His statement:It's hard though to say that mass hallucinations just don't happen as a reason for justifying belief in the resurrection because one could also say that resurrections just don't happen. What makes a resurrection story more likely than a mass hallucination? To me, a mass hallucination seems perhaps more likely since we can actually conceive how that could happen since individual hallucinations happen all the time. As far as I know, we don't have any strong cases of anyone being resurrected. I definitely don't know how to explain it as both explanations have issues, so to me there isn't a strong case for either event.
Books like these remind me of the show the x files, except moulder actually saw the unbelievable events with his own eyes. I've read similar books before, and I guess that beside the issues laid out above that would impact any investigation of the event, any examination of the issue has to rely on many second hand sources, many of which are significantly debated with regard to their reliability. What I suppose I should have said was, it would be more helpful to be able to go to the scene of the event itself and be able to talk to all the eyewitnesses in person, but obv we can't do that. Even then though, the case still has the aforementioned issues.
I definitely understand the resurrection being a starting place for someone to have faith though. It's just not clear that it's without significant contention, which explains why one has to have faith to believe in Christianity, not just reason.
Which I responded:
''It's hard though to say that mass hallucinations just don't happen as a reason for justifying belief in the resurrection because one could also say that resurrections just don't happen. What makes a resurrection story more likely than a mass hallucination? To me, a mass hallucination seems perhaps more likely since we can actually conceive how that could happen since individual hallucinations happen all the time. As far as I know, we don't have any strong cases of anyone being resurrected. I definitely don't know how to explain it as both explanations have issues, so to me there isn't a strong case for either event.''
I agree. Hallucinations are more believable. But Reality doesn't necessarily conforms to believability(The ancients wouldn't consider Quantum Mechanics believable for example). Plus the lack of strong cases for anyone being resurrection is to be expected as it is an event that is impossible under normal circumstances unless a deity does it in the same way an admin can tinker with the server. The nature of the event at the scene leaves only an empty tomb. So unless the unarmed disciples managed to smuggle the body from the tomb even though at the time it was guarded by armed soldiers for 3 days, the resurrection is the most plausible explanation.
''Books like these remind me of the show the x files, except moulder actually saw the unbelievable events with his own eyes. I've read similar books before, and I guess that beside the issues laid out above that would impact any investigation of the event, any examination of the issue has to rely on many second hand sources, many of which are significantly debated with regard to their reliability. What I suppose I should have said was, it would be more helpful to be able to go to the scene of the event itself and be able to talk to all the eyewitnesses in person, but obv we can't do that. Even then though, the case still has the aforementioned issues.''
Worth investigating. I hope you check this particular book out. You might like it.
''I definitely understand the resurrection being a starting place for someone to have faith though. It's just not clear that it's without significant contention, which explains why one has to have faith to believe in Christianity, not just reason.''
The thing is the Resurrection is the one falsifiable fact of Christianity on which it stands or falls, it is a decision based on the fact that other alternative explanations is insufficient. Without it all of Christianity is invalidated and the entire religion is proven false. Even one of the Apostles St Paul said so(1 Corinthians 15:16-19).Reason is the foundation of Faith in my opinion. Otherwise its just blind believism. Even the bible itself doesn't teach this blind believism:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2...nd-evidence-3/
One cannot have this kind of faith without basis in reason.
His response:
''If hallucinations are more believable than resurrections, then I'd say that people finding a way to get rid of the body is more believable than a resurrection too under the same logic as our points about mass hallucinations. Again, I don't know what happened, but most any other explanation for how the body disappeared however unlikely, is going to be more probable than a miracle, which is fundamentally impossible under natural circumstances.
This is the problem with using an empirical approach to this issue. We are always going to run into problems when you use scientific obersevation to argue for supernatural phenomena. A naturalistic explanation is always going to be more prpbable than a supernatural one. I'm afraid the apologists are using a god of the gaps approach that does depend on faith too.
Here's another example of how the resurrection event necessitates faith. From an empirical approach, even if Jesus did rise from the dead, all that would prove is that Jesus rose from the dead. It does not logically follow that Christianity is true. Maybe some other god exists and could have raised him from the dead - we have no idea.
And also, while it is true that reality may not conform to probability, that shouldn't change our approach in valuing the most simple and probable explanation. So I feel that is a moot point.
And I would say that the bible isn't clear about what it says regarding faith and reason. Some passages value reasoned approaches, while others like jesus's encounter with Thomas after the resurrection value faith over skepticism. It feels to me as if different writers of the books of the bible had differing values in mind about this issue.
As for the resurrection being the only falsifiable claim that grounds all of Christianity, I would say that there are problems with the belief system if any biblical events did not occur as that would throw into question the validity of the bible. So that would mean literally all of jesus's actions plus the actions of every other person in bible are to be examined to see if they occurred. And I would argue that even the resurrection isn't falsifiable anymore because we cannot physically investigate the issue anymore. Since we don't know what happened for sure, people can say it may have happened, but no one can prove it. Therefore its not falsifiable.''
How should I respond? Any suggestions?
Books like these remind me of the show the x files, except moulder actually saw the unbelievable events with his own eyes. I've read similar books before, and I guess that beside the issues laid out above that would impact any investigation of the event, any examination of the issue has to rely on many second hand sources, many of which are significantly debated with regard to their reliability. What I suppose I should have said was, it would be more helpful to be able to go to the scene of the event itself and be able to talk to all the eyewitnesses in person, but obv we can't do that. Even then though, the case still has the aforementioned issues.
I definitely understand the resurrection being a starting place for someone to have faith though. It's just not clear that it's without significant contention, which explains why one has to have faith to believe in Christianity, not just reason.
Which I responded:
''It's hard though to say that mass hallucinations just don't happen as a reason for justifying belief in the resurrection because one could also say that resurrections just don't happen. What makes a resurrection story more likely than a mass hallucination? To me, a mass hallucination seems perhaps more likely since we can actually conceive how that could happen since individual hallucinations happen all the time. As far as I know, we don't have any strong cases of anyone being resurrected. I definitely don't know how to explain it as both explanations have issues, so to me there isn't a strong case for either event.''
I agree. Hallucinations are more believable. But Reality doesn't necessarily conforms to believability(The ancients wouldn't consider Quantum Mechanics believable for example). Plus the lack of strong cases for anyone being resurrection is to be expected as it is an event that is impossible under normal circumstances unless a deity does it in the same way an admin can tinker with the server. The nature of the event at the scene leaves only an empty tomb. So unless the unarmed disciples managed to smuggle the body from the tomb even though at the time it was guarded by armed soldiers for 3 days, the resurrection is the most plausible explanation.
''Books like these remind me of the show the x files, except moulder actually saw the unbelievable events with his own eyes. I've read similar books before, and I guess that beside the issues laid out above that would impact any investigation of the event, any examination of the issue has to rely on many second hand sources, many of which are significantly debated with regard to their reliability. What I suppose I should have said was, it would be more helpful to be able to go to the scene of the event itself and be able to talk to all the eyewitnesses in person, but obv we can't do that. Even then though, the case still has the aforementioned issues.''
Worth investigating. I hope you check this particular book out. You might like it.
''I definitely understand the resurrection being a starting place for someone to have faith though. It's just not clear that it's without significant contention, which explains why one has to have faith to believe in Christianity, not just reason.''
The thing is the Resurrection is the one falsifiable fact of Christianity on which it stands or falls, it is a decision based on the fact that other alternative explanations is insufficient. Without it all of Christianity is invalidated and the entire religion is proven false. Even one of the Apostles St Paul said so(1 Corinthians 15:16-19).Reason is the foundation of Faith in my opinion. Otherwise its just blind believism. Even the bible itself doesn't teach this blind believism:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2...nd-evidence-3/
One cannot have this kind of faith without basis in reason.
His response:
''If hallucinations are more believable than resurrections, then I'd say that people finding a way to get rid of the body is more believable than a resurrection too under the same logic as our points about mass hallucinations. Again, I don't know what happened, but most any other explanation for how the body disappeared however unlikely, is going to be more probable than a miracle, which is fundamentally impossible under natural circumstances.
This is the problem with using an empirical approach to this issue. We are always going to run into problems when you use scientific obersevation to argue for supernatural phenomena. A naturalistic explanation is always going to be more prpbable than a supernatural one. I'm afraid the apologists are using a god of the gaps approach that does depend on faith too.
Here's another example of how the resurrection event necessitates faith. From an empirical approach, even if Jesus did rise from the dead, all that would prove is that Jesus rose from the dead. It does not logically follow that Christianity is true. Maybe some other god exists and could have raised him from the dead - we have no idea.
And also, while it is true that reality may not conform to probability, that shouldn't change our approach in valuing the most simple and probable explanation. So I feel that is a moot point.
And I would say that the bible isn't clear about what it says regarding faith and reason. Some passages value reasoned approaches, while others like jesus's encounter with Thomas after the resurrection value faith over skepticism. It feels to me as if different writers of the books of the bible had differing values in mind about this issue.
As for the resurrection being the only falsifiable claim that grounds all of Christianity, I would say that there are problems with the belief system if any biblical events did not occur as that would throw into question the validity of the bible. So that would mean literally all of jesus's actions plus the actions of every other person in bible are to be examined to see if they occurred. And I would argue that even the resurrection isn't falsifiable anymore because we cannot physically investigate the issue anymore. Since we don't know what happened for sure, people can say it may have happened, but no one can prove it. Therefore its not falsifiable.''
How should I respond? Any suggestions?
Comment