Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[William]

"People wouldn't die for a lie" is not the argument that apologists make. A lot of people think it is for some reason, and it comes up a lot of forums like this, but it simply is not the argument made. The argument is, "people do not KNOWINGLY die for a lie". In other words, no one is going to go get themselves killed for something they have first hand knowledge is false.

They will not willingly put themselves in positions that they believe will lead to their death for something they know is a lie. They may lie, thinking they wont get caught or that no real harm will come to them, and then if caught, they may not get a chance to recant in order to save their lives.

biut even if they believe it to be true, and are not therefore lying, they could still be mistaken or misled.

and again, all religions have martyrs so I am not sure why this is even an argument.

[Gary]

Keener is reporting miracle claims. Yet again, he is not adjudicating on whether or not they happened. Keener's main argument is an argument against Hume. Hume claims you can't have a sufficient number of eyewitnesses, but then throws out all eyewitness accounts. Instead, he demands direct experience. He doesn't follow this epistemology anywhere else, so his argument is circular.

I am not trying to defend Hume. I am trying to defend the Scientific Method. Eyewitness testimony is valuable except when that testimony defies reason. When it defies reason, we must look at the evidence itself and be very skeptical of the alleged testimony.

[William]

Yeah, the idea that conspirators don't get the details wrong on minor details is not correct. Quite the reverse is true, usually conspirators who have the time to write out their conspiracies are in perfect harmony. True eyewitness reports are the ones where we expect disharmony on smaller details. This is so well attested that the disharmony between the Gospels is often pointed to as evidence for their general truthfulness on historical facts.

they expect some differences. but when the differences are too different, then they expect a poorly thought out conspiracy. Your smarter ones who have more time might address every little detail, and yes, if the stories are carbon copies of one another, then it also speaks toward collusion.

But then there is also the possibility that only certain details were in circulation at the time these were written. and like some scholars believe, mark was written first and became the blue print for the others. The others just didnt know that the other was also writing something, so these additional authors copies something exactly while adding in their own details... which ended up contradicting the details of the other.

[One Bad Pig]

I am not trying to defend Hume. I am trying to defend the Scientific Method. Eyewitness testimony is valuable except when that testimony defies reason. When it defies reason, we must look at the evidence itself, and be very skeptical of the alleged testimony.

You are trying to use the wrong tool for the job. History is not testable by the scientific method. Miracles are not testable by the scientific method.

[tabibito]

Yes, only those silly Lutherans placed faith (superstition) above reason.

By no means. When atheists try to argue science in opposition to religion, they are going beyond the realms of science to make faith statements - they are not engaged simply in science, but in faith.

In the end, faith is faith. We have no way to demonstrate (even assuming that the EXISTENCE of God is proven beyond all doubt to every person living) that God is as loving and merciful as we believe. We have no way of demonstrating that he intends to keep any of the promises that he makes. This - the trust that is vested in God - is what it is to have faith without evidence. There is no cause to believe that God expects people to have faith and to be faithful without being satisfied that he actually exists.

1Corinthians 2:
₄ And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of humanfn wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, ₅ that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

[William]

You are trying to use the wrong tool for the job. History is not testable by the scientific method. Miracles are not testable by the scientific method.

whatever the tool, eyewitnesses have been shown to be unreliable.

so if there's nothing else, then there just isnt good evidence and miracles remain better seen than heard.

[William]

By no means. When atheists try to argue science in opposition to religion, they are going beyond the realms of science to make faith statements - they are not engaged simply in science, but in faith.

In the end, faith is faith. We have no way to demonstrate (even assuming that the EXISTENCE of God is proven beyond all doubt to every person living) that God is as loving and merciful as we believe. We have no way of demonstrating that he intends to keep any of the promises that he makes. This - the trust that is vested in God - is what it is to have faith without evidence. There is no cause to believe that God expects people to have faith and to be faithful without being satisfied that he actually exists.

1Corinthians 2:
₄ And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of humanfn wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, ₅ that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

but when certain books of a particular faith make claims regarding science, then wouldn't that be up for science to speak on?

and if scientific study shows that people can in fact misidentify people that are close to them, and that memories are not static and that people can believe all sorts of erroneous things, then that scientific possibility should be ignored when eyewitness testimony is the strength of the faith argument?

[Gary]

"People wouldn't die for a lie" is not the argument that apologists make. A lot of people think it is for some reason, and it comes up a lot of forums like this, but it simply is not the argument made. The argument is, "people do not KNOWINGLY die for a lie". In other words, no one is going to go get themselves killed for something they have first hand knowledge is false.

If all the disciples BELEIVED that Jesus had appeared to them (but he really had not; they either had false sightings of him in a crowd or in the distance, or, they had visions of him similar to Paul's vision) then dying for this belief is not a lie, but a mistake. This is what most skeptics believe. Most of us do not believe that the early Christians were liars, just that they were mistaken. I will bet that this is Williams' position also. Tens of thousands of people have died for a belief they BELIEVED to be true, but their willingness to die for their belief in no way guarantees that what they believe is historical fact.

[William]

If all the disciples BELEIVED that Jesus had appeared to them (but he really had not; they either had false sightings of him in a crowd or in the distance, or, they had visions of him similar to Paul's vision) then dying for this belief is not a lie, but a mistake. This is what most skeptics believe. Most of us do not believe that the early Christians were liars, just that they were mistaken. I will bet that this is Williams' position also. Tens of thousands of people have died for a belief they BELIEVED to be true, but their willingness to die for their belief in no way guarantees that what they believe is historical fact.

right.

and at least for me, when considering everything else, this makes much more sense than the alternative, which has a man coming back to life and flying away. If this type of miracle is presented as valid, and by some to be the most likely scenario, then mistaken identities and legend surely shouldn't be discounted.

[Gary]

You are trying to use the wrong tool for the job. History is not testable by the scientific method. Miracles are not testable by the scientific method.

Wrong. Claims of miracles that involve the human body can be investigated using the scientific method. We can't prove a miracle did NOT happen, but we can prove that there are other more probable, naturalistic explanations for the event.

Let me give an example: Mrs. Jones, a very nice 72 year old woman with a history of smoking 2 packs of cigarettes per day for fifty years, comes into the doctor's office for a cough of three weeks duration. The doctor sends her for a chest xray. The radiologist reports a patchy abnormality in her left lung base. The patient's doctor reads the report, looks at the xray himself, and tells Mrs. Jones that she might have lung cancer, but, it possibly could be a mild pneumonia. He tells her to prepare herself for cancer, but, he is going to give her a 10 day course of antibiotics to rule out pneumonia.

Ms. Jones calls up her friends in her church and tells them she probably has lung cancer. The doctor saw it on an Xray. Word spreads in the church that Mrs. Jones has lung cancer and everyone prays for a miracle cure by God. Three weeks later another Xray is taken and the suspicious abnormality is completely gone. Mrs. Jones reports to her church that the Xray is now completely clear, and the members of her church believe that a miracle has occurred: Mrs. Jones has been cured of cancer simply by praying to Jesus.

I would wager that many, many miracle claims are based on events not too different from this story.

[One Bad Pig]

whatever the tool, eyewitnesses have been shown to be unreliable.

Where? In this thread? It's a large thread - please do the courtesy of linking to a previous post to which you'd like to refer.

[One Bad Pig]

Wrong. Claims of miracles that involve the human body can be investigated using the scientific method. We can't prove a miracle did NOT happen, but we can prove that there are other more probable, naturalistic explanations for the event.

That's not using the scientific method. Do you even know what the scientific method IS?

[William]

Where? In this thread? It's a large thread - please do the courtesy of linking to a previous post to which you'd like to refer.

I linked these earlier this morning, but other than them I am sure you're not completely unaware of the studies.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/free...ons-nationwide
http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/20...ientists-weigh

[William]

That's not using the scientific method. Do you even know what the scientific method IS?

physicians always think they know science...

witch doctors.

[psstein]

I am not trying to defend Hume. I am trying to defend the Scientific Method. Eyewitness testimony is valuable except when that testimony defies reason. When it defies reason, we must look at the evidence itself and be very skeptical of the alleged testimony.

You are defending Hume, whether or not you want to admit it or not. There's no "scientific approach" to whether or not miracles occur, nor is there a scientific approach to the existence of God. These are philosophical questions. Cloaking philosophy in science (as Dawkins et al do) is bad philosophy and bad science.