Campus Crusade for Christ at the university, informed me that six people had decided to become Christians as a result of the talk. Again, I think of a couple of debates in which I participated at the University of Illinois. Mark Ashton, the local InterVarsity director, tells me that twenty students committed their lives to Christ at that time and that as many as forty more have joined investigative Bible studies geared to helping unbelievers learn more about Jesus Christ." (Paul Copan, ed., Will The Real Jesus Please Stand Up? [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998], p. 178)
Craig says a lot more on the subject in the surrounding context. You can consult the book if you're interested in more of his thoughts and experiences on the matter.
He mentions people who were "quite hostile" after one of his events. That might be an example of what I referred to above, a demonstration of the corrupt nature of the unregenerate. For some other examples, listen to the audience question segment of Craig's 2004 debate with Hector Avalos.
Even when an unbeliever doesn't convert, he'll sometimes concede a point or acknowledge the reasonableness of the Christian position on an issue. When he was an atheist, Antony Flew commented on the evidence for the empty tomb, in an April 2000 debate with Gary Habermas:
"I don’t think you should be apologetic about this at all. These facts are facts and I could rather wish that in these topics more people were prepared to face facts rather than run away and say, 'Mustn’t say that.' No. This is a very impressive piece of argument, I think…Because, you know, it’s very difficult to get around this….Well, we have no independent witnesses. There are all sorts of ways of removing bodies. I’m not going to offer a theory because I simply don’t think one can reconstruct the story of what happened in the city and all that long ago and we haven’t got the sort of evidence that one might have today with the invention of cameras and all the rest of it….I don’t offer anything to cover the empty tomb evidence." ("Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?" [Chattanooga, TN: Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, 2000], pp. 17-18)
As a deist, Flew commented:
"The evidence for the resurrection [of Jesus] is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity, I think, from the evidence offered for the occurrence of most other supposedly miraculous events." (interview with Gary Habermas)
I don't know what you mean by "scientifically valid historical fact", but historians make judgments based on probability. Something like a certainty or a 99% probability would be preferable, but a preference isn't a necessity.
We should be ready with an answer (1 Peter 3:15), but we should realize that God can accomplish His ends without our answers. Be familiar with God's word (Romans 10:17), and realize that God can use means other than your argumentation, but also be prepared to reason with people in evidential categories like fulfilled prophecy and eyewitness testimony, as the Bible does. God is sovereign over history, not just hearts. His actions in history can leave traces in the historical record, as other events do.
I know that to you fellows on the inside it looks like apologetics is about a rational defense of the faith. FYI to us on the outside it looks like a purely in-house deal, believers stroking each other, convincing each other your irrational superstitions aren't irrational.
ReplyDeleteYou believers are correct to see the you beliefs as under attack. For eg, miracles are irrational. Period. No quantity of twisting and turning can convince reasonable non-believing people otherwise. You are under attack because your ideas are, to the modern mind, fundamentally silly. With ideas like that you must lose. You are loosing. You will lose.
The function of apologetics is for you to convince each other. And to enjoy chattering about your superstition. And to pick up a few converts at the margin – the rational people you drive away are of course uncounted.
You will no doubt now prove to each other I am a nasty atheist idiot.
Bino Bolumai
Bino,
ReplyDeleteWhat, exactly, is "irrational" about miracles per se?
You believers are correct to see the you beliefs as under attack. For eg, miracles are irrational. Period.
ReplyDeleteMiracles are irrational - unless, of course, God exists.
Here's a question- does rational dialog consist of merely labeling your opponents' position irrational?
What, exactly, is "irrational" about miracles per se?
ReplyDeleteYou have two problems, miracles themselves, and the world history of miracles.
#1 Irrational because to modern people "rational" means natural – happening in accordance with natural law and cause and effect. I'm not saying this is correct, or true, but it is how modern people generally think.
You believe this yourselves. Apologists I mean. Wm Craig, G Habermas, etc. go on and on imagining themselves deducing the resurrection as the "most likely" explanation. This is fundamentally silly. It is fundamentally not possible to use natural processes to conclude natural processes can't explain something. You don't see this. The rest of us do. With ideas like this you will lose.
#2 Irrational because 20th century socio-anthropology and comparative religion studies has shown people that every culture has miracle stories. Every culture has gods. Gods do miracles – that's what makes them Gods for goodness sake.
So you've got to convince non-believers that all those other cultures' miracle stories are silly myths, but YOUR miracle stories are real. No doubt you convince yourselves this is true. It is not possible to convince people in general it is true. With ideas like this you will lose.
Miracles are irrational - unless, of course, God exists.
Exactly. Your arguments only work for people already inside your belief structure. With ideas like that you must lose.
This sort of childish argument is a sign of believers' insularity. You talk to each other. You all agree with each other. You let each other get by with sloppy silliness. With ideas like this you will lose.
Here's a question- does rational dialog consist of merely labeling your opponents' position irrational?
You are forced to this notion by your lack of convincing – non-circular – reasoning. The function of apologetics is to prove to yourselves your silly ideas are not silly. You arguments fail to convince non-believers. The only way to preserve your self perception of rationality is to attack who put forward ideas you can't beat. Anyone who disagrees with you must be a nasty atheist idiot.
Bino Bolumai
Exactly. Your arguments only work for people already inside your belief structure. With ideas like that you must lose.
ReplyDeleteWell, first off no one has offered miracles as an argument for God's existence. Second, you missed the point of my original statement. Something like miracles can only be evaluated as rational or irrational depending on one's metaphysical assumptions. In order to prove that miracles are irrational, you must first prove that belief in God is irrational. But you provided no such argument. In other words, why should we come to your conclusion if we don't accept your assumptions?
Anyone who disagrees with you must be a nasty atheist idiot.
Either that or a very naive Philosophy 101 flunky. But, yeah, it would be accurate to describe your comments so far as not rising above the level of Jr. High school taunting and name-calling. We await a coherent argument on why miracles are irrational which don't rely on atheistic premises. Good luck.
Notice that people like BinoBolumai wait for a thread like this one to post their unsupported assertions while ignoring thread after thread in which we argue for Christianity. And he ignores the arguments against his assertions at the beginning of this thread.
ReplyDeleteHe refers to "us on the outside". Why should anybody think that he speaks for all outsiders? Does he speak for Antony Flew, to cite my example above?
Why should we agree with his claim that "You arguments fail to convince non-believers"? How does he supposedly know that?
He refers to apologetics as "a purely in-house deal, believers stroking each other, convincing each other your irrational superstitions aren't irrational". Then why doesn't he interact with the other purposes I cited for apologetics and the examples I gave?
He writes:
"You are under attack because your ideas are, to the modern mind, fundamentally silly."
Do the billions of Muslims, Christians, Hindus, etc. who believe in the supernatural think that an idea like miracles is "silly"? Are most modern people naturalists?
You continue:
"With ideas like that you must lose. You are loosing. You will lose."
There are far more supernaturalists than naturalists in this country and worldwide. But we're losing?
You go on:
"And to pick up a few converts at the margin – the rational people you drive away are of course uncounted."
Aside from the lack of support you've offered for such assertions, why would you say that apologetics seems to be "purely" for one purpose, then go on, within several sentences in the same post, to acknowledge another purpose? That doesn't seem rational.
#1 Irrational because to modern people "rational" means natural – happening in accordance with natural law and cause and effect. I'm not saying this is correct, or true, but it is how modern people generally think.
ReplyDeleteFirst, you'll need to justify why I should accept that "rational" means "natural." Third, you ought to demonstrate that this is, in fact, what modern people generally think "rational" means. Second, you're going to have to extrapolate how miracles are necessarily violations of the "natural" law of cause and effect.
#2 Irrational because 20th century socio-anthropology and comparative religion studies has shown people that every culture has miracle stories. Every culture has gods. Gods do miracles – that's what makes them Gods for goodness sake.
And how does that make miracles "irrational" per se? Maybe I'm outdated, but "irrational" means "contrary to reason" in my vocabulary. So the fact that every culture attributes miracles to whatever entities says nothing about whether miracles per se are irrational. If you want to discuss whether attributing miracles to particular entities is irrational, that's another subject.
Hmm, please switch "second" & "third" in my comment above.
ReplyDeleteBino said:
ReplyDelete---
It is fundamentally not possible to use natural processes to conclude natural processes can't explain something.
---
Godel's rolling in his grave.
Jason. I meant to offer a personal observation, and opinion, not an argument. Take it or leave it, Amigo, as you will.
ReplyDelete#1 Irrational because to modern people "rational" means natural – happening in accordance with natural law and cause and effect. I'm not saying this is correct, or true, but it is how modern people generally think.
First, you'll need to justify why I should accept that "rational" means "natural." Third, you ought to demonstrate that this is, in fact, what modern people generally think "rational" means. Second, you're going to have to extrapolate how miracles are necessarily violations of the "natural" law of cause and effect.
Kyle, you don't need to accept anything. I wasn't arguing for or against miracles. I was trying to help Jason understand how apologetics works. It is unpersuasive. I was hoping (rather than expecting!) to help him see why.
#2 Irrational because 20th century socio-anthropology and comparative religion studies has shown people that every culture has miracle stories. Every culture has gods. Gods do miracles – that's what makes them Gods for goodness sake.
And how does that make miracles "irrational" per se? Maybe I'm outdated, but "irrational" means "contrary to reason" in my vocabulary. So the fact that every culture attributes miracles to whatever entities says nothing about whether miracles per se are irrational. If you want to discuss whether attributing miracles to particular entities is irrational, that's another subject.
Yes, I see. My point exactly. My point about apologetics I mean. You guys spend so much time talking to each other, congratulating each other, back and forth, back and forth, that you don't understand the most basic reasoning on the other sided. And why should you? You tell each other anyone who disagrees with you is a nasty atheist idiot. Giving your failings, of course you can't convince the other side. Which is why apologetics is an in-house deal. Again, estimado compadre, observation and opinion. My life will be rich and full regardless of whether you accept, or even understand, the point.
The problem apologists have isn't that Bino needs to persuade you. Your problem is you need to persuade the population at large. How's that working for you? It's not. Which is why what you do is talk to each other. Back and forth. Back and forth. Apologetics is an in house deal.
Bino Boloumai
For those who don't know about Godel's uncertainty theorum, it's actually easy to prove that any system has things that are unprovable within that system.
ReplyDeleteTake naturalism as a given, like Bino does. Evaluate the statement:
"This statement cannot be proven by naturalism."
If the above is false, then the statement CAN be proven in naturalism, which means that naturalism returns a "true" value for a "false" statement (in which case the system is broken).
But if the above statement is true, then there is at least one truth statement that is true aside from naturalism, in which case your system is incomplete (and in reality you can extrapolate from the above and come up with an infinite number of truth statements that are true yet unproven in your given system).
Godel proved this true in mathematics. A system can be complete and faulty, or it can be incomplete and sound, but it cannot be both complete and sound.
Now granted the above is a rather trivial statement to be outside the scope of naturalism and Bino probably doesn't care if that's outside the scope of naturalism. But if naturalism = rational, as Bino claimed earlier, then he has to admit that there are some irrational truths; and if there can be irrational truth (as defined by Bino), then that kinda defeats Bino's desire to remain rational, doesn't it?
Kyle, you don't need to accept anything. I wasn't arguing for or against miracles. I was trying to help Jason understand how apologetics works. It is unpersuasive. I was hoping (rather than expecting!) to help him see why.
ReplyDeleteOkay, but I also asked you a question to help clarify why you think (Christian) apologetics is unpersuasive. Your observation was basically that apologetics is unpersuasive because, for example, miracles are irrational. So, why don't we start with investigating why miracles are irrational from your perspective, with perhaps the hope of gaining insight into modern people in general? It might even improve our apologetics.
Yes, I see. My point exactly. My point about apologetics I mean. You guys spend so much time talking to each other, congratulating each other, back and forth, back and forth, that you don't understand the most basic reasoning on the other sided.
You haven't really provided basic reasoning, so far. You've asserted some things, & I asked you some questions to draw out the reasoning. Do you care to go that route?
Peter, you gave an example in your explanation of Godel's uncertainty theorem:
ReplyDelete"This statement cannot be proven by naturalism."
Query: what precisely is supposed to be provable or unprovable in or about that statement? It doesn't appear to contain any propositional content which can actually return a truth value. This is evident if you merely ask yourself: how would I go about proving or disproving this statement, using naturalism or any other means?
It looks to me like the statement is merely a trick of semantics. Like the assertion that "This sentence is false", it has the appearance of some kind of truth-evaluable statement, but only because the semantics of an assertion have been constructed—not because any actual truth-evaluable proposition is really being asserted.
I wonder if you could provide any insight here; I have always been puzzled by how people use these sorts of statements to argue for paraconsistent logic, and in this case for Godel's incompleteness theorem. It looks to me like making a case for something based not on a meaningful but paradoxical proposition, but rather on a meaningless semantic construction designed to have the appearance of the former.
Regards,
Bnonn
BINOBOLUMAI SAID:
ReplyDelete“You guys spend so much time talking to each other, congratulating each other, back and forth, back and forth, that you don't understand the most basic reasoning on the other sided.”
A silly statement since we spend a lot of time quoting atheists in their own words.
“You tell each other anyone who disagrees with you is a nasty atheist idiot.”
By and large, the atheists who comment on this blog do a fine job of reinforcing that impression.
Peter Pike said:
ReplyDeleteTake naturalism as a given, like Bino does. Evaluate the statement:
"This statement cannot be proven by naturalism."
…
But if naturalism = rational, as Bino claimed earlier, then he has to admit that there are some irrational truths; and if there can be irrational truth (as defined by Bino), then that kinda defeats Bino's desire to remain rational, doesn't it?
Excellent points, all true. Naturalism cannot be proven. Nothing can. The need to prove is itself unprovable. If on this basis you plan to prove miracles are real, go nuts.
Back on planet Earth, I observe that people do in fact believe in natural cause and effect. And I recognize that "miracle = cause and effect were suspended" cannot be tested. In principal cannot be tested. It is fundamentally not possible to use natural processes to conclude natural processes can't explain something.
Which means miracles cannot be known, at least not in the sense that people generally believe things can be know. Can miracles happen? As Peter knows, I can't prove they can't. The risen son of God Osiris, who reigns in Heaven and will judge us in our afterlife, with whom the righteous among us will spend eternity, could be curing some little girl's cancer right now, and I couldn't prove otherwise. But there's no test, no observation, that can suggest He is. Or isn't. "Evidence of a miracle" is impossible.
So your Jesus miracles may be real. So may all those Osiris miracles. And Asclepius miracles. And Vespatian miracles. Etc. etc. But there can be no reason to suppose they are real.
Convincing-reasonable-people-wise, the problem for you apologists is there's a good natural explanation for your Jesus' miracle stories. The same explanation that everybody believes works for all those other religions' miracles: some credulous primitive made them up.
Bino Bouloumai
Convincing-reasonable-people-wise, the problem for you apologists is there's a good natural explanation for your Jesus' miracle stories. The same explanation that everybody believes works for all those other religions' miracles: some credulous primitive made them up.
ReplyDeleteThe problem for atheist hicks like you is that this explanation fails specifically in the case of Christian miracle claims—as atheists who aren't hicks tend to recognize (viz Flew when he was an atheist). Did you not read the original article?
Bino Bolumai said:
ReplyDeleteExcellent points, all true. Naturalism cannot be proven. Nothing can. The need to prove is itself unprovable. If on this basis you plan to prove miracles are real, go nuts.
If nothing can be "proven," as BB claims, then how does he know that these "excellent points" are "all true"?
And why should we take anything BB says seriously? It's not as if anything he says can be "proven."
BTW, as far as I can tell, BB never clearly defines what counts as proof. So, for example, if BB thinks something can be "reliable" without being "provable" then he'll have to make that clear and argue for his position.
Back on planet Earth, I observe that people do in fact believe in natural cause and effect.
What is this hypothesis of "cause and effect" that BB talks about? Is it "true"? How can we verify whether it is or isn't? Can it be "proven"?
And I recognize that "miracle = cause and effect were suspended" cannot be tested. In principal cannot be tested. It is fundamentally not possible to use natural processes to conclude natural processes can't explain something.
Is a claim "provable" only if it is "testable"? And what does he mean by "tested" in the first place (e.g. scientific experimentation)?
Can miracles happen? As Peter knows, I can't prove they can't. The risen son of God Osiris, who reigns in Heaven and will judge us in our afterlife, with whom the righteous among us will spend eternity, could be curing some little girl's cancer right now, and I couldn't prove otherwise. But there's no test, no observation, that can suggest He is. Or isn't. "Evidence of a miracle" is impossible.
Once again, according to BB, nothing can be proven. So is BB even real? Are his comments real? It's not (scientifically) provable that they exist. I can't test whether or not there's a real, living, breathing human being interacting with me. I can't test whether these comments are real. Maybe it's just a trick of the mind. Or maybe it's my mind dialoguing with myself. Or maybe I'm not real. Or maybe this is BB's mind dialoguing with himself. Or maybe we all live a yellow submarine, and maybe BB is the captain on a ship out to sea. Or maybe BB is not really BB but a magic dragon named Puff who likes to frolick in the autumn mist with a boy named Peter Pan in a land called Neverneverland.
So your Jesus miracles may be real. So may all those Osiris miracles. And Asclepius miracles. And Vespatian miracles. Etc. etc. But there can be no reason to suppose they are real.
But is there any reason to suppose that reason itself is reliable, given BB's commitments?
Convincing-reasonable-people-wise, the problem for you apologists is there's a good natural explanation for your Jesus' miracle stories. The same explanation that everybody believes works for all those other religions' miracles: some credulous primitive made them up.
But how can BB substantiate his claim, which as he says is at best only a belief, that "some credulous primitive made them up" if he says nothing can be proven? If it's at best only a belief, then why does BB even bother to make the claim in the first place? It's not as if one belief is any better than any other belief in a world where (as BB claims) "nothing" is "testable" let alone "provable."
BinoBolumai wrote:
ReplyDelete"Back on planet Earth, I observe that people do in fact believe in natural cause and effect. And I recognize that 'miracle = cause and effect were suspended' cannot be tested. In principal cannot be tested. It is fundamentally not possible to use natural processes to conclude natural processes can't explain something."
What is "natural cause and effect"? Where are you getting your definition of miracles? Why would our ability to test "cause and effect were suspended" be the only means of evaluating a potential miracle? And why would whether natural processes "can't explain something" be the issue? Probability would be enough. We wouldn't need to demonstrate that a naturalistic explanation is impossible.
You write:
"The risen son of God Osiris, who reigns in Heaven and will judge us in our afterlife, with whom the righteous among us will spend eternity, could be curing some little girl's cancer right now, and I couldn't prove otherwise."
Terms like "risen", "son of God", "Heaven", and "the righteous" have to be defined significantly differently for Osiris than they are for Jesus. Why use the same terminology to convey such different concepts? Perhaps because it makes a bad argument seem better than it actually is?
You write:
"So your Jesus miracles may be real. So may all those Osiris miracles. And Asclepius miracles. And Vespatian miracles. Etc. etc. But there can be no reason to suppose they are real. Convincing-reasonable-people-wise, the problem for you apologists is there's a good natural explanation for your Jesus' miracle stories. The same explanation that everybody believes works for all those other religions' miracles: some credulous primitive made them up."
You keep demonstrating that you aren't competent to participate in this discussion. We can distinguish between the evidence for one miracle claim and the evidence for another, as we've done many times on this blog. The evidence for Jesus is significantly different than the evidence for Osiris, Asclepius, and Vespasian. And Christians who address miracle claims in other religions don't just argue that "some credulous primitive made them up". The Bible itself gives us examples of miracles among the unregenerate, as I discussed in a recent post. And telling us that you have a "good natural explanation" for something like Jesus' resurrection isn't equivalent to demonstrating that assertion. Are you familiar with the arguments for Jesus' resurrection? If so, then what's your "good natural explanation" that takes those arguments into account?
BinoBolumai wrote:
ReplyDelete"Back on planet Earth, I observe that people do in fact believe in natural cause and effect. And I recognize that 'miracle = cause and effect were suspended' cannot be tested. In principal cannot be tested. It is fundamentally not possible to use natural processes to conclude natural processes can't explain something."
What is "natural cause and effect"? Where are you getting your definition of miracles? Why would our ability to test "cause and effect were suspended" be the only means of evaluating a potential miracle? And why would whether natural processes "can't explain something" be the issue? Probability would be enough. We wouldn't need to demonstrate that a naturalistic explanation is impossible.
Excellent points. I think our modern understanding of miracles differs from the ancients'. Our modern one, I think , is that divinity intervened in the normal course of events and made something happened that could not have happened otherwise.
Does this differ from your theory of what a miracle is?
Jason you seem to believe the Wm Craig, Gary Habermas notion of miracles, the idea that there are circumstances in which the factual elements of a miracle story are more probable than some other naturalistic explanation. Am I getting that correctly?
Apologists like to tart this up with fancy words like "probability." I think they think it makes them sound scientific. No doubt it does. But it seems to me they miss this nuance: the point of a miracle is that it is something that couldn't have happened except by God's intervention.
For example, like other ancient magic workers, Jesus is said to have walked on water. Question: Is the story of this miracle true?
It seems to me there is no probability that it is true. It is never possible, by the laws of nature, for a person to walk on water. The probability of this is always zero. (That's the point. It's a miracle. ) This is the crux of Craig and Habermas' trick. They never actually measure the probability of the miracle. The probability of a person walking on water is zero. Zero. Period. No probability. It is never more likely that someone walked on water than it is that they didn't walk on water, and someone said they did.
There is, of course, that balancing alternative that, in a culture where magic men were thought to walk on water, some credulous primitive made up the Jesus walks on water story. No suspension of the laws of nature here. And a finite possibility – in fact we know just this circumstance did happen.
So what I think Jason, is that you and Bill Lane, and Gary, haven't thought carefully and precisely what you mean by "miracle", and how you measure probability. If I am wrong I am anxious to be corrected.
"The risen son of God Osiris, who reigns in Heaven and will judge us in our afterlife, with whom the righteous among us will spend eternity, could be curing some little girl's cancer right now, and I couldn't prove otherwise."
Terms like "risen", "son of God", "Heaven", and "the righteous" have to be defined significantly differently for Osiris than they are for Jesus. Why use the same terminology to convey such different concepts? Perhaps because it makes a bad argument seem better than it actually is?
Jason we started this by discussing the function of apology. I said I think it's function is for apologists to pleasure each other, to tell each other how clever they are – whatever they say. It is not, I think, about finding answers that can sustain any real questioning. Your answer here is an example of what I mean. This is the regulation apologist reply, straight out of Ronald Nash, or Craig, etc. etc. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you have facts to back it up. I don’t' think you know how "risen" was defined in the religion of Isis/Osiris. I don't think you know how "Heaven" and "righteous" were defined. And I'm certain you have no factual basis to say what differences were and were not significant. You're just making it up. Or rather the professional apologists you look up to are. And they're trading their stuff with other apologists. Back and forth, back and forth. Apology is about apologists pleasuring each other.
Or maybe I'm wrong. If so, you'll now give me the evidence by which you judge differences to be significant.
"The keys of hell and the guarantee of salvation were in the hands of the goddess, and the initiation ceremony itself a kind of voluntary death and salvation through divine grace."
Apuleius, Metamorphosis, Book 11, 21
And, "Be of good cheer, O initiates, for the god is saved, and we shall have salvation for our woes."
Firmicus Maternus, The Error of Pagan Religions, 22.1
Quoting the Goddess Isis: " I have come with solace and aid. Away then with tears. cease to moan. Send sorrow fleeing. Soon through my providence shall the sun of your salvation rise."
Apuleius, Metamorphosis 11.5
You write:
"So your Jesus miracles may be real. So may all those Osiris miracles. And Asclepius miracles. And Vespatian miracles. Etc. etc. But there can be no reason to suppose they are real. Convincing-reasonable-people-wise, the problem for you apologists is there's a good natural explanation for your Jesus' miracle stories. The same explanation that everybody believes works for all those other religions' miracles: some credulous primitive made them up."
You keep demonstrating that you aren't competent to participate in this discussion.
So Jason, you do the sort of apology that involves telling the other fella he's a nasty atheist idiot. That about it? That what Jesus would do?
Again, Jason, apology is about apologists pleasuring each other. Jason, I am the other side. I am the guy apology is supposed to convince. If I'm not competent to be apologized, you are not doing apology. Or rather, you are doing apology, but apology has nothing to do with convincing the unconvinced.
We can distinguish between the evidence for one miracle claim and the evidence for another, as we've done many times on this blog.
Yes, I know you imagine you can do this. You are believers convincing other believers. Your standards of proof are very low.
The evidence for Jesus is significantly different than the evidence for Osiris, Asclepius, and Vespasian.
Sorry, I don't believe you've thought this through to the point you can convince anyone who doesn't already believe. You're just pleasuring each other.
And Christians who address miracle claims in other religions don't just argue that "some credulous primitive made them up". The Bible itself gives us examples of miracles among the unregenerate, as I discussed in a recent post. And telling us that you have a "good natural explanation" for something like Jesus' resurrection isn't equivalent to demonstrating that assertion. Are you familiar with the arguments for Jesus' resurrection? If so, then what's your "good natural explanation" that takes those arguments into account?
First, there is no probability that a dead person came back to life. That probability is zero.
(Which is why, by the way, it is imagined to be a miracle. If it happened, it could only have happened if a god intervened. That's the point. )
On the other hand, it may be that it didn't happen, but some credulous primitive made the story up. In fact, we are certain that in ancient culture credulous primitives did make up stories of people returning from the dead. Quite often in fact.
Theron confessed. He began his story. "I saw riches being enclosed in the tomb and assembled a gang of robbers. We opened the tomb and found the corpse alive.
Chariton, Chereas and Callirhoe, 3.4
By now he was even sending men abroad to create rumors in the different nations in regard to the oracle and to say that he made predictions, discovered fugitive slaves, detected thieves and robbers, caused treasures to be dug up, healed the sick, and in some cases had actually raised the dead.
Lucian, Alexander the False Prophet, Chapter 24
she woke the dead man and compelled him by her magic arts to stand upright.
Heliodoros, An Ethiopian Story (Aithiopika), 6.3
"Asclepius was the son of Apollo a god and Coronis a mortal woman—is the pattern sinking in here?...he healed many sick whose lives had been despaired of, and... he brought back to life many who had died."
Diodorus Siculus, The Library of History, 4.7.1.1- 2; Loeb 303
"I found in writing this history some who are reported to have been raised by him Asclepius , to wit, Capaneus and Lycurgus, as Stesichorus 645- 555 BC says... Hippolytus, as the author of the Naupactica reports6th century BC, Tyndareus, as Panyasis c. 500 BC says; Hymnaneus, as the Orphics report; and Glaucus...as Melasogoras 5th century BC relates."
Apollodorus, The Library, 3.1.3- 3
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, 1.9 (3d century AD
"What is there surprising in that?" said Antigonus : "I know a man who came to life more than twenty days after his burial, having attended the fellow both before his death and after he came to life."
Lucian, Lover of Lies, Chapter 26
"Certainly," said he, "with brogues on his feet such as people of that country commonly wear. As for the trivial page feats, what is the use of telling all that he performed, sending Cupids after people, bringing up supernatural beings, calling mouldy corpses to life making Hecate herself appear in plain sight, and pulling down the moon ?
Lucian, Lover of Lies, Chapter 13
He has committed murder then? Tell me who it was. The woman whom he killed and who you said had been murdered you see here alive. You would not be so foolhardy as still to accuse the same man of her murder. For this is not a ghost of the girl; Aidoneus has not sent the murdered woman to haunt you.
Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon, 8.9
Meanwhile some pirates had found out that a girl had been given a sumptuous burial and that a great store of woman's finery was buried with her, and a great horde of gold and silver. After nightfall they came to the tomb, burst open the doors, came in and took away the finery, and saw that Anthia was still alive. They thought that this too would turn out very profitable for them, raised her up, and wanted to take her. But she rolled at their feet and kept pleading with them.
Xenophon of Ephesus, An Ephesian Tale, 3.6 -8 (2d or 3d century AD) —which you can find in: Reardon, B. P. Collected Ancient Greek Novels . (1989), pg. 151-2
The man waited for the moon to wax, as it is then, for the most part, that such rites are performed; and after digging a pit in an open court of the house, at about midnight he first summoned up for us Alexicles, Glaucias' father, who had died seven months before. permitted him to go on with it after all.
Lucian, Lover of Lies, Chapter 14
Bino Boloumai
"It seems to me there is no probability that it is true. It is never possible, by the laws of nature, for a person to walk on water."
ReplyDeleteDo you have a non-question begging basis for believing in the uniformity of nature?
"It seems to me there is no probability that it is true. It is never possible, by the laws of nature, for a person to walk on water."
ReplyDeleteDo you have a non-question begging basis for believing in the uniformity of nature?
I admit it is entirely possible that the laws of nature are different in Cincinnati than in Detroit. Gravity may be 172 times stronger in one than another. Red may be green. Up down. Left right. And stupid smart.
Jesus' miracles are real because the laws of nature differ from place to place. That's your theory?
Apology is about apologists pleasuring each other, telling each other what you believe is clever. No matter what you say. You can't convince non-believers because you say stuff like "Jesus' miracles are real because the laws of nature differ from place to place. "
Excellent. We've arrived at the point where our understandings diverge. I don't think it is actually possible for people to walk on water. You do. Because you think the laws of nature differ from place to place. Let us know how that works out for 'ya.
Bino Bolumai
Bnonn,
ReplyDeleteSince this thread has moved on, I'll send you an e-mail on that (I'm posting this so if anyone else is interested they can ask as well, but since Bino's taking up a lot of real estate I don't want to post something that's not relevant to most readers).
"Jesus' miracles are real because the laws of nature differ from place to place. That's your theory?"
ReplyDeleteIs it my theory? Well, it's not the theory I posted. If your reading comprehension were up to snuff, you'd realize that I'm calling you out on saying that "It is never possible, by the laws of nature, for a person to walk on water". But what's the secular justification for this? That's the question I'm seeing if you can answer. The question takes as its premise that nature behaves in a lawlike manner. But what reason - non-contradictory and non-question begging - does an atheist have for believing this?
"Jesus' miracles are real because the laws of nature differ from place to place. That's your theory?"
ReplyDeleteIs it my theory? Well, it's not the theory I posted. If your reading comprehension were up to snuff, you'd realize that I'm calling you out on saying that "It is never possible, by the laws of nature, for a person to walk on water". But what's the secular justification for this? That's the question I'm seeing if you can answer. The question takes as its premise that nature behaves in a lawlike manner. But what reason - non-contradictory and non-question begging - does an atheist have for believing this?
Oh oh, I see. Thank you for the excellent question. The answer is, I believe it is so. On the basis of my experience and observation. Period.
If I am wrong, then it is "possible" Jesus really did walk on water. In which case, again, you and I will know where our disagreement is. I don't think people can walk on water. And you do/will/ would think they can. I am satisfied to leave it there.
BTW, your point here doesn't help poor Jason and his limp Wm L Craig "best explanation" theory. Jason and Bill argue (I'm extrapolating for Jason, this is how WLC "reasons") that it is more probable that somebody really did walk on water than that somebody didn't, but someone else said they did. But Jason and Bill never give a number for the miracles' probability. And they never say how they might get that number. Because of course, they can't. Not without letting the cat out of the bag. In the real world Jason and Bill pretend to be playing in, the number is zero.
BTW, you aren’t precise but you seem to assume that some sort of provable external justification is important. I don't know of any justification of the notion that a justification is needed. You certainly haven't given one. What importance does justification have for you, and why?
Bino Bolumai
"Oh oh, I see. Thank you for the excellent question. The answer is, I believe it is so. On the basis of my experience and observation. Period."
ReplyDeleteOk, but as Hume has pointed out, that simply begs the question in favor of prior experience. As Hume himself put it:
"To say [the inference that the future will be like the past] is experimental [i.e., based on experience], is begging the question. For all inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities. If there be any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance."
"BTW, your point here doesn't help poor Jason and his limp Wm L Craig "best explanation" theory."
Sure it does. If we're talking about something being impossible based on the laws of nature, then the whole issue hangs on whether there's a reasonable expectation for nature to behave in a law-like fashion to begin with. The theist has a reason for believing in the general uniformity of nature, but I have yet to see a secularist come up with one.
"BTW, you aren’t precise but you seem to assume that some sort of provable external justification is important. I don't know of any justification of the notion that a justification is needed. You certainly haven't given one. What importance does justification have for you, and why?"
That depends...are you talking about uniformity, or knowledge in general?
Semper Reformanda said:
ReplyDeleteOk, but as Hume has pointed out, that simply begs the question in favor of prior experience. As Hume himself put it:
"To say [the inference that the future will be like the past] is experimental [i.e., based on experience], is begging the question. For all inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities. If there be any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance."
I entirely agree. If experience is a lie then it is "possible" Jesus really did walk on water. In which case, again, you and I will know where our disagreement is. I don't think people can walk on water. And you do.
The alternative to believing observation seems to be to imagine that because it can't be PROVEN that anything is impossible, then anything may be possible, and anything may be believed. It seems to me this PROOF-is-required business is an arbitrary assumption. Why do you believe proof is required? How do you know when something is proven?
In other words, it seems to me all systems of analysis are self-referential. I simply chose experience as my system .Experience leads me to believe people cannot walk on water. It leads you to believe the same; but you don't care, you thing it might happen anyway. I don't see how it can be taken farther than that.
Further that-which-can't-be-disproven-is-possible seems to me to carry no probative value. Nothing can be disproven. Anything can be true. The analysis fails to make any fact more or less likely than any other. It has no actual information content.
For this reason it leaves believers with the "Osiris' miracles, and Mithras' , etc may just as equally be true" problem.
"BTW, your point here doesn't help poor Jason and his limp Wm L Craig "best explanation" theory."
Sure it does. If we're talking about something being impossible based on the laws of nature, then the whole issue hangs on whether there's a reasonable expectation for nature to behave in a law-like fashion to begin with.
Then our experience of Wm Craig's analysis (which I impute to Jason, because he mentions probabilities) is different. Every time I've heard him Craig's deal is to say "Scholars agree the tomb was empty, the gospels accounts are multiple, independent and early, neatly written – and such nice men wouldn't make something like this up. Therefore THE BEST EXPLANATION of these foundational facts is that Jesus really was raised from the dead."
Craig or Habermas mention "probabilities," as does Jason. Their explicitly stated theory, as I hear it, is that "Resurrection didn't happen, but somebody said it did," is less probable than "Resurrection did happen."
What they say, at least what I hear, is that they mean "Resurrection is MORE PROBABLE" in the natural laws apply sense. I've never heard them say "more probable….because you can't prove the laws of nature don't change from place to place." If they do say that then I am wrong about their argument. And their argument is even sillier than I thought. .
The theist has a reason for believing in the general uniformity of nature, but I have yet to see a secularist come up with one.
Maybe. I expect any reason would be circular, and therefore would not make the thing itself either more or less probable.
"BTW, you aren’t precise but you seem to assume that some sort of provable external justification is important. I don't know of any justification of the notion that a justification is needed. You certainly haven't given one. What importance does justification have for you, and why?"
That depends...are you talking about uniformity, or knowledge in general?
You brought up "secular justification." I'm talking about whatever your talking about, which so far all I can do is guess what it is.
BinoBolumai said:
ReplyDelete"It seems to me there is no probability that it is true. It is never possible, by the laws of nature, for a person to walk on water. The probability of this is always zero."
Christians don't argue that Jesus walked on water "by the laws of nature". We don't begin with the assumption of naturalism.
And how do you know that there are such laws that leave an "always zero" possibility, even if we assumed naturalism? You don't have enough data to reach that conclusion, as Semper Reformanda has explained.
You write:
"Jason we started this by discussing the function of apology. I said I think it's function is for apologists to pleasure each other, to tell each other how clever they are – whatever they say."
You've been inconsistent on the purpose of apologetics. I documented your inconsistency in an earlier post, and you didn't interact with that documentation.
And you still aren't giving us any reason to agree with your analysis of the purpose of apologetics. You just make assertions.
You write:
"I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you have facts to back it up. I don’t' think you know how 'risen' was defined in the religion of Isis/Osiris. I don't think you know how 'Heaven' and 'righteous' were defined. And I'm certain you have no factual basis to say what differences were and were not significant. You're just making it up. Or rather the professional apologists you look up to are."
Readers can compare the documentation I've offered in this thread and elsewhere to the documentation you've offered. You made the comparison to Osiris. Where's your documentation?
We've addressed alleged pagan parallels many times at this blog, as well as in Steve Hays' This Joyful Eastertide.
In contrast, the three quotes you just posted on the subject of salvation don't establish how the terms in question are being defined. The fact that you think that such vague quotes are sufficient to make your point reflects how ignorant you are of the subject.
All three of your quotes on salvation are found at the web site here. Is that where you got the quotes? Or maybe you got them from a newer or older version of that web site, such as the one here. If so, then you have some explaining to do. The person who operates the site is Greg Kane. What are his relevant credentials? Don't go looking for an answer. Tell us what you knew of his credentials before you posted those quotes from his site. You've said that Christians shouldn't trust scholars such as William Craig and Gary Habermas. They have credentials in fields relevant to what we've been discussing in this thread. How do Greg Kane's credentials compare? If we can't trust men like Craig and Habermas because they're Christians or because they're active in arguing for Christianity, then why should we trust non-Christians who are active in arguing against Christianity, like Greg Kane?
If you want to cite a non-scholarly source like Kane, then I'll cite a non-scholar who's written a response to Kane. See here. As J.P. Holding notes, Kane makes use of the "Dionysius on a cross" forgery. In fact, that forgery is pictured on the page that contains the first few quotes you posted.
Here's J.P. Holding's parody of Kane's site. James Hannam summarizes Kane's site by writing, "This could be the most dishonest website on the whole of the Internet. Kane has actually got a well presented and flashy site but his material relies on misquotation and disingenuous interpretation. All the pagan copycat stuff he uses is very old hat".
Later in your post, you carelessly copy and paste more of Kane's quotes without removing his own comments from those quotes. You posted the following:
"'Asclepius was the son of Apollo a god and Coronis a mortal woman—is the pattern sinking in here?...he healed many sick whose lives had been despaired of, and... he brought back to life many who had died.' Diodorus Siculus, The Library of History, 4.7.1.1- 2; Loeb 303"
The words "is the pattern sinking in here?" are Kane's. Here's a version of the page from which your quote above apparently came. I don't know whether you got the quote there or from somebody else who used it. Kane sometimes changes his site, and other people use his material. You may have gotten the quote from his site before he made his latest changes, or you may have gotten it somewhere else. I don't know. But if you go to the page linked above, you'll see that "is the pattern sinking in here?" is in brackets. The comments are Kane's, not those of Diodorus Siculus.
Here's what one version of Kane's site says about the use of his material:
"You are free to copy and paste any words you find at POCM, as long as...Every time you borrow, you tell folks it came from POCM and link back to the page you got it from, or just to: www.pocm.info"
Why don't you tell us where you got your quotes? And explain to us why you don't address the many relevant issues you'd have to address in order for these quotes to have the significance you suggest they have (the dating of the documents, their genre, corroboration from other sources, etc.). Christians have addressed such issues in depth with regard to Jesus' resurrection, for example. We've done so many times on this blog. Where's your comparable treatment of these alleged pagan parallels?
J.P. Holding's parody site linked above goes through Kane's site and answers his arguments in a lot of detail. For example, here's Holding's parody of the page from which BinoBolumai got his first three quotes. Notice how many points Holding makes on that one page that were unknown to or ignored by BinoBolumai.
ReplyDeleteJesus' miracles are real…. because some guy has a web site quoting ancient sources? That's your theory?
ReplyDeleteSuch a shame your theory fails to interact with the actual content of the ancient sources. Imagine my surprise.
Bino
BinoBolumai said:
ReplyDelete"Jesus' miracles are real…. because some guy has a web site quoting ancient sources? That's your theory?"
No, it isn't. And you don't cite anything I've said that would suggest that I hold such a view.
You write:
"Such a shame your theory fails to interact with the actual content of the ancient sources. Imagine my surprise."
I gave you a link to an article in which I address some of the relevant ancient and modern sources in detail, including one of the ones you mentioned by name (Vespasian). You ignored that link.
I gave you a link to Steve Hays' e-book, This Joyful Eastertide, which discusses such issues. You ignored that link. Gene Bridges and I wrote the section on Justin Martyr in that book, and Justin Martyr is one of the sources Greg Kane, your source, (mis)uses repeatedly. If you would consult the material I've been linking you to, you'd know that I and my sources do interact with Greg Kane and his sources.
I referred you to the archives of this blog, where we have a large amount of material addressing related issues (my recent post discussing Chris Price's articles on the virgin birth, for example). You've ignored that material.
I gave you links to J.P. Holding's response to your source, Greg Kane. You ignored those links.
I repeatedly explained some of the problems with your argumentation, such as your failure to date your sources, your failure to address issues of genre, your failure to discuss the corroboration of your sources, etc. You've repeatedly ignored what I've said about such issues.
And your "interaction with the actual content of the ancient sources" consists of copying and pasting Greg Kane's material, even to the point of including some of his comments in a quote of Diodorus Siculus. And you didn't credit Kane, even though he asks those who use his material to do so. You carelessly copy and paste material you haven't researched much, but you expect us to do more than that. And when I refer you to material in which we and other Christians have done more than that, you ignore those references.
You're gonna need to do a little work Jason, to get your apology up to where it persuades anybody who doesn't already share your childlike credulity. 400 words about how clever Jason is, how he's won every exchange, how he found so so many pretty web sites that say Bad Bad about all those naughty web sites, and how so many many people agree with you – that's just not persuasive Jason.
ReplyDeleteWhat would be persuasive, Jason, would be if you had actual facts. If you had actual reasons.
Jason your lack of facts and reasons proves, as if anyone needs proof, that Jesus' miracles are superstition, pure and simple.
The probability of someone walking on water is zero.
The probability of some credulous primitive claiming someone walked on water is, well it is certain. We have records.
The probability Jesus walked on water is zero. The probability some credulous primitive made the story is up 100%. Jesus' miracles are pagan myths.
Bino Bolumai
Now watch as the children of the living God prove to each other I am a nasty atheist idiot.
"Now watch as the children of the living God prove to each other I am a nasty atheist idiot."
ReplyDeleteNo need to you're doing a pretty good job yourself.
Bino Bolumai writes:
ReplyDelete"What would be persuasive, Jason, would be if you had actual facts. If you had actual reasons."
Speaking of persuasive, it's hard to take you seriously when you don't offer anything beyond gratuitous assertions.
Dear Matthew Schultz:
ReplyDeleteThe trouble apologists have is, you only ever talk to each other, you pleasure yourselves by agreeing with anything the other fellow says, so you don't have experience with real facts. You don't know how they work.
Fact. The probability of someone walking on water is zero.
Fact. The probability of some credulous primitive claiming someone walked on water is, well it is certain. WE HAVE RECORDS.
Fact: Someone claimed Jesus walked on water.
Either He did (probability zero), or He didn't but some credulous primitive said He did (probability finite).
THEREFORE He didn't, but some credulous primitive said he did. Jesus' miracles are pagan myth.
Not that difficult. But you have to get used to not having one of your friends pleasure you every time you pull out your little opinions.
Now watch as the children of the living God prove to each other I am a nasty atheist idiot.
Bino Bolumai
/ In Bino Veritas >
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFact. Bino has no ability to determine what constitutes a fact.
ReplyDeleteFact. Bino is a plagerizer who's too lazy to do his own research.
Fact. Bino wants to play the victim card so he can try to escape with some shred of dignity still intact.
Fact. We're not as stupid as Bino.
Well done Bino!
ReplyDeleteI think apologists get too engrossed in philosophical mumbo jumbo which clouds the real issue, and your approach essentially cuts to the chase. Of course the philosophical stuff sounds sophisticated and gives the believer the illusion of rationality, but on closer inspection it hardly matters. Once one places Christianity among the plethora of every conceivable religion that exists, and has ever existed, apologists find themselves unable to argue for the veracity of their claims. In other words, even if the atheist grants the apologist his supernaturalistic presuppositions the apologist can't convincingly isolate his beliefs from all the other possible mutually contradictory supernatural beliefs which themselves are non-falsifiable. All the philosophical word games the apologists responded to you with rang hollow when pitted against your common sense approach.
That Christians have to rely on Philosophy to prove God’s existence says a lot about how weak their case is. You can use philosophy to argue ANYTHING into existence, including the invisible immaterial timeless pink elephant dancing in my pancreas that reveals itself to me every night, which only I can hear. (I'd like to hear someone try to disprove that)
Paul
Come on Paul, Jason gave Bino plenty of chances to prove him wrong. And that's the difference with Christianity, many of its most important claims are falsifiable on historical grounds.
ReplyDelete