Lord, Lunatic, or Liar - False Dichotomy?

[shunyadragon]

even if it was IN LINE with scientific principles and bore fruit, it wouldn't invalidate what we know about evolution.

It is not a matter of being IN LINE with anything. It is a matter of immoral application of science and not science.

But it's worse than that. Cerebrum doesn't accept that an eon has transpired. How to correct an error of that magnitude without destroying his faith? His heels are understandably dug in.

Cerebrum is a side show, any application of science to justify an ancient mythical scripture is at best anecdotal or coincedental, and actually most likely meaningless.

This thread is supposed to be about the accusations that Jesus, and the apostles were in some way liars and lunatics. The view that that the testimony in the gospels are either totally true or totally false is also not a viable academic option. This a false red herring concerning any legitimate independent scholarly historical understanding of the Gospels. Academic Historians never considered this view as an option.

[Mountain Man]

Troy Brooks is probably the most infamous multiply banned sock-puppet creator on the web, MM. He's been banned from here at least a dozen times. That's what shocked me when I saw his site get linked.

And yes, indeed, I'd take a link to AiG over one from Troy any day of the week, twice on Thanksgiving, and never say a word if Troy was the alternative.

Fair enough. I wasn't aware of who had written the article in question nor the author's history. Like I said, the only reason I even linked to it was because it seemed to be an accurate presentation of the minimal facts thesis.

[Mountain Man]

First you claim a transparent methodology for determining truth doesn't exist.

I never claimed that.

[whag]

I never claimed that.

Then what does this mean?

Science is the ultimate self-correcting discipline and therefore immune to human error.

And if you believe that, I have some nice swampland in Florida you might be interested in.

Surely science is immune to human error inasmuch as someone will always try to disprove you and improve his/her own standing (or nobly contribute to a field without any concern for aggrandizement, like Jonas Salk). That's much more believable than your swampland offer, isn't it? It is more believable because it's empirically obvious that science has progressed using these methods. It's how we thread the needle to get rovers on Mars.

[Mountain Man]

Then what does this mean?


Surely science is immune to human error inasmuch as someone will always try to disprove you and improve his/her own standing (or nobly contribute to a field without any concern for aggrandizement, like Jonas Salk). That's much more believable than your swampland offer, isn't it? It is more believable because it's empirically obvious that science has progressed using these methods. It's how we thread the needle to get rovers on Mars.

I like how you qualified to what extent science is immune to human error, and it's curious that you and other skeptics don't extend that same courtesy to other disciplines like history, philosophy, and theology when, in fact, science is no less immune to human fallibility than any other field of study. They're all equally reliable even though skeptics always try to carve out a special exception for science. That was my point.

[firstfloor]

I like how you qualified to what extent science is immune to human error, and it's curious that you and other skeptics don't extend that same courtesy to other disciplines like history, philosophy, and theology when, in fact, science is no less immune to human fallibility than any other field of study. They're all equally reliable even though skeptics always try to carve out a special exception for science. That was my point.

[Darth Executor]

Science is not immune from error (that's absurd). It is self correcting when it's forced to be, sometimes kicking and screaming along the way. That matches human nature quite well, incidentally.

[shunyadragon]

Science is not immune from error (that's absurd). It is self correcting when it's forced to be, sometimes kicking and screaming along the way. That matches human nature quite well, incidentally.

This needs more explanation. What makes you think science is immune from error? Errors and other inaccuracies are commonly corrected all the time. There are numerous records research fraud, and poor quality research being discovered by scientists and corrected. The history of science is clear, research and discoveries are followed by change and confirmation by further research.

[shunyadragon]

Surely science is immune to human error inasmuch as someone will always try to disprove you and improve his/her own standing (or nobly contribute to a field without any concern for aggrandizement, like Jonas Salk). That's much more believable than your swampland offer, isn't it? It is more believable because it's empirically obvious that science has progressed using these methods. It's how we thread the needle to get rovers on Mars.

Reread this. Do you really mean 'Surely science is immune to human error.' What you describe is peer review, and the process of repeating and checking research to confirm the results. This part of the process of self correcting not that science is immune to error.

[Darth Executor]

What makes you think science is immune from error?

Why ask me, I'm saying it's not.

[JimL]

The question assumes the accurate discription of Jesus, his existence and his acts by those who wrote the gospels. If we assume the gospels to be accurate in its depiction of Jesus then the question itself makes no sense. Therefore the question only makes sense when applied to the gospel writers themselves and the question of "Lord" can therefore be omitted. So, were they lunatics? Not necessarily, but then neither do we have reason to believe that those who penned the more ancient religions or myths were Lunatic, even though, literally speaking, they were all false narratives. So then that leaves us with the one question. Were the gospel writers themselves liars or truth tellers? Well, if the evidence one uses to establish their belief is the gospels themselves then to them it can only be true, but any actual evidence of reality, evidence that lies outside of the gospels themselves, suggests that it is not true and that the gospel writers were liars. Whether or not the people of the times believed what the apostels wrote or not, whether they martyred themselves for their belief, is all irrelavent to the question of its truth.

[MaxVel]

The question assumes the accurate discription of Jesus, his existence and his acts by those who wrote the gospels.

Yes. Or at least a 'largely accurate' description.

If we assume the gospels to be accurate in its depiction of Jesus then the question itself makes no sense.

Exactly. And that is the whole point of Lewis' argument here. He wants to show that people who accept more or less the Bible's depiction of Jesus can't have their cake and eat it too.

Here's part of Lewis argument:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God."

{posted up-thread by Paprika}

Lewis is showing that such people (plenty of them around in his day, and even nowadays there are people who pay lip service to the Bible but reject Jesus as God) are simply being inconsistent.

Therefore the question only makes sense when applied to the gospel writers themselves

No, this misses the entire point, and the rest is, uh,

and the question of "Lord" can therefore be omitted. So, were they lunatics? Not necessarily, but then neither do we have reason to believe that those who penned the more ancient religions or myths were Lunatic, even though, literally speaking, they were all false narratives. So then that leaves us with the one question. Were the gospel writers themselves liars or truth tellers? Well, if the evidence one uses to establish their belief is the gospels themselves then to them it can only be true, but any actual evidence of reality, evidence that lies outside of the gospels themselves, suggests that it is not true and that the gospel writers were liars. Whether or not the people of the times believed what the apostels wrote or not, whether they martyred themselves for their belief, is all irrelavent to the question of its truth.

[shunyadragon]

Why ask me, I'm saying it's not.

That is why I asked for more explanation. I also asked 'whag' for more explanation. Your response was not clear nor accurate either. The self correcting nature of science is not 'forced.' It is actually how science functions.

Science is not immune from error (that's absurd). It is self correcting when it's forced to be, sometimes kicking and screaming along the way. That matches human nature quite well, incidentally.

[Mountain Man]

Like I told whag, you're not arguing in favor of science but peer review which is something that exists in multiple academic disciplines. In history, theology, and philosophy, just as in science, there are commonly accepted best practices, ideas, and discoveries that have stood the test of time and form the basis for all future discoveries.

You, like most skeptics, have a love affair with science and are loathe to admit that it's just as fallible as any other field of study once humans get involved. Alternatively, you could say that other fields of study are just as reliable as science despite the involvement of fallible humans. Take your pick.

[firstfloor]

Like I told whag, you're not arguing in favor of science but peer review which is something that exists in multiple academic disciplines. In history, theology, and philosophy, just as in science, there are commonly accepted best practices, ideas, and discoveries that have stood the test of time and form the basis for all future discoveries.

You, like most skeptics, have a love affair with science and are loathe to admit that it's just as fallible as any other field of study once humans get involved. Alternatively, you could say that other fields of study are just as reliable as science despite the involvement of fallible humans. Take your pick.

No, you missed the point. It is not about peer review alone or even mostly. It is about testing nature. Nature always has the last word and it is in the sense you mean infallible. If you cannot test nature directly the next best thing is mathematics but a mathematical proof alone is not definitive.