Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[psstein]

You would not need to read any books for the evidence for evolution if the proponents of evolution based their belief regarding the mechanism of evolution on a silly superstition that has no evidence to support it.

Just as I do not need to read a two volume work that explains why oxygenated castor oil or some other snake oil cures cancer, when it provides no scientific studies to support it, only anecdotal testimonies, I do not need to read Keneer's book if he did not independently verify the claims. I am not going to spend the money and massive effort to verify the extraordinary claims of Keneer just because Keneer was too lazy and too sloppy to do it himself.

First, stop the nonsense about "silly superstition." If you're not going to actually engage and instead throw thinly veiled insults, get off the forum and go somewhere else. I have all the time in the world for people who actually want to discuss. I have no time for people who dismiss things out of hand.

Keener did verify some of them himself. Maybe you need to read the book before you make stupid claims.

If you follow your epistemological nightmare, you can't know anything of history or science.

[psstein]

And by the way, Gary, I don't want my posts on your blog.

[Gary]

First, stop the nonsense about "silly superstition." If you're not going to actually engage and instead throw thinly veiled insults, get off the forum and go somewhere else. I have all the time in the world for people who actually want to discuss. I have no time for people who dismiss things out of hand.

Keener did verify some of them himself. Maybe you need to read the book before you make stupid claims.

If you follow your epistemological nightmare, you can't know anything of history or science.

Don't get your panties in a bunch, Stein, I didn't refer to YOUR theory as silly. I used that word in describing a hypothetical belief in evolution based on silly evidence, such as that aliens control the process of natural selection from their control center on Jupiter.


I asked you and Nick if Keneer independently verified any of the claims and neither one of you responded. I assumed the answer was "no". So if Keneer did investigate some of the claims, please provide just one of the authenticated claims so that we can all evaluate it.

[Gary]

First, stop the nonsense about "silly superstition." If you're not going to actually engage and instead throw thinly veiled insults, get off the forum and go somewhere else. I have all the time in the world for people who actually want to discuss. I have no time for people who dismiss things out of hand.

Keener did verify some of them himself. Maybe you need to read the book before you make stupid claims.

If you follow your epistemological nightmare, you can't know anything of history or science.

My epistemology is exactly the same as that of Dr. Johnson, a professor of Philosophy. So are you inferring that Dr. Johnson's epistemology is a "nightmare"? If so, please explain.

[One Bad Pig]

My epistemology is exactly the same as that of Dr. Johnson, a professor of Philosophy. So are you inferring that Dr. Johnson's epistemology is a "nightmare"? If so, please explain.

Gary,

Why are you relying on a philosopher when you think philosophy is bunk?

[Gary]

Gary,

Why are you relying on a philosopher when you think philosophy is bunk?

If your opponent believes that Warren Buffet is god when it comes to investing, the best way to win your opponent to your position is to show him that Warren Buffet agrees with your position on the financial question being debated between the two of you.

[Gary]

Here is a statement from a Christian , an author at Credo House blog, why he does not believe Keneer's claims:

From this post on Credo House blog: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blo...ng-an-amputee/

Let’s think about how we believe. No, not “what we believe” or “why we believe it.” How we believe is what I want to discuss with you.

Craig Keener visited the Credo House last week. On Friday, he gave a presentation on miracles to a packed house. It was based on his excellent work, titled Miracles. During this presentation, Keener shared the fruit of his research; among other things, he has catalogued what he believes to be legitimate attestable miracles from God that have occurred around the world. In the book and presentation he gave examples and demonstrated how these miracles can and should be believed due to the testimonies and evidence he gathered for each. And the evidence, for many of them, was very compelling . . . or at least it should have been.

I have trouble believing things. So when Keener was sharing his stories, even though I am the one who brought him in to give this presentation, I found them all hard to believe. Why? I don’t know. I am skeptical. I don’t normally believe people, when they tell me this or that about how God intervened in a supernatural way. In the back of my mind, I am patting them on the head saying, “I am glad you believe this and I am not going to do anything to take away from your belief, but I don’t.” Maybe “don’t” is not the best word. It is more that I reserve my right to suspend judgment on this “miracle.”'

But in truth, I need to believe more of these miracle stories. There are so many for which I don’t have any other legitimate explanation. For example (and this was not part of Keener’s presentation), J. P. Moreland once told me, when I asked him why God does not heal amputees, a story that is continually in my mind when these kind of things are on the table. He said he once witnessed a guy who was missing an ear (there was just skin where the ear should be) and saw it grow back as people (including Moreland) prayed for him. He said they watched as there was a break in his skin, blood came out, and a slight “ear” formed. What is interesting about this story is that the ear did not grow completely back. When the miracle was over, he just had a hole there, a bit of an ear, and could hear out of it.

This is one story I think I believe. Or, at least, I believe it somewhat.
• Edited by a Moderator •

I suppose, for now, a good question would be this: do you believe the Moreland story? Why or why not?

Moderated By: Littlejoe

Full Copy/paste is against TWEB decorum. Please stop doing this.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[psstein]

Johnson's argument begs the question.

There's nothing more to it than that.

[One Bad Pig]

If your opponent believes that Warren Buffet is god when it comes to investing, the best way to win your opponent to your position is to show him that Warren Buffet agrees with your position on the financial question being debated between the two of you.

Nobody here thinks that Dr. Johnson is "god when it comes to [philosophy]." And you're not merely using a philosopher to argue against a certain philosophy, but explicitly identifying with his epistemology.

[Gary]

Here is a statement from a Christian , an author at Credo House blog, why he does not believe Keneer's claims:

From this post on Credo House blog: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blo...ng-an-amputee/

Let’s think about how we believe. No, not “what we believe” or “why we believe it.” How we believe is what I want to discuss with you.

Craig Keener visited the Credo House last week. On Friday, he gave a presentation on miracles to a packed house. It was based on his excellent work, titled Miracles. During this presentation, Keener shared the fruit of his research; among other things, he has catalogued what he believes to be legitimate attestable miracles from God that have occurred around the world. In the book and presentation he gave examples and demonstrated how these miracles can and should be believed due to the testimonies and evidence he gathered for each. And the evidence, for many of them, was very compelling . . . or at least it should have been.

I have trouble believing things. So when Keener was sharing his stories, even though I am the one who brought him in to give this presentation, I found them all hard to believe. Why? I don’t know. I am skeptical. I don’t normally believe people, when they tell me this or that about how God intervened in a supernatural way. In the back of my mind, I am patting them on the head saying, “I am glad you believe this and I am not going to do anything to take away from your belief, but I don’t.” Maybe “don’t” is not the best word. It is more that I reserve my right to suspend judgment on this “miracle.”

But in truth, I need to believe more of these miracle stories. There are so many for which I don’t have any other legitimate explanation. For example (and this was not part of Keener’s presentation), J. P. Moreland once told me, when I asked him why God does not heal amputees, a story that is continually in my mind when these kind of things are on the table. He said he once witnessed a guy who was missing an ear (there was just skin where the ear should be) and saw it grow back as people (including Moreland) prayed for him. He said they watched as there was a break in his skin, blood came out, and a slight “ear” formed. What is interesting about this story is that the ear did not grow completely back. When the miracle was over, he just had a hole there, a bit of an ear, and could hear out of it.

This is one story I think I believe. Or, at least, I believe it somewhat.

I suspend belief on “miracle” stories for many reasons. One is that most of the stories I hear are not falsifiable. In other words, they can’t be proven wrong. I think this is convenient for fabrications and misunderstandings. After all, back pain, hurt knees, and short legs are very hard to verify. I am not saying healings do not happen. Perhaps many of these are true and I am missing some information that might give some more substance to my faith. But, seeing as how most of the stories are not falsifiable, I wonder why God would perform so many unsubstantiated (from a verification standpoint) miracles and be so absent (relatively speaking) from miracles that would leave everyone speechless. You know, I am referring to miracles such as raising the dead, healing the blind, and making a paralytic walk. Those are the things we see in the New Testament and, more importantly for me, these are the ones that are hard to deny.

The second reason I suspend belief is because I don’t, in most cases, trust the person telling the story. I don’t know his or her character. I don’t know if they have integrity in this area (not that I am claiming much), I don’t know whether they are critical enough to share these claims. Maybe they just want it to be true so they pass it on (albeit in a more objective sense). It takes awhile for me to trust people, especially when it comes to this stuff. Claims of God’s intervention are too important for me to “just believe.” For me, it is dishonoring to God for me to believe something just because I want it to be true, or because it fits into a worldview I desire to be true. Therefore, I suspend belief because, at least in my mind, I am honoring God. For me to really trust someone takes time. It takes an experience of a person’s honest character, willing to wrestle with weaknesses, able to admit shortcomings. and not believing things just because they fit into a desired framework that makes him feel better.

J. P. Moreland, however, told a story that has all the makings for my belief. Therefore, I think I believe it. The story was certainly not something that was obscure like back pain. As I mentioned earlier, he related how he watched an ear grow back (at least in part). Moreland is no lightweight uncritical scholar. Over the years he has gained my trust, both through personal interaction with him and via his scholarly writings. He has also had the courage to change his theological position on some things that would otherwise be hard to change. Furthermore, the story itself contains an element of embarrassment in that the ear only grew back partially!

So, I think to myself: He is either lying, misunderstood what he saw, or it happened. Assuming I understood the story he told (and I sometimes doubt that), these are the only three conceivable alternatives. The first two are very hard to believe. Therefore, I think I believe the third.

This is the way it is with so many of the stories in Keener’s book. They seem so legit. I think I believe them. I want to believe them.

Then why is my belief so tentative in things like this? If it stands up to scrutiny (which I think it does), why not really believe it? The answer, I believe, comes down to an understanding of how I believe. The what and why are in place. They are defined and strong. But the how is getting in the way of my full commitment here.

Experiences such as these are not and will never be the foundation of my faith (at least I hope). Neither should they be the foundation of yours. However, they do turn a two-dimensional faith into a three-dimensional one. I do want to believe them (at least the ones that legitimately reveal God’s presence in the world). And you should, too. After all, if God is working in miraculous ways in the world today (and I believe he is), we need to be able to rejoice about such actions, even if we never experience them firsthand.

In the next blog post I am going to try to do what I originally intended here and explain more about how we believe.

I suppose, for now, a good question would be this: do you believe the Moreland story? Why or why not?

Do I believe JP Moreland's claim that some guy's ear (partially) grew back in front of Moreland's very eyes, with blood pouring out spontaneously, enabling the guy to hear once again???

No. Not for one split second.

Why?

Because odds and inductive reasoning predict that Moreland had an hallucination; he was part of a group delusion (they wanted so badly to see something so they did); or he is lying. If his prayers have this power, he should be able to do this "miracle" in front of a group of skeptical doctors and scientists. But guess what? He won't do that, will he? He will come up with every excuse in the book why he can't do that before he admits he was mistaken...or lying.

[Gary]

Johnson's argument begs the question.

There's nothing more to it than that.

Well, I'm sure you know more than the good professor.

[One Bad Pig]

Here is a statement from a Christian , an author at Credo House blog, why he does not believe Keneer's claims:

From this post on Credo House blog: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blo...ng-an-amputee/
<snip blog quote>

You are being less than truthful here, Gary. The author finds it difficult to believe Keener's claims, but does so anyway:

Source: Reclaiming the Mind

J. P. Moreland, however, told a story that has all the makings for my belief. Therefore, I think I believe it. The story was certainly not something that was obscure like back pain. As I mentioned earlier, he related how he watched an ear grow back (at least in part). Moreland is no lightweight uncritical scholar. Over the years he has gained my trust, both through personal interaction with him and via his scholarly writings. He has also had the courage to change his theological position on some things that would otherwise be hard to change. Furthermore, the story itself contains an element of embarrassment in that the ear only grew back partially!

So, I think to myself: He is either lying, misunderstood what he saw, or it happened. Assuming I understood the story he told (and I sometimes doubt that), these are the only three conceivable alternatives. The first two are very hard to believe. Therefore, I think I believe the third.

© Copyright Original Source

[Gary]

What do you mean by independent authentication?

And I'm making perfect sense of Gary's claim. If you claim you have to verify the evidence in each and every claim, you're saying you need direct experience, because eyewitnesses won't cut it. Problem is, if you follow such a claim to its logical conclusion, you know nothing about science or history. You simply can't verify evidence in every single claim.

Wrong. I said nothing of the sort.

I am willing to believe in a miracle cure when I see evidence that has no other, more probable, naturalistic, explanation. If I choose to investigate the claim, I would want to interview the patient, each of her doctors, review the medicals records, inspect for myself all imaging studies, and interview all witnesses. If everything pointed to a miracle, I would accept it. However, if there is even ONE more probable, naturalistic explanation, then by inductive reasoning, I am going to select the more probable explanation.

[William]

What do you mean by independent authentication?

And I'm making perfect sense of Gary's claim. If you claim you have to verify the evidence in each and every claim, you're saying you need direct experience, because eyewitnesses won't cut it. Problem is, if you follow such a claim to its logical conclusion, you know nothing about science or history. You simply can't verify evidence in every single claim.

I dont think so. There is a level of probability.

what takes more evidence to find credible?

A) George Washington Crossed the Delaware on a row boat
B) George Washington Crossed the Delaware by levitation

and even if all accounts said that George Washing flew across the Delaware, we might try to interpret that, as we have more evidence that George could not have flown, despite who might have claimed otherwise. Maybe "fly" was figurative for "moved fast" or maybe he actually crossed the Delaware, but who ever claimed flew was adding that in for propaganda purposes, etc.

you just cant act as if any claimed action is on the same plane as all others. it just doesnt take as much evidence to believe someone walked as it does to believe they flew. Similarly, with the past, we know that something happened. And with History, it's more often cases of, "this likely is the case," in stead of "this is definitely the case," and reported miracles are usually discarded, while still reserving some belief in the more believable and credible parts of what's recorded.

so a claim can stand for evidence at times, unless that claim is outside of the surrounding evidence of our natural lives and what is known. When a claim is too bold and too wild, it needs evidence to support it. because people are capable of claiming all sorts of things.

Believing Alexander the Great stormed Tyre is not on the same level of believe required to believe Jesus awoke from the dead and ascended into heaven.

[One Bad Pig]

Do I believe JP Moreland's claim that some guy's ear (partially) grew back in front of Moreland's very eyes, with blood pouring out spontaneously, enabling the guy to hear once again???

No. Not for one split second.

Why?

Because odds and inductive reasoning predict that Moreland had an hallucination; he was part of a group delusion (they wanted so badly to see something so they did); or he is lying. If his prayers have this power, he should be able to do this "miracle" in front of a group of skeptical doctors and scientists. But guess what? He won't do that, will he? He will come up with every excuse in the book why he can't do that before he admits he was mistaken...or lying. Because I don't think it could have happened, so it didn't.

Fixed that for you.